

California Senate votes to allow self-driving cars - nextstep
http://www.mercurynews.com/cars/ci_20675377/california-senate-votes-allow-self-driving-cars

======
anigbrowl
Bill:
[http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_129...](http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1298_bill_20120416_amended_sen_v97.html)

Overview: <http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/legislation/2230>

As for why it passed 37-0, it's almost all upside; all the data indicate that
it can only reduce the externalities of vehicle usage (pollution, accidents),
which externalities are already very well documented and understood. Even
where the technology breaks down, a single point of failure (autonomous
driving system) is far easier to analyze, budget for, and litigate from a
product liability point of view. Google is much more likely to be a rational
actor than an aggregated population of vehicle users, and risk premium can be
very easily calculated for the number of vehicles that are deployed. As
adoption increases, the roads are likely to get safer and faster; my only real
worry would be about whether manual driving would be restricted and penalized.
Then again, since I don't have a car that's largely an academic concern to me.
I used to enjoy riding a motorcycle but I feel fairly confident that an
automated driver would do a better job than I would over the long haul.

The other big reason is economic; with all the data pointing towards automated
driving as the wave of the future and the leading commercial innovator being
here in California, and California facing a $16 billion deficit, the prospect
of Mountain View becoming Detroit 2.0 for a global market is a no-brainer.
California has also been quietly stepping towards building an electric car
infrastructure: Gov. Brown used his powers to take a windfall legal settlement
related to the CA power crisis a decade ago (think Enron) and apply it to the
construction of charging infrastructure without needing to get legislative
approval. <http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17463>

I'm thinking that automated clean vehicle swarms are the increasingly-credible
strategic alternative to high-speed rail in California. I really like trains,
but the HSR project looks like a fiscal, bureaucratic, and legal disaster. If
we can slash the costs of driving then we could probably cut down the cost of
vehicle construction, not to mention creating an entirely new set of goods for
manufacture. With reliable automated vehicles, you don't necessarily need
people to drive them, so pickup and delivery could essentially be done by
autonomous large wheelbarrows instead of needing to have cabs on the front for
humans to sit in.

Also, Johnny cabs: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRXyWFLkEY>

~~~
scarmig
One advantage of clean, automated cars over trains: they are far more agile
(in the buzzword sense), which is another point for why they're likely to be
more sustainable.

To elaborate what I mean: regardless of how you evaluate the pros and cons of
the California HSR project (I'm skeptical myself), some unfortunate realities
of it is that it will be far more centralized, require far more planning,
necessitate the build out of a complicated and new infrastructure, and not be
cheaply scaled or repurposed. Automated cars are the complete opposite. They
can easily be used on our existing infrastructure. If you need to go to a new
place, you simply flatten and pave a long rectangle of area that's a couple
meters wide. They merely need to be allowed instead of planned for (the
problem is small enough and the incentives easily created enough that a
corporation can realistically accomplish the necessary R&D and planning). And
if they turn out to be a hit, it's relatively easy to just sell more of the
automated cars.

And let's grant, for a moment, the rosiest projections of California HSR, and
it's just a matter of doing it right. It's still a complicated, multidecade-
long undertaking: all it takes is a random idiot in Sacramento or DC hellbent
on sabotaging the project to change it from a convenient way to get from SF to
LA to a one-way ticket from Fresno to Bakersfield. Needless to say, there are
lots of random idiots in government ranging from incompetent to hellbent on
sabotaging any potentially good government program: should we really be
betting a costly attempt to ensure our ecological well-being on the hopes that
neither type will come into power for the next 20 years? (This might be
construed as giving into metaphorical terrorism, but thems the breaks.)

This also is not a matter of public versus private transit: it's trivially
easy to imagine buses taking advantage of them to lower costs significantly,
and not at all difficult to imagine totally new forms of public transit being
made available.

~~~
swombat
_all it takes is a random idiot in Sacramento or DC hellbent on sabotaging the
project to change it from a convenient way to get from SF to LA to a one-way
ticket from Fresno to Bakersfield. Needless to say, there are lots of random
idiots in government ranging from incompetent to hellbent on sabotaging any
potentially good government program_

I'm not all that familiar with local US politics... why would anyone in
government be hell-bent on sabotaging a high-speed rail network that will help
their state/county/etc?

~~~
taejo
The main reason is that what helps the state doesn't necessarily help every
county equally. To have high speed rail, you have to have trains that _don't
stop everywhere_. High-speed rail from SF to LA might be good for California,
but politicians elected by Fresno and Bakersfield will want it to stop in
Fresno and Bakersfield. Which makes it more useful for those people, but less
useful as a whole.

------
cynest
Good. Early action will prevent this from being made controversial later on by
groups who might see it as a threat (eg police unions trying to maintain
traffic tickets as a revenue stream for departments).

