

Google’s New Robot Car Raises Hopes, Reality Will Dash Them Soon - kkleiner
http://singularityhub.com/2010/10/11/googles-new-robot-car-raises-hopes-reality-will-dash-them-soon/

======
kiba
Meanwhile, thousand of lives will be lost every year because we do not embrace
this technology with speed.

It's insane that society does not embrace the technology, even with all the
authoritarian risks.(autonomous cars will probably make tyranny more
efficient, but at that point we're doomed anyway)

I hope somebody is dedicated to the task of speeding societal acceptance.

Maybe somebody should create organizations like "Parents for Autonomous
Driving" and mobilize public opinion in favor of autonomous technology.

------
aufreak3
Nay-saying is easy. Making progress is hard work. Kudos to Google for pushing
on this front. The author speculates about the state after a decade. By that
time, this article will be forgotten, but google's work might still be
remembered.

a) It's acceptably safe to sit on something like hundreds of mini explosions
every minute. (hint: car) b) We actually have some atom-splitting power plants
running c) Planes have auto-pilot modes and fly-by-wire. d) Trains can run
without drivers.

By the time this technology gets into regular use, we probably won't even be
aware that it is being used and think about it as some sophisticated form of
cuise control.

------
rakkhi
Very well written argument, I was so excited when I saw the video it takes a
few days to sink down to the practical reality that is our sue at the drop of
a hat society. Was driving a hire merc recently for 6 days through Germany and
was amazed (I use the tube over a car normally) at some of even the low spec
advances like gps that knew roadworks, rear camera when reversing, colusion
detectors, auto lights when dark even during the day, auto windscreen wipers
set to perfect calibration. Like NASA research googles work could really
benefit society and save lives even years or decades before a truly automated
car

------
myoung8
Can anyone think of ways to speed the sociolegal acceptance of this
technology?

At the end of the day, I have a feeling it won't really come down to lives
saved even if that's how the media spins it. At the end of the day, it has to
help pad the bottom line of one of the car companies and they will then have
the incentive to lobby Congress and get the right regulations inserted into
the right bills.

~~~
donaldc
_Can anyone think of ways to speed the sociolegal acceptance of this
technology?_

Perhaps it could first get used by people who are visually impaired, or for
some other reason are not able to currently get a driver's license.

Given the importance that being able to use a car to get places has on living
a normal life (in most of the U.S.), one could then frame it as a human rights
issue.

Once some people are using such cars, it's a much smaller step to allow other
people to also use self-driving cars.

------
KoZeN
I believe Google are potentially missing a trick. If they are developing an
automated car that requires little to no human interference then surely the
design would be completely different if all cars on the road were automated.

The biggest hurdle appears to be human error. 'What about drunk drivers who
drive on to your side of the road etc'. My question is, what if all cars are
automated? Zero drunk drivers, minimal risk of encountering unpredictable
driving behaviour, much easier and safer to implement.

It will get to a point, during our lifetime, where humans controlling a car
are limited to private race tracks. Speeding, drink drivers, poor driving
ability, insurance premiums, all of these will push automation to the
forefront in no time at all.

~~~
gjm11
In what sense are Google "missing a trick" here? Before there's any prospect
of getting all cars automated, car automation has to be good enough that
that's a credible suggestion.

Google has (presumably) good lobbyists and plenty of money, but persuading
legislators to require all motor vehicles to be automated _before
demonstrating safe automated motor vehicles_ would be a mighty tall order.

~~~
KoZeN
_car automation has to be good enough that that's a credible suggestion._

I completely agree. I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the
direction Google seem to be taking this is one where it will end up as an
amazing feature on top end luxury cars whereas the technology could be very
different if evey car on the road had the same technology and each was
constantly aware of every other vehicle in its proximity thus reducing the
risk of human drivers interfering with a predetermined path.

The latter sounds like it would require additional or even very different
technology to implement.

That's my two cents, keep in mind I know more about the internal combustion
engine than I do about programmed automated technology!

------
jsz0
Even if the technology was perfected and allowed within 8 years there would be
a massive generational gap. I doubt few people older than 40-ish would even
consider switching it on. As a fallback safety system it makes a lot of sense
though. It should be possible for the car to detect when the driver is making
poor choice due to sleep depravation, inebriation, etc. Eventually it would
detect when the driver has completely lost control and park itself.

