
Just press go: designing a self-driving vehicle - cloudwalking
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/just-press-go-designing-self-driving.html
======
revelation
The comments here are rather disappointing. It doesn't have manual controls?
Well thats the point! I want to leave my crap in it and paint it some ugly
color? Get with the times, young people already opt to not own cars. I can't
double park in the city? Why are you imposing your steel box on people living
in cities, many of which do not own cars and want walkable streets?

I mean, this is the news website for a startup accelerator. If you are on
here, have some appreciation for _new ways of doing things_. To disrupt the
status quo is the very goal. If you ask for perfection from day one, we will
never get anywhere.

These cars have the potential to massively reduce traffic fatalities (one of
the biggest remaining killers) and make cities useful again to the people that
actually live in them.

~~~
pc86
Is a car parked on a street really an imposition on you?

~~~
e98cuenc
It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I
can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It
seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with cars
in mind.

In Europe cities were obviously not build with cars in mind, and as a result I
enjoy here a much higher density of amenities (and suffer much worse driving
conditions / parking time).

Having all this space available for cars is not transparent to pedestrians.

~~~
Touche
> It is (indirectly) to me. I often visit the US, and I'm always amazed that I
> can't seem to go anywhere walking. The distances to go anywhere are huge. It
> seems to be that way because cities in the US where designed / build with
> cars in mind.

Huh, why would you think that? I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S.
that wasn't already a major city pre-car. And cities weren't redesigned post-
car, that's why a lot of them have road problems. U.S. cities are spread out
because of suburbanization. It's only going to increase as the workforce
becomes more remote-based.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm not sure there's a major city in the U.S. that wasn't already a major
> city pre-car.

Los Angeles. Possibly more.

> And cities weren't redesigned post-car, that's why a lot of them have road
> problems.

Sure they were. Not from scratch, but incrementally. Its true that because it
was incremental and not ground-up, and mostly affected new development and re-
development, that cities that were major cities pre-car (like NYC) look very
different than newer cities (Los Angeles).

> U.S. cities are spread out because of suburbanization.

"Suburbanization" is an effect, not a cause. Designing for cars is a (but not
the _only_ ) cause.

------
rquantz
It seems like a mistake to remove manual controls entirely, not necessarily
because of safety concerns, but because there are a fair number of times when
you need the car to go somewhere without having a route. I'm thinking of
things like:

Moving your car ten feet so somebody else can get out of the driveway;
handling double parking during alternate side parking hours; moving the car
because you were waiting to pick someone up in a no-standing zone and a cop
just pulled up behind you; moving the car to just the right spot so grandma
doesn't have to walk any more steps than absolutely necessary; parking on a
lawn for a party or concert; backing up to just the right spot so you can
hitch up a trailer.

The list could go on forever, and that's the point -- you can surely automate
away some of these tasks, but there is an infinite multiplicity of things that
need to be done with a car, and having to point them out on a map in order to
get the car to do them, or even use a joystick to do it, sounds like an
obnoxious chore.

Edit: to those who disagree with me by pointing to a utopian future of car
sharing for everyone and no one even being able to drive, that's fine I guess,
but this seems to be suggesting that the very first generation of these will
be without a steering wheel, when very few people will have these cars and all
of the problems I listed will still exist. Even if your ultimate goal is for
passengers to be completely dependent on the AI for navigation, that's just
not going to be an option when these things roll off the lot as soon as 2016.

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
I think the eventual goal will be that most cars will be self-driving and that
will negate most of those problems.

I imagine that the vision of the future is a giant car-sharing program made up
of self-driving cars all coordinated by Google. Think about it - you fire up
an app to request a car, one appears at your door within a couple of minutes,
takes you to work, then disappears. After work, a different car picks you up,
whisks you home, then scurries off to recharge/refuel/drive someone else. I
suspect that in the long term the thinking is that things like "parking" and
"owning a car" will be less common than they are today.

There will still be a place for manually driven cars, like ones pulling a
trailer, etc.

~~~
User9812
I can't see that working. You'll require a ton of cars taking individuals or
small groups to and from work in a big city. That's not very efficient, and
the reason we have a metro system in the first place.

1\. That's a lot of pollution. 2\. You have twice as much traffic, since these
cars need to come to your house every morning, and drive back to their
charging station in the evening. They can take those trips off-peak hours, but
you still have a lot more cars on the road. They could stay at your house
overnight to save on wasting energy, but at that point you're just owning a
car, or renting one full-time. 3\. Do many people take a taxi to and from work
daily? No, and this is quite similar. It's too expensive, people take public
transportation, or buy a cheap vehicle (this could be that vehicle).