~~~
robomartin
We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish unionized labor. I
know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious
disagreement. Take this as on man's opinion and nothing else.

It is my contention that in modern times unionized labor has done absolutely
nothing good for our society. I understand that they had a time and a place to
exist. Today, there's far more evidence of the damage they cause than the
positive effects they may have been intended to produce.

Unions create a false economy. One where people are paid exorbitant amounts of
money for work that could be done for less in an open market. Unions also
create stagnation both in terms of innovation and of human capital. Union
members exist in an isolated cocoon where there is no need to excel or evolve
past your station. Unions damage competitiveness at a national and
international level. Unions damage the economy and destroy industries by
creating contracts with unreasonable terms, benefits and pensions. Unions in
government create a nasty conflict-of-interest situation where hordes of
people vote as a unified block supporting the very laws and politicians that
regulate their own jobs (vote for your own pay raise, etc.). Unions also use
this vote-by-mob approach to influence politics and the politicians that want
their votes.

It is my opinion that unionized workers, as individuals, are generally good
hard-working people. However, once their thoughts and actions are controlled
by the need to support their "team" (the union) the collective can, and often
becomes, evil in many ways. Case in point: UAW contract clause that causes car
companies to have to retain workers displaced by automation. These workers
earn full salary to do absolutely nothing. The Chinese have got to be laughing
their asses off when they see us self-destruct this way.

Teacher unions are yet another example. The list of evils is too long to list
here. The most basic one is the inability to fire bad or even down-right
criminal teachers.

We would be able to move at a very different pace if unions went away. I won't
hold my breath.

~~~
scarmig
You could just as well rewrite that for any other politically convenient
target:

We are not going to evolve as a society until we abolish corporatized capital.
I know that this is a strong statement. And it is likely to attract serious
disagreement. Take this as on man's opinion and nothing else. It is my
contention that in modern times corporatized capital has done absolutely
nothing good for our society. I understand that they had a time and a place to
exist. Today, there's far more evidence of the damage they cause than the
positive effects they may have been intended to produce.

Corporations create a false economy. One where people are paid exorbitant
amounts of money for work that could be done for less in an open market.
Corporations also create stagnation both in terms of innovation and of human
capital. Corporate shareholders exist in an isolated cocoon where there is no
need to excel or evolve past your station. Corporations damage competitiveness
at a national and international level. Corporations damage the economy and
destroy industries by creating contracts with unreasonable terms, benefits and
pensions. Corporations in government create a nasty conflict-of-interest
situation where hordes of shareholders contribute as a unified block
supporting the very laws and politicians that regulate their own companies
(oversee your own pollution, legal compliance, etc.). Corporations also use
this vote-by-dollar approach to influence politics and the politicians that
want their cash.

It is my opinion that corporate managers and shareholders, as individuals, are
generally good hard-working people. However, once their thoughts and actions
are controlled by the need to support their "team" (the corporation) the
collective can, and often becomes, evil in many ways. Case in point: HP had a
contract clause that caused Carly Fiorina to get paid tens of millions of
dollars just for getting fired. She earned tens of thousands of times the
average worker's salary to actively damage the business. The Chinese have got
to be laughing their asses off when they see us self-destruct this way.

Fossil fuel companies are yet another example. The list of evils is too long
to list here. The most basic one is the inability to tax them for emitting
pollution that threatens to criminally kill millions.

We would be able to move at a very different pace if corporations went away. I
won't hold my breath.

~~~
anigbrowl
Upvoting this - not because I agree with an anti-corporate stance but because
you highlighted the problem with taking an issue out of context.

~~~
scarmig
Not actually arguing for the abolition of corporations, for that matter.
Though my parody has some validity to it, so does what I was responding to.
But my point is that there's a world of difference between noting there are
some instances where an institution did a bad thing and saying that that would
justify their abolition.

~~~
ekianjo
It's not by working with examples that you make a rule. It is by understanding
the underlying logic and principles. It is fairly obvious that unions are
self-centered organizations that aim only at benefiting themselves at the
expense of the rest of society, as demonstrated by the post you made a parody
of.