~~~
cma
Eventually driving on your own will be illegal for the exact same reasons
driving drunk is right now, on a relative basis.

~~~
jnw2
There may also be some pressure on the busier roads to force the use of the
automated mode, once it can reliably space cars closer than can safely be done
with manual driving, and once a large enough fraction of the cars on the road
support automated driving. (Presumably we will see a gradual decrease in
following distance in automated mode, with lots of careful investigation of
near misses along the way.)

I've found myself wondering if Google will solve the capacity problems from
New Jersey into Manhattan faster than the new rail tunnel(s) that may or may
not be getting built; the existing tunnels are pretty full, but it looks like
Google has figured out how to dramatically increase the capacity of the
existing road tunnels.

But the other question is how parking will work out. Certainly adding lots of
parking spaces in Manhattan will be expensive. What will happen if there is an
argument that New Jersey income tax revenues can be maximized by maximizing
the number of New Jersey residents who can commute to Manhattan, and that the
way to accomplish this with the lowest infrastructure cost to taxpayers is to
allow the cars to drive themselves back to New Jersey to park for the day?

~~~
loewenskind
Google shouldn't sell these cars to people. They should provide a sort of
automated taxi service. You request a specific destination at a specific time
and the car picks you up and takes you there. Then the parking question could
be avoided entirely. Having thousands of cars sitting doing nothing all day is
a waste.

~~~
jnw2
An automated taxi service is certainly one of the things we ought to get out
of this navigation technology (but you don't want to call it a taxi service,
because you don't want to be subjected to the limits and fees placed on taxis
by municipalities), but apparently if you look at commuter rail systems, you
find that people tend to commute from suburbs to downtown in the morning, and
back out in the evening. Commuter rail systems usually want to have separate
overnight layover facilities on the outbound ends of routes, vs mid-day
layover facilities in the downtown areas. You can force the cars to rack up
empty miles, but it's probably more energy efficient to have separate mid-day
and overnight parking.

The other thing the automated taxis should offer as an option is cars with
multiple compartments, where if you wanted to get from one compartment to
another you'd have to get out of the car. People who are impatient but don't
care too much what their trip costs could request that they get one
compartment of the car and it get routed so that they aren't delayed by other
people in sharing the car, and then people who want cheap transportation and
don't care so much how long it takes could book the other compartments. You
could also have a hybrid option where the impatient would allow up to 5
minutes (or any number of minutes of the rider's choosing) delay to allow
others to be picked up/dropped off, and there could be transfer points along
major roads, and people wanting cheap travel could express a willingness to
deal with N transfers. That could go a long way towards increasing the number
of people in the average vehicle.

------
yardie
So do we really need an automated car at all. Our roads were designed for
humans as are the signs and lights. I think people are investing way too much
into the prospect of an autonomous car and no one is really asking for it.

Google and its researchers are smart. So these concepts are exactly that
concepts. But what gets put into a car is completely watered down. Before any
autonomous car rolls out the factory I'm sure we'll see a semi-autonomous car.

We don't need autonomous drivers we need better drivers. A car that learns how
to handle adverse conditions and can assist the driver is probably more
valuable than a car that can do it alone. I believe this is where the real
payoff is. Mercedes-Benz already has S-matic in certain cars that can
determine the speed of cars in the front and behind and brake accordingly.
We've had ABS breaking for decades to assist in hard braking, traction control
to assist in tight turns. So where is the car that can keep me on the lane in
severe fog, help me drive over black ice, through a blizzard or torrential
rain. That's the type of automation people want.

If I needed car that could drive without me I'd call a cab.

~~~
theBobMcCormick
I'm sure that the many elderly and disabled individuals who are currently
unable to drive themselves would be _very_ interested in a fully autonomous
car. If they're not asking for it, it may only be because they're not aware
it's something possible to ask _for_.

In many areas of the US, not being able to drive is a pretty major impediment
to quality of life. This technology could transform many peoples daily lives.

~~~
yardie
Elderly?! Hah, it practically takes a court order for the elderly to stop
driving. In Florida, it's quite common for a pedestrian to be hit and killed
by the elderly. Then the public outrage commences for a few months. Laws are
crafted and then die in the state senate. Why? because the elderly don't want
someone restricting how they drive and they constitute the largest (and
getting larger) voting block.

The disabled market I could see going for this, but if Dean Kamen can't even
sell a 5000 stair climbing robot wheelchair to this market how is a $50-60k
car going to fair? Besides, if someone is so disabled that they can't
currently get somewhere they probably aren't in a position to get in the car
in the first place. I'm specifically talking about the people that require
ambulance service.

And people always miss out on the human element of these technologies. You
know why the FAA don't allow UAVs in controlled airspace? Because the pilot
unions won't allow it. Currently, these cars are only allowed on the road if a
licensed driver is in the car. Well the people that need them can't get a
license. Think that's going to change? Not if the taxi, limousine, or trunk
drivers union have a say about it.

Google may have lobbyists, but they won't stand a chance against the AFL, CIO,
or Teamsters.

So my hypothesis still stands. You'll see assistive technologies long before
you'll see a mass-produced automated car.

------
ThomPete
Everyone want improvement, it's the change they fear