This is a replacement for the taxi, and for car rentals. If you live in a city
and need to rent a car for a day, this would be a great situation. You don't
even need a driver's license, so you just push a button, car appears, and
you're taking it to your destination. I've lived in a dozen different cities,
and this is something I'd use. I don't rent cars often because it's kind of a
hassle, a little scary driving in a new city, and a little annoying searching
for parking, but the convenience of pushing a button would encourage me to use
it for certain trips. It should also be slightly cheaper than a taxi since
you're not paying or tipping a driver.

They could probably get creative and offer monthly plans, where you get up to
X trips, and Y kilometers, for a slightly better rate than renting on a per
trip basis.

~~~
prawn
1\. Less pollution than what we have now given that many people spend time
hunting for a park when they arrive, or drive five-seat vehicles even though
they're alone or with 1-2 others. I read something saying that in a city
centre, often 30% of traffic is simply people hunting for a park. I know when
I arrive near my office, I can spend 5-10 minutes driving around trying to get
an all-day park. Three times a week I'm driving an SUV that can seat five and
has a large boot (passengers are my wife and toddler), the other days I'm in a
five seat sedan (and solo).

2\. I'd say that depots will be interspersed around the city and suburbs, for
one thing. Cars might move from suburban depots over night to densely-arranged
city parking/depots during the day, waiting for the evening rush. A car that
dropped you at work after your run in from the South is then immediately free
to take someone from the city centre down South again, or be available for a
courier job, or a tourist leaving a city hotel for a day trip. The mesh of
cars communicating will determine the most economical use of the vehicles and
anticipate demand. Further, cars communicating with each other will mean that
typical causes of congestion (like traffic lights) will be better handled and
less of an issue.

3\. Taxis are expensive partly because there are salaried humans driving them.
If these are electric vehicles and solar charged, fuel and driver are largely
out of the equation.

~~~
User9812
1\. Not sure I agree with the first point. People hunting for a parking space
once a day likely causes less pollution then a car driving itself to a
charging station or depot twice a day. Plus, if these are an affordable method
of commuting, you're going to be pulling people away from public
transportation, and getting more vehicles on the road. If they're more
expensive, then you'll just have people buying their own, and then they're in
your situation, where they buy an SUV model since it's more versatile.

2\. Moving some depots outside the city will definitely help. Yes, some of the
cars going into the city will be used for courier jobs, or tourist day trips,
but that's an incredibly small percentage. You might have 500,000 automated
cars taking people to work. 450,000 sit in a depot waiting for the evening
commute, and 50,000 are used for people active in the day. Once again 500,000
people take their car home, and about 450,000 sit idle again waiting for the
next day. How does this work as a business? If you use one of these cars for
work, you need to pay for 90% of the cost, because that car rarely gets used
outside of taking you to and from work. Sure, you could do a ride share with a
couple of other people, but still, the few of you are renting that car full-
time. It doesn't work.

3\. If these can be solar charged, then surely a taxi can be solar charged, so
there's no difference in fuel cost. You're paying a driver, and someone in an
office answering calls, so there is an extra cost, and I think they have a use
case here.

In short, these cars need to be on the road all day long, that's how they
lower their prices and raise efficiency. That doesn't work for daily
commuting. However, they would be an incredible taxi service. Imagine you have
a fleet of 100 automated cars, people use an app to set their
pickup/destination, and the cars find the most efficient way of organizing the
routes and schedule. A car breaks down, and another one automatically reroutes
itself. You could give people the option of carpooling with a checkbox. Let
people register on the app, and upload a photo. So, you set your destination,
and it says it'll be $10 and 15 minutes, or you can carpool with John
(25/male), and it'll cost your $7.50, and 20 minutes. This could even happen
while you're in transit. You get a pop-up on the dash. Want to lower your rate
and share a ride with the person in this photo? Say yes, we'll credit $5 to
your account, and take a 5 minute detour to pick them up. Worried about
safety? You could review passengers, and only car pool with people that have a
high rating and good feedback. I think that's exciting, it should offer lower
rates to consumers, and you get to socialize with new people at the same time,
so you might make some friends on your next taxi ride.

~~~
prawn
1\. Public transport will still be cheaper, so it will still have its place.
And I think we'll see small charging spaces that autonomous vehicles can use
every block or so. Plus parking for these vehicles will be dense and save
loads of space - it is obscene how much of our space is dedicated to parking.

I think we'll also see something in between a typical commuting vehicle and a
bus. If 10 people in a specific area have regular bookings to go from a two
block area to the CBD in a fixed time, then a van will do pick-ups and drop-
offs either from houses or from fixed corners (think unmarked bus stops). It
will be like demand-based bus routes.

I think we might also eventually see pod-based vans for people that don't want
to socialise in any way with others in the vehicle. That said, people cope
with the subway OK.

I don't think pollution from driving will be a significant factor with a
serious influx in electric vehicles.

2\. That's worse than what's happening now. I think we'll see peak pricing
motivate changes in schedules and a decrease in the full complement of cars. I
also think we'll see companies selling time-share in vehicles so you might buy
one of these cars to have priority access, but then earn money from whenever
it's available to work for you as part of a network. Those that want to keep
one dedicated to themselves could.

3\. Staff costs are significant in Australia so here and in similar places, I
think taxis will be increasingly popular. Already it's not far off the case
that commuting via taxi outside peak times could be more affordable for me
with a second car I use twice a day, twice a week. Four taxi trips would cost
me $12-17 each ($2500-3500/year). My second car, ignoring the cost to buy it
would reach $2500 annually from registration, insurance and maintenance. That
ignores depreciation, cleaning, hassle of parking, walking to my parking spot
in the rain four blocks away, etc. Take away salary costs of taxis and make
them easy to hail and pay by phone and I'd switch so quickly. And I think many
people would prefer to travel by autonomous vehicle than with a driver who
smells, listens to crappy radio stations or answers their phone the entire
trip.