It is far less obvious to make a similar kind of statement about corporations.
Corporations thrive mostly by satisfying customers/consumers/users/wider needs
in society. When they stop doing so, they perish and disappear or shrink in a
significant way. There are indeed very wrong things about Corporations links
with Politicians (clear conflict of interests), patents abuse, etc... but as a
whole, Corporations are enablers of innovation and progress in society.

It does not make much sense to try an analogy between corporations and unions.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It makes perfect sense to me. Let's try the switcheroo again:

 _It is fairly obvious that corporations are self-centered organizations that
aim only at benefiting themselves at the expense of the rest of society, as
demonstrated by the post you made a parody of.

It is far less obvious to make a similar kind of statement about unions.
Unions thrive mostly by satisfying customers/consumers/users/wider needs in
society. When they stop doing so, they perish and disappear or shrink in a
significant way. There are indeed very wrong things about union's links with
Politicians (clear conflict of interests), patents abuse, etc... but as a
whole, unions are enablers of innovation and progress in society._

Pretty much works.

~~~
ekianjo
I don't really see where it works. Unions never care about the end users or
customers. That's not their agenda. They only care about unions members
benefits. They are the parasites of corporations.

~~~
scarmig
Neither, for that matter, do publicly held corporations. Any caring about the
end-user is a side effect of the primary mission of maximizing shareholder
value.

Note that it's easy to come up with examples where unions, too, will fight for
the end user. See, for instance, teachers' unions fighting for increased
educational funding and smaller class sizes, or nurses' unions pushing for
universal health care.

~~~
ekianjo
> See, for instance, teachers' unions fighting for increased educational
> funding and smaller class sizes, or nurses' unions pushing for universal
> health care.

Yeah, but you don't get it, I think. They pretend to be on the side to the end
user, to get public support for their agenda. And when the State tells them
they cannot do much to reduce the number of kids per class, then the unions
come back on "salary negociations". They typically play the game of asking for
irrealistic goals to push for more benefits, with the taxpayer money. I have
seen this hundreds of time. And let's not forget the incredible pressure put
on non-unionized employees by union members. This is downright criminal and
would be considered as power harassment if it were from a boss or colleague,
but since they are powerful unions, they can get away with everything.

------
thezilch
This is great of California's Govt, and I really can't wait to use this form
of transit. However, which of the following is going to make this increasingly
difficult, and how does Google and friends plan to supplant them?

    
    
      * car manufacturers -- less need for [fancy] cars when
        * no one is looking
        * computers are doing the handling
      * car manufacturers -- less need to purchase cars
        * there are less owners -- cars are more easily shared
        * there are less totals -- cars crash less
        * there is less wear and tear on autonomous driving
      * insurance providers -- less claims... less revenue
      * etc...
    

Will atonomous cars hit these players' bottom lines? What can they do to lobby
against autonomous cars actually coming to fruition? I see it being akin to
the MAFIAA vs. Entertainment Industry and possibly worse.

~~~
brc
Unlikely.

Car ownership for status reasons would not change. The market would still be
stratified by style, size, badge/brand and features.

The introduction of driverless cars, if anything, is likely to make total
miles driven go up. The actual number of cars purchased would go up as long as
the miles are going up. The number of individual purchasers doesn't matter,
it's how many old cars are getting worn out that matters. They get serviced as
they wear out, and manufacturers would still make plenty of money doing that.
Even more so, probably, because they could program the cars to come in for a
service when needed, guaranteeing them more service revenue.

Insurance providers would only be too happy to write out policies on overall
crash/theft data that doesn't involve random events like people falling asleep
or driving drunk. If anything, it would make vehicle insurance easier. But the
number of claims doesn't really matter to an insurer - they expect to pay out
all of their policy revenue on claims - what matters is investing the pool of
funds well in the holding period between policy income and claims expense.

Any new product can only be positive for the people who make them. The only
ones looking at real trouble are those who don't enter the market (if it turns
out to be a success) or those who chase the wrong ideas, plus people who make
a living driving cars.

------
SoftwareMaven
Way to go, Nevada! You broke the chicken & egg problem, allowing this to move
forward.

Thanks!

~~~
lunchbox
this story is about California, not Nevada. (though Nevada did previously pass
legislation allowing driverless cars.)

~~~
neilkelty
I think his point was that since Nevada acted first - California didn't want
to be left behind, so they jumped on board.

