
Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars - ryan_j_naughton
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-brings-in-chief-for-self-driving-cars-1442199840
======
edward
Same story without paywall: [http://www.ibloomberg.net/google-brings-in-chief-
for-self-dr...](http://www.ibloomberg.net/google-brings-in-chief-for-self-
driving-cars/)

~~~
psbp
A Google redirect also works:
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQqQIwAGoVChMIwOLI4732xwIVBxGSCh3lDghZ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fgoogle-
brings-in-chief-for-self-driving-
cars-1442199840&usg=AFQjCNGAQcoV9poPqRTZNOkKL6E6S_pJsA&sig2=DwunLefna1TxYSjqq-
xJdQ)

~~~
melling
Why is there so much discussion about paywalls on HN? Can someone create a
FAQ? The first several comments so far are essentially about the paywall. It's
all noise. We need to increase the signal.

~~~
rafamvc
From the FAQ:

Are paywalls ok?

It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.

In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do
so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

------
ClassyHacker
Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my
apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The
kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more
lives we will save.

~~~
peatmoss
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even
_marginal_ safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not
even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated.

Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most
expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle,
depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on average. A self-
driving car is very complementary to services like Uber. If self-driving cars
could be shared, increasing vehicle utilization past 5%, then we could
repurpose vast swaths of unproductive urban land.

Once fewer people are owning cars, and instead paying a la carte, it also
restructures the choice architecture of driving. Without a default option
sitting in the driveway, I suspect that people may opt to walk, bike, or take
transit with more regularity as well.

As a planner, I'm slightly more bullish on the potential of self-driving cars
to remake transportation than my peers are. It was only a couple of years ago
that I attended a demand management conference keynote in which the well-known
(in planning circles) speaker was cracking jokes about how self-driving cars
wouldn't change anything. I disagree--I just hope the future gets here soon.

~~~
ams6110
I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good
number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them.

There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely
populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost
and hassle.

I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

~~~
toddmorey
That's why I think this new generation of transportation will be the first
realistic challenge to car ownership. Think about it: virtually instant
transportation, available on demand, and you can vary the vehicle based on
your needs. Take a small car to Ikea and a truck back home. Take a large car
out that evening with a group of friends. Shuttle systems that aggregate
passengers (but still make custom stops) will drive the prices down further.

You don't have to drive (leaving you free to do other activities), and you
don't have to park / store the vehicle. (Our last hotel charged $65 PER DAY
for parking.) Under this new model, parking can quickly become the least
productive land use and will start to get much more scarce.

Finally, you likely won't ever own or time-share a self-driving car. They'll
be provided by the likes of Google or Uber or Tesla as a utility model.

Will people still drive for the joy of it? Absolutely, but it will become more
of a hobby / specialty market, just like private piloting.

------
Theodores
In the article there is this idea that Google will get auto makers to actually
make cars that use Google technology - a bit like the 'Android' model in a
way, co-opt everyone except 'Apple' and 'Microsoft'.

This contrasts with the Elon Musk attitude where the auto makers can be
consigned to the dustbin of history - there isn't going to be some hideous
GM/Chrysler/Ford effort 'powered by Tesla technologies' because at heart Elon
Musk really does not want to do business with them.

As I understand it there are many companies working on the self driving car
with all of Google's rivals going for an iterative approach, e.g. a car that
can stay in lane, park, not go over the speed limit or hit the car in front.
However, this is not 'driving', i.e. in a city with lots of pedestrians
around. Only Google are going for the everything always automated being the
product, the rivals are going for just the 'easy' bits with a view to adding
the features later. The problem with this later approach is that people expect
the car to do all of the driving, they get their phones and laptops out,
hence, when they have to take the wheel they are not exactly prepared for it.
So the Google approach is better.

If I was CEO of Hyundai (or any other manufacturer) I would just wait for
Google to launch 'Android for cars' and go with that rather than do the
Volvo/BMW/Mercedes iterative approach.

~~~
jfoster
Why not take both approaches? Volvo, BMW and Mercedes will presumably be
welcomed by Google if they opt to use the Google technology in the future.

------
dpflan
I wonder why they chose to use the word 'Chief' versus 'CEO' when the article
uses CEO to describe the situation. At first I thought Sebastian Thrun would
be the subject of this article...

------
mattcornell
Google really needs to be thinking further ahead. Since they're not interested
in decreasing car-based transportation (imagine if they spent all that money
on a first world train system), then with climate change and rising sea
levels, I suggest they get into self-driving _boats_. And nanotech sunscreen.