~~~
User9812
A bus is possible, but if this was a viable business, it should exist already.
The only difference is the cost of the driver, so the automated bus might save
passengers $5/day. Is that $5/day extra cost keeping this business non-
existent at the moment? I'm a little skeptical.

Keep in mind your taxi service is cheap because it's on the road all the time.
A taxi might make $250/day, and pay the driver half of that cost. That means
the company is making $125/day per taxi. You're one of 15 or 20 people taking
that taxi in a day, so the $15 trip is possible. If everyone was taking an
automated car to work, they need to pay the majority of that $125/day price.
Split it with 4 people, and that's just over $30/day each. Kind of expensive.
Add more people and we're turning into a bus or public transit again.

Work schedules offset would help everything all around. If some people worked
7-3, 8-4, 9-5, 10-6, 11-7, etc, then we could decrease rush hour traffic, and
use the cars multiple times to lower the price to $10/day, which starts to
become interesting.

I like your idea of buying a car, adding it to a network, and getting money
back when you're not using it.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Everything relating to public transportation will be the major pain point. It
is heavily regulated, subsidised, unionised, etc.

London isn't able to replace ticket sellers with machines yet, so you can
imagine how long it will take to replace the drivers. Alternatively, they will
see this a profit eating activity and resist until the people wouldn't take it
anymore.

~~~
jeremyjh
When I was in London in 2009 I bought metro and surface train tickets from a
machine.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Humans are still an option. And there are few other roles that are redundant,
but every two months workers strike to keep them.

------
jpatokal
Given that they're capped at 25 mph, these are legally "low-speed vehicles",
not cars, which means they're _way_ less regulated.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-
speed_vehicle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-speed_vehicle)

~~~
FireBeyond
I think, too, that there's a logical disconnect between "we focused on
learning, not luxury", and "we want to hear about what you want in a vehicle
where you sit back and enjoy the ride" (probably, to most, -not- a dearth of
comforts).

~~~
001sky
Think of this as a bike-commute substitute with a roof.

~~~
newaccountfool
Without the exercise capability.

~~~
zachkatz
You could remove the seats and install an exercise bike.

------
dustinupdyke
When the man with glasses gives his perspective, the enablement hits you. If
you've any humanity, you feel the potential this technology brings to so many.

~~~
tyleregeto
I can relate to this. Anyone who has ever had to take a family members car
away from them as they get older can as well. When someone has driven most of
their life, losing the ability to drive can be a very difficult. To them its
losing their independence. Self driving technology is very much about
enablement.

~~~
mirsadm
It's exciting to think that for the younger people now those sorts of issues
are likely to be "fixed" when they get older.

------
noahl
I think the biggest news was this sentence:

    
    
        If all goes well, we’d like to run a small pilot program here in California in the next couple of years.
    

This is the next step in their very slow but, apparently, very steady march
towards real self-driving cars that anyone can buy.

~~~
doomlaser
Why buy a self driving car when you could rent one as needed?

~~~
twerquie
I used public transit, taxis and car sharing services exclusively until I
started a family. At which point setting up the carseat every time became
prohibitively cumbersome and I bought my own car. Children's car seats are
very personal in terms of size and configuration and are required by law.

I think things like that will make people want their own self driving car. You
want the one that fits your wife and two kids and your dog. Or you're rich and
you want to be driven around in a really nice one that hasn't been used by
other people.

The more I think about it, the more I imagine rich people increasing their car
ownership due to self driving cars. Take your fleet with you to the cottage or
across the country, why not?

~~~
prawn
(I have a toddler, so I drive a car with a child seat.)

I think we'll get over that attachment to specific car seats and instead more
versatile seats will come into play.