------
lumberjack
So what does this mean?

Does this mean that you can hop into the back seat and let the car drive
unsupervised or is a driver in the driver seat still mandatory? And if a
driver in a driver seat is still mandatory, then why do they need this piece
of legislation in the first place. How is this different from driving a car
using other less sophisticated yet still autonomous technologies.

~~~
Swizec
From what I've seen in ai-class.com and cs373 on udacity: The cars are
completely autonomous. The only reason there's a human in the driver's seat is
legislation because it's mandatory that there is a person in the driver's
seat.

But, the cars are already at the stage where you can feel safe just reading a
book while sitting in there. They work in normal San Francisco traffic without
any intervention at any time by the human.

They even plan their own routes and can change them when something strange
happens on the road so they're forced to take a detour. They even wait for
pedestrians crossing streets, follow all traffic rules and so on.

It's really quite amazing when you think that just 8 years ago the DARPA
challenge wasn't finished by a single car that entered the race. (and that was
without traffic, just a desert with roads)

~~~
vegardx
A little side note, riding in the desert might seem like a no-brainer, but
it's really really really hard for a computer to make sense of the terrain or
what's ahead, which is why it took some time for the first cars to even finish
the race. A lot of the technology that has been developed just to make sense
of the terrain is now used to keep track of pedestrians, other cars and
obstacles.

But this is so freaking awesome!

------
Timothee
On one hand I think this is great because it will help research in that domain
move forward (no pun intended), but I can't help but think of the very strong
lobbying from Google that had to have been necessary for it.

"The California bill, which passed in a 37-0 vote"

A 37-0 vote for something that is far from being productized or even clearly
defined (what defines "self-driving car" vs. other assistive technologies?)
and has very serious and legitimate safety and legal (e.g. who's responsible
of accidents?) concerns, is at the least surprising.

~~~
adgar
As a Google employee unaware of any of our lobbying in this matter, I would
suggest you ask yourself these questions:

1\. Why would Google lobby to produce a unanimous vote, which is not necessary
to pass such a law?

2\. If Google did so, what would the marginal cost of each superfluously
lobbied vote be? Consider that the 37th voter on the fence can ask for a
_whole_ lot in such a scenario.

3\. Is the marginal cost of lobbying to convince each and every of the 37
voters worth whatever benefit you derived in the first question?

~~~
fear91
All I need to know is that Google spends more on lobbying than Apple,
Microsoft and Facebook combined.

~~~
adgar
Why is that all you need to know? Is the intent behind an action - and that
action's outcome - irrelevant to your ethics system?

------
mwd_
I wonder how much this industry could be or already is locked down by patents?
Anybody know? The cynical part of me worries that, if this isn't bogged down
by obstructionists, then most of the economic advantage will be captured by
Google or some other big monopoly.

I believe that, if this works out, it will be a huge technological improvement
that will dramatically improve the quality of life of a lot of people. Imagine
all the people who can't drive right now because they are disabled, for
example. Many of those people who live in suburban or rural areas are just
stuck inside a lot of the time. Having a car that can park itself somewhere
away from where its passengers are dropped off is another big advantage. Or
maybe it won't be much of a net benefit to average people because they'll have
to fork over tons of money to have an automated vehicle.

~~~
waterlesscloud
The other companies who will want this technology (car companies) are
extremely well connected politically, and infinitely more experienced than
Google at lobbying (see gas mileage requirements).

Google simply won't be allowed to monopolize the technology, no matter what
patents they have.

~~~
obtu
Seems like they are looking for partnerships (they wouldn't really want to get
into the business of integrating and building the whole hardware I expect):

> While Google had no immediate plans to commercially develop the system, the
> company hopes to develop a business which would market the system and the
> data behind it to automobile manufacturers (from the Wikipedia page).

------
andywood
Every time the subject of Google's driverless cars comes up, here or anywhere,
almost 100% of the discussion always seems to presume that this technology is
heading directly towards consumers as a travel solution. While I'm sure it'll
get around to that eventually, I think the realization of a scifi-like fantasy
might be distracting people from a more obvious, practical reason for Google
to be doing this.

Sebastian Thrun co-developed Street View. You know, with all those cars
driving around gathering information about meatspace? One might say...
_crawling_ meatspace? Thrun is also a major force behind the driverless car
project. Isn't it likely that for Google, at least for now, this is all about
making a system of real-world crawlers, exactly analogous to its web crawlers?