In the future, I imagine your car booking app will recognise your usual
bookings (e.g., solo/couple, family with one toddler, moving cargo) and you
will tap a preset to book whichever car you need.

If your partner and kid are heading to a family engagement, up rolls a car
with a baby seat pre-fitted and cleaned. If you're needing to move something
large, a van shows up.

Those that want a premium service, will book the platinum tier, either all the
time or maybe just for date night.

------
Oculus
Tesla (or insert company willing to go big on electric cars) and Google really
need to team up on this. Self driving cars have the potential to completely do
away with owning personal cars. Imagine a new public/private service that
allows people to travel where & when they want without having to deal with the
hassles or cost of owning a car. With the added centralization, the headaches
that electric cars cause can be eliminated with a bit of logistics planning
(cars are interchangeable so low battery cars can go straight to a charging
station instead of wait for their owners to take them to one).

~~~
MattPearce
The video suggests these cars are probably being built in Tesla's factory -
the white-painted walls and red-painted machinery are pretty unique to Tesla.
See
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU#t=58)

(Also note that "Rotary Lift", the brand seen at that point in the video, is
the exclusive supplier of vehicle lifts to Tesla -
[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-
chooses...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tesla-motors-chooses-fast-
battery-powered-rotary-lift-shockwave-lifts-to-service-its-fast-battery-
powered-cars-249962221.html))

~~~
mikeyouse
The NYTimes reported that they'll be built in Detroit;

"Google is having 100 cars built by a manufacturer in the Detroit area, which
it declined to name. Nor would it say how much the prototype vehicles cost.
They will have a range of about 100 miles, powered by an electric motor that
is roughly equivalent to the one used by Fiat's 500e, Dr. Urmson said. They
should be road-ready by early next year, Google said."

They could have used Tesla's facilities for the first prototypes though. My
money for the first production run is on a niche house like Roush, or
potentially Chrysler since these little cars share components with the Fiat
500e.

------
c23gooey
I feel as though they really havent embraced the driverless concept with their
prototype.

Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward? What about a couch? Why is
there a dash?

The people in the video are essentially watching the car drive itself, when
they could be doing anything else.

There are probably a multitude of reasons why the things above are the way
they are. However, the prototype seems like just another car to me.

Also, off-topic, but can we have a google/product launch video without the
corny piano soundtrack.

~~~
eurleif
>Why have seats that are fixed and facing forward?

Seats facing forward means that acceleration pushes you backward into your
seat. Any other direction would increase motion sickness. And what would be
the advantage of the seats facing a different way?

>What about a couch?

The seats do look like a couch to me...

~~~
arjunnarayan
Rear facing seats are safest, since acceleration is not the biggest problem,
rapid deceleration is.

[http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-
airpl...](http://www.airspacemag.com/need-to-know/are-aft-facing-airplane-
seats-safer-146695292/?no-ist)

~~~
anigbrowl
Not when your top speed is 25mph. You're far more likely to get rear-ended
than suffer a head-on collision.

------
moca
It is easy to explain no manual control. Google will include insurance cost
into the service itself. If there is any accident, Google's insurance plan
will cover it. If there is manual control, the insurance cost will be a mess,
since you have to factor in the driving record of the person who is in the
car. This alone would be a show stopper.

------
jabelk
I wonder whether they will first become available as a product that individual
people can buy, or if Google will open some sort of service where you can sign
up for a monthly "car plan" for X miles. Or maybe partner with a taxi
company/Uber, where you pay per ride but the cars are driverless. I imagine
all 3 models will be tried at some point, and it'll be interesting to watch
their development and which one eventually dominates.

Also, commuting could be done so much more efficiently. Imagine a fleet of 1
person cars that pick you up in the morning, drop you off at a more central
location (than your house), at which point you get on a higher capacity
(driverless?) vehicle - bus or van maybe - for the trip into the city. And the
bus unloads into another central area, with another bunch of small cars taking
people to their offices. I'd use the bus if it never stopped, and that system
would be almost as fast as driving yourself. Heck, it'd probably be much
faster, because the hordes of people people sitting alone in their sedans
would be consolidated and eliminate a lot of highway congestion. Not to
mention cheaper, and better for the environment (less gas).

I haven't heard much about addressing the legal and regulatory issues
driverless cars are going to have to overcome, does anyone have more
information on that? Obviously something will have to be done for when the car
wrecks or malfunctions and damages something.

~~~
secabeen
While I sort of like the idea, there's still going to be lots of traffic in
and around those bus/van depots. We're also going still need storage near
urban downtowns for all those 1-person cars that spend 95% of their day idle
waiting for the 5pm rush.

~~~
briggers
In between peak times, these vehicles could do same-day goods delivery.

One pulls up outside your office/residence and a Boston Dynamics Cheetah leaps
out with your package between it's teeth.

Or the car acts as a mothership for sidewalk to door airborne drones.

------
Mister_Snuggles
This will eventually make non-automated driving sort of like a manual
transmission (in North America) - something you get because you either
specifically want one or because it's all you can afford (I'm probably way
over-generalizing). Eventually, just like the automatic transmission, the
self-driving car will be the default for most people.

I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find it
enjoyable any time soon.

~~~
femto
> I don't imagine that we'll get away from people who drive because they find
> it enjoyable any time soon.

I can see that there will be a rapid change in social attitudes, once
automated driving reaches the point where it is generally accepted to
kill/maim fewer people than automated driving.

Think back 30 years, when it was socially acceptable to light up cigarettes
around small children. Now it is socially unacceptable to do so, to the point
that it is illegal in many jurisdictions. Where I live, it is illegal to smoke
in the vicinity of a school, within 10 metres of a playground or in a car with
a child under 16 years [1].

Once a tipping point is reached, where manual driving is widely accepted to be
more dangerous that automated driving, manual driving will quickly be banned
in the vicinity of schools. There will be resistance and arguments from manual
driving aficionados. Eventually, public manual driving will be confined to
either remote areas or purpose built facilities, just as public smoking is
restricted to open-areas and smoking rooms.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Austral...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_Australia)

~~~
femto
\--

Edit: On reading other comments, I'd extend the analogy to smoking (and other
activities that carry a public risk) by pointing out that there will be a
financial penalty for choosing to drive oneself. Just as smoking is a risk
factor that increases health/life insurance premiums, manual driving will also
be a factor in calculating insurance premiums.

------
socrates1998
This is going to change the world.

No more car insurance. Vastly fewer driving fatalities. Shared cars. Less
parking problems.

I can't wait. Just take my money already.

~~~
Turing_Machine
I bet you'll still need insurance (or the provider will need it, in a service
model).

It should be much, much cheaper though. Most vehicle accidents are caused by
human error -- the insurance would just need to cover accidents caused by
mechanical or software failure.

~~~
cm127
I think you're both right. It'll probably be fixed into the price, and they'll
probably just lease them to avoid legacy issues.

------
bitL
One of the few pleasures of modern world is now slowly being removed! :-D

I guess I will treasure my memories of driving Lamborghini Murcielago over
200mph forever and will tell my grandchildren there was a time when you
actually could drive a car yourself!

And to those that argue young people don't want to own the car - it's mostly
about not wanting to spend your life commuting, hunting parking spots or in
traffic jams, and frankly, daily driving to work in the States is as boring as
it can get.

I don't own a car, I rely on public transport which is usually faster in
European cities than driving your own car, allowing me to work on a lot of
stuff while traveling. Whenever I need I rather rent a car - it's newer,
serviced, no hassles and I can try different cars at will. From that point of
view self-driving vehicle is wonderful (if it becomes eco-nomical/logical),
though as a car-geek and F1/CART fan I really love to drive for pleasure.

~~~
lmm
> One of the few pleasures of modern world is now slowly being removed! :-D

For most people the driving commute is the most unpleasant part of their life.

> I guess I will treasure my memories of driving Lamborghini Murcielago over
> 200mph forever and will tell my grandchildren there was a time when you
> actually could drive a car yourself!

Driving over 200mph has never been safe (and rarely been legal) on the public
roads; if that's where you did it you were recklessly endangering the lives of
others (I'm sure you thought you were perfectly safe; everyone does right up
until the point they crash). If you did it on a track or other controlled
environment, guess what: those places will still exist. Just as people still
ride horses for pleasure, people will still drive cars. But those of us who
just want to get to work in one piece will be able to.

~~~
bitL
Well, I live in Germany so go figure.

And please stop with your condemning talk! The ladies returning from a
supermarket go often over 120mph over here on their way back home (legally!),
you can see Porsche test drivers going full speed at 2am on an Autobahn almost
every day, yet the accident/fatality rate is actually lower than on
interstates in your country (I assume you are from the US). People here are
drilled like crazy to obtain a driving license, unlike driving around the
block and doing simple parking, and they behave well on the highways, letting
faster cars ahead and not blocking them going 65mph in the fast lane or
hastily switching lanes.

Not far from my city is probably the most hardcore racing circuit in the world
open for public - Nürburgring, and what other car would be suitable for
reaching 200mph if not one like perfectly serviced Murcielago? Yes, it's
risky. So is eating HFCS in all your food daily and sticking to high-carb
diet, depriving oneself of sleep due to working long hours or not taking
vacation to recharge due to constant stress.

I am not talking about stupid reckless street racing - that's very uncommon
over here.

~~~
lmm
Wrong guess, I'm not from the US. I've turned down high-paying job offers
because they expected unreasonable hours or didn't have enough holiday
allowance, and would do so again.