~~~
blhack
What is it about google that causes people to throw all of their thinking
ability out the window?

This isn't some conspiracy to inundate you with ads, this has nothing to do
with building "crawlers" for meatspace (seriously?).

This is a multi _billions_ dollar industry that is potentially as large as
google is on the internet, but in "meatspace".

This is as disruptive as google was to the internet, probably moreso.
Actually, almost certainly moreso. Our ties to automobiles dictate the way
cities are built, and the way that we interact with our environment.

Gee whiz, google employs an absolute shitload of brilliant engineers and
encourages them to work on side projects. It appears that some of them have
built something.

NO NO! Must be some alterior motive! Couldn't be that google is a business,
and this is a viable revenue stream for them!

~~~
andywood
_What is it about google that causes people to throw all of their thinking
ability out the window?_

Was that really necessary?

 _This isn't some conspiracy to inundate you with ads, this has nothing to do
with building "crawlers" for meatspace (seriously?)._

I didn't mention conspiracies or ads, and "seriously?" is not an argument.

 _NO NO! Must be some alterior motive! Couldn't be that google is a business,
and this is a viable revenue stream for them!_

I didn't mention [u]lterior motives. In fact, I said that the reason I think
this is _because it is right in line with Google's mission statement._

I did not appreciate your comment.

------
blhack
Hello same-day delivery for _everything_.

Think about how this changes freight transportation. This is going to be
bigger than google.com was.

------
mikepmalai
I think there are a couple interesting issues with self-driving cars.

1\. Liability: How does an insurance company properly underwrite a self-
driving auto policy? How is fault/liability determined if there's an accident?

2\. Privacy: Does it make sense to have self-driving vehicles synced to each
other to optimize road safety? Will there be a "black box" recording driving
data? Or even a camera? Who will have the right to access that data?

~~~
cynest
Liability: the fault is with either software or hardware makers. Also fewer
cases will exist due to increased reliability.

~~~
protomyth
If the fault lies with the software or hardware maker, then without tort
reform, there will be no mass produced self-driving cars.

------
dsrguru
California state Senator Alan Lowenthal said of the autonomous car he rode in,
"I have to say that there are some still [sic] issues with it, but it's a
better driver than I am." I just read this after hearing Larry Page tell
Charlie Rose that the autonomous cars as of May 21st are currently better than
most drunk drivers but less skilled than the average human. I really hope he
stays off the road for a while.

------
base698
Is there an alternative to the current Lidar they use to generate the world
map? I imagine something more integrated into the car would be better for
commercialization. Maybe a series of smaller sensors?

~~~
rhino42
Self driving cars well have to be specially equipped- it's not unreasonable to
add LIDAR as the standard fare for these cars. After all, it's _extremely_
well suited for the task

------
astrofinch
Thanks to technology it is now safe to drive drunk.

~~~
stephenhuey
It is now safe to _ride_ drunk.

------
cmelbye
I can't wait to see self-driving cars that come out of other companies (as the
article briefly mentioned at the end). This is a complex system that Google
and its computer scientists are well suited to build. Not so much the same
story at GM or Toyota, I'd imagine.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Because cars aren't complex systems? Because manufacturing processes are
simple and straight-forward?

------
waiwai933
Would someone mind explaining how Google tested its cars on the road before
this bill? I'm presuming they did so legally, at least.

~~~
misnome
They had a "Safety Driver" in the drivers seat at all times, ready to take
control.

------
ktizo
How long before certain tolled roads mandate autonomous cars, citing safety
reasons.

~~~
reitzensteinm
I think economic reasons will actually come first. Traffic jams will be a
thing of the past if all the cars on the road are automated, and the length
and slow speed of the daily commute is a bigger issue than the risk of death
from driving for nearly everyone I know (of course that's anecdotal).

~~~
deserted
I can picture carpool lanes being turned into automated vehicle lanes.

------
sigzero
That is one way to control the population in Kalifornia.

~~~
fennecfoxen
You say that as if human-operated cars aren't _already_ the planet's foremost
killing machines.

Honestly, in terms of safety, having your automated car do "better than a
human driver" is a pretty low bar, compared to the risks faced everywhere else
in your life.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Remote control of cars by government authorities will be inevitable once this
tech is in use. It's as certain a thing as there is.

Government access to your navigational records, which will exist on a
centralized service, is only slightly less certain.

Not that I think it's a conspiratorial threat to our freedoms, but there are
tradeoffs that will come with this.