120mph maybe, but 200mph simply can't be safe, sheer human reaction times
dictate otherwise. We don't allow trains to go above 125mph without in-cab
signalling because that's too fast for a driver to observe lineside signals -
and that's as simple as observing a coloured light when you know exactly where
it's going to be.

No-one's going to close the Nurburgring, you'll be able to continue driving
200mph there with other people who've chosen to drive on a circuit like that
as long as you like. But not on the road I have to take to work; I shouldn't
have to put up with that risk.

------
beefman
Looks like it has no trunk, which is a huge use case for self-driving cars.
How many trips do you make just to move things around? How much of what you
own would you rather rent if you could have it delivered within 15 minutes?
Then there's the economics of prepared meal delivery... I'll be surprised if
passengerless cars don't outnumber passenger cars in 20 years.

As for moving people, a significant part of city bus fares goes to driver
salaries. And other vehicles tend to avoid buses / don't rely on making eye
contact with bus drivers. And buses follow predefined routes. So it's
surprising to me that Google is going for private cars instead of city buses
as a first market.

~~~
skriticos2
Looks like there is a bag compartment for had luggage where the dashboard
normally is. The size of the thing does not suggest it's built for heavy
lifting, I'm sure there will be models for that too.. maybe even the same with
the passenger seats ripped out. When the car self-drives, you don't need the
driver anymore to get stuff around. This really opens possibilities.

The first prototype might not be the be-all-end-all thing, but it makes me
confident that they don't try to design that on the first go.

------
enscr
The video shows a rotating camera at the top of the car that's scanning for
objects (I guess). What's the advantage of a mechanical rotary movement over
an array of cameras that give a continuous 360 degree view (e.g. the street
view cars)?

 _Update_ : Found a link :
[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp](http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402516,00.asp)
In an interview last week, Stuart Woods, the executive vice president of
Velodyne, which manufactures the LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) rotating
module that sits atop Google's autonomous vehicles, said that his company has
started developing prototype security systems that could be trialed within the
next year. The Velodyne LIDAR HDL-64E and HDL-32E modules use an array of
either 64 or 32 lasers to electronically "see" the environment, Woods said. On
Google's car, the module is set inside a rotating drum. Its lasers complement
Google's own mapping software and GPS data, which help orient the car on the
road. The LIDAR provides additional positional data, but also identifies other
cars, bicycles, pedestrians, and road hazards.

~~~
pikachu_is_cool
If I'm not mistaken, the "camera" at the top sends a very thin, concentrated
vertical beam to detect objects. To implement it in the way you described,
you'd need quite a few cameras (100+) to get the same precision.

------
MichaelMoser123
[https://maps.google.com/locationhistory](https://maps.google.com/locationhistory)

right now google already knows where we have been; with the car they will know
where we are going to;

The car as a tracking device, pure genius.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
No Dave, you can't go to that protest; really not possible....

------
spankalee
So far Google's self-driving cars have been designed to have the driver take
over in certain situations. I wonder how that works without a steering wheel
and pedals. Are the cars manually drivable at all?

~~~
Retric
From a UI perspective if they rarely need manual control you can use a less
ergonomic option. Such as a joystick which would be a pain for regular use but
would take up less space and still provide plenty of control for situations
like parking in a field for a concert and or a quick emergency override in
case something goes wrong.

~~~
erikpukinskis
> control for situations like parking in a field for a concert

Or the car just takes a panorama and converts it to an aerial view and you
simply drag your car where you want it to be and press Go.

------
furyg3
In Amsterdam, I'm a big user of car2go.

These are little electric smart cars which you can rent by the minute. For
times when I don't have my bike nearby, or the public transport is not handy.

These are basically little smart cars which drive themselves, which would be
perfect.

~~~
pwf
I use car2go in Austin, and already love the system. A car2go that could drive
itself to my door would make my commute perfect.

------
artumi-richard
Will there come a time when you can just cross the road whenever you choose
knowing that all traffic will stop, without fail, automatically?

I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the
typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier.

~~~
masklinn
> I think the driverless car will actually make more of a difference to the
> typical pedestrian than the typical car occupier.

Depends on the country really: in germany, if a pedestrian gets close to the
curb all drivers will pile on the brakes.

Gets awkward when you just wanted to take a slightly better look at something
on the other side of the road (I've more than once crossed only to cross back
a minute later, because a driver had thought I wanted to get to the other
side)

------
gdas
I'm thinking about this basic idea: We have, in this case, a machine that is
doing the job that a human driver would do - A machine replacing a man.

My question is: Should we be happy about this? Or should we be sad?

This time, we have a machine replacing a driver. In the future we may have
machines replacing teachers, doctors, carpenters, artists... even lovers and
machine makers.

So, my question remains: Should we be happy? Or should we be sad?

Normally, in science fiction movies, when the machines become intelectually
smarter than humans, they try to destroy humanity.

But if, in the real world, they just become smarter than us, and just replace
us in every activity. Then, what would we do?

~~~
k-mcgrady
I've been thinking about this a lot. I'll answer it two ways.

Negative:

\- As we've automated jobs we've also created new ones, but lots of these new
jobs are BS. Inspectors of inspectors etc. to fulfil health and safety
regulations. We're also creating a lot of things that improve our lives or
entertain us but are really just created so we have something to spend our
money on. We don't need them.

Positive:

\- I think the idea of a basic income would fix this. If we can automate
everything and reduce the number of people that need to work AND provide them
with a basic income, they can live their lives and not have to work. If you
aren't anti-government you could even have the government owning factories,
producing goods through automation and selling them to other countries in
order to finance a good basic income for its citizens.

It's going to be interesting and if you are young enough likely something you
will see played out in your lifetime. Although the changes in the 20th century
were massive and world changing I think the changes this century are going to
be ones which change how we actually live on lives on a very basic level. What
we do everyday and how we get money. Even if it all goes to hell it'll be
interesting!

------
abc123xyz
Am I the only who actually enjoys driving (good cars)?

~~~
pkorzeniewski
Finally someone! I thought I'm the only one here who loves driving.. Some
people go as far as suggesting that manual cars will be banned at some point
in the future - to be honest it sounds like some kind of dystopian vision
where you have no control over anything.

------
rollthehard6
Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent
inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people, usually
a single person. The ultimate end game where cities are full of autonomous
taxi vehicles that aren't owned, but paid for by usage makes sense though. You
fire up an app / web link or SMS and a car appears within 5 minutes, drops off
someone else and takes you on your way. Provided folk don't leave too many
empty beer cans in the back seat...

~~~
masklinn
> Personally, I find it disappointing that this is perpetuating the inherent
> inefficiencies of the car concept, carrying a small number of people,
> usually a single person.

"Self-driving" systems for carrying big numbers of people have existed for
centuries now:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport)

------
kibwen
Without manual controls, what mechanism do they use to drive it into and out
of the trailer as seen at the beginning of the video?

------
sown
It seems like they would eventually have a four-seater version but the bench
seats could face each other.

What a simple thing but so different. Maybe like suicide-doors used to be
common in the US but they're such a novelty now.

~~~
prawn
Yes, one of my first thoughts was about how much I enjoy road trips. But
realistically, the bits I don't enjoy are having my attention pegged to the
road and my foot to the pedals. A driverless car still leaves that progression
through the landscape, the scenery, the togetherness.

Taking your family on a road trip where the travel was in a capsule with two
bench seats facing each other, and a table between, would be great. Read
books, play cards, get some work done. Convert seats to beds and get some
sleep while you cruise at 40 kmh to your destination overnight.

~~~
Theodores
Sounds like you are waiting for the VW Camper Van version to come out.
However, if you could sleep and drive there could be a whole new class of
commuters cluttering up the roads on 4-8 hour commutes, or a whole new breed
of tourists that set the car to drive through the night to the next
destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some cafe for
brekkie.

~~~
sown
> or a whole new breed of tourists that set the car to drive through the night
> to the next destination so they wake up somewhere different, outside some
> cafe for brekkie.

Or, maybe there'll be a 'random' button; the car surprises you about where it
intends on going.

------
WalterBright
I'm going to be sorry the day they outlaw manually driving a car.

------
doc_holliday
Can't wait till these work on country roads!

Would really free me up from living in the city I work. Can get work and other
things done on the commute to work. Or live miles away and telecommute work
most days then travel overnight whilst sleeping for times I need to be in the
office.

Best yet, I can go on nights out without worrying about driving home / paying
taxi.

The other maniacs and safety of country roads has always put me off commuting
from rural areas, but this really changes that!

------
allochthon
_They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because
they don’t need them._

I like the self-driving prototype. But this comment brings to my mind a
situation where police operators or organized crime override the car's
controls and reroute it to an alternative destination. A manual override,
perhaps no more than an emergency brake, would be really nice if you thought
something weird was going on.

~~~
cm127
Technically, our current cab drivers could do the same thing.

------
malandrew
One question I'm curious about is whether or not we will shift to having seats
in a different configuration such as having people sit facing each other.
Furthermore I'm curious what factors will contribute to one configuration over
another.

factors that may matter: (1) safety

(2) situational interaction (meeting, road trip with family)

(3) social norms (what are we used to. e.g. the french sit next to each other
in cafes, but americans sit across from each other)

(4) motion sickness

(5) ???

------
kamaal
It will be good if we can see these cars tested on the streets here in India.
India is an amazing test bed for this kind of an application. Narrow roads,
haphazard traffic, undisciplined crowd and driver behavior, kids playing on
the roads, obstructions, potholes, animals on the roads etc etc.

This will make an amazing place to test this set up.

Plus India is an amazing business opportunity, given the overall scale of the
economy here.

~~~
kyrra
How many drivers in India properly obey driving laws? My understanding is that
it can be pretty hectic driving India streets and breaking the law is required
to make forward progress. I'm guessing a self driving car as designed for the
US roads may be useless in India.

~~~
aembleton
Yes, I think the car would just stop until there are no hazards or so that it
can navigate around them. In India that might just mean that it won't move
anywhere.

------
sidcool
>They won’t have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal… because
they don’t need them. Our software and sensors do all the work

This sounds amazing.

------
tjmc
I think Google could reach their goal faster if they started with more
controlled environments - such as baggage vehicles at airports or mining
trucks. There are plenty of people in my part of the world who are paid six
figures to drive a truck up and down the same road of a mine all day.

~~~
nevi-me
I know there are open-cast mines that already use remotely
controlled/monitored and self-driving trucks. I think using it in an
environment that they're used to, and which I presume would be most practical,
makes sense. It is more helpful for them to research and build their
technology where it will mostly be used, on the streets. There is more volume
of traffic, which makes it possible to deploy 100 small cars cost-wise, and
could lead to 'quicker' development as they won't always be slowed down by
legal and other negotiations with airport companies and the like.

Just my thoughts anyways :)

------
whyleym
The biggest problem I see here is that if all cars on the road were self
driving then you have more control. The issue is when you mix human behaviour
and error into the mix. The first fatal or near fatal accident with self
driving cars could be the end before it's even started.

------
jstclair
Anyone else wonder why a self-driving car needs side-view mirrors?

~~~
agos
to get out safely avoiding incoming traffic once parked.

------
josefresco
Best part of the embedded video, and a moment sure to bring a smile to the
engineer's faces is at 1:45. No amount of data can give you that sort of
useful feedback.

------
dba7dba
I think many people against Google self-driving vehicle are worried about
privacy issue. Well I say please bring out the self-driving cars asap.

IMHO, big part of the first wave of customers to buy self-driving cars will be
older drivers who are not allowed (or choose to) drive on their own. My
parents are able to drive on their around now but are already getting worried
about the day when they can't drive around on their own. They would appreciate
a self-driving car.

Only issue for google would be that they won't be providing any useful data to
google with their destinations and they are not really online but oh well...

~~~
path411
They don't really add any extra privacy issues than carrying around an android
device in your pocket. Also even if you dislike Google, they are fairly
transparent and would likely tell us if they are tracking the data, how do you
know GM/Ford aren't already tracking vehicle routes and using this data?

------
bluthru
I can't believe I didn't realize this earlier: When you have nothing in front
of you, there's no need for an airbag!

------
dave1619
Hmmm, will Google go into manufacturing their own cars or will they stick with
software and license it to other manufacturers?

~~~
k-mcgrady
I think they'll do what Tesla does. They'll do a few of their own but their
long game will be selling the tech to big manufacturers.

------
higherpurpose
White one looks better. Overall design not too bad, especially if they want
them to be immediately recognizable.

------
petercoolz
This warmed my heart. And thinking about it from a business perspective, not
everybody needs to own their own self-driving car. Ie. it can self-drive
itself home for use by the next person. Which means economically, the car
price can be many multiples of the cost of current cars (imagine a $100k car
that is shared between five families rather than five families each with their
own car).

------
tejaswiy
I find it cute how most of the people still are not comfortable taking their
eyes off the road.

~~~
kteofanidis
To be fair I'm not comfortable taking my eyes off the road as a passenger with
a human driver. I think people underestimate the fear of not having control.
This will be a major issue to overcome and for some it will be like the fear
of flying on a commercial aircraft. The fact they know it's safe doesn't
really help much.

------
waterlesscloud
It's so cute! Look at it! It's even got a happy face! It's totally not a life-
threatening robot of doom!

And it promotes family talking time! Just like fast food restaurants in recent
episodes of Mad Men!

Sorry. It really is a slick ad for a neat product, I just can't resist
noticing how they position it.

------
nether
I wonder if they'll ever get the vehicle below $200k with the 64-beam
360-degree FOV LIDAR.

------
stephengillie
Please hire me!

------
SilasX
Forgive my crankiness, but: Does this say anything that the casual follower of
self driving cars doesn't already know? All I got out of this was:

\- Self driving cars would be awesome, for well known reasons.

\- We have to use a lot of good sensors to make this work.

\- It's an interesting problem.

~~~
enneff
It says that Google are building the cars.

