

GM to Introduce Hands-Free Driving in Cadillac Model - rpm4321
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-07/gm-to-introduce-hands-free-driving-in-cadillac-model.html

======
qasar
I worked at Google for 3 years and GM for 5 years (including engineering in
Cadillac) so when I see news about the companies, my ears tend to perk up.

A few things should be set straight. Google was not (and by a long shot) the
first to think of and try to develop self driving technology. I'm disappointed
to see technical people in silicon valley not think a bit more critically. All
OEMs and many tier 1 suppliers have thought about and (especially larger
players) tried to build self driving cars. When you're a company like Denso or
Bosch, this is a massive opportunity and not to aim a few people of your
hundreds of thousands of employees to the problem is hard to imagine even if
you know nothing about automotive. To be clear when I worked at Bosch from
2004-06, this tech was in development.

Secondly, the HN crowd specifically is notably biased. Check out Google self
driving announcements vs GM (or any news about automotive manufactures other
than Tesla). Having worked at both companies in product and engineering - yes
they are of course different. But not nearly as much as you think. The single
most notable difference is that Google is a very margin rich business. That
allows the company to attract and retain top talent but it doesn't mean
engineers that doesn't work at Google are bozos.

Thirdly, the technology that traditional OEMs have tried to develop is around
2 axis - cost and safety. Google is approaching the problem differently.
Google's approach of a $x0,000 LiDAR system might prove to work if LiDar costs
fall but thats a big risk. Also, Google admits that their cars don't work in
things like rain. I'm not saying Google won't win this space - the contrary, I
think they have a great shot. What i'm saying is this is significantly complex
tech and its complexity is hard to understate. There can and will be different
solutions that work.

Lastly, GM and Google are not the only ones in the game. Nissan and Mercedes
have announced they will have cars with similar tech in 2017/18\. Ever single
automotive player is investing huge amounts of resources.

~~~
shalmanese
While this may be true, it's also been the observation of a lot of people here
that, historically, it's been difficult for non-software industries to build
effective consumer facing software teams, no matter how well capitalized.

It's not inconceivable that car companies are simply not equipped to manage
the kind of complexity intrinsic in building fully autonomous vehicles,
independent of the amount of resources they deploy.

~~~
Tiksi
I agree that automakers haven't been the greatest with consumer facing
software/UI; I've yet to use a stock touchscreen interface in a car that
doesn't cause bouts of rage.

However, automakers are probably up there with the best of the best when it
comes to embedded "replace the consumer" software. Almost every aspect of a
modern car is software controlled or software monitored in some way. I think
that the fact that many people don't see their car as a network of computers,
or recognize that it's pretty much all software is proof of that. Automakers
have slowly been replacing the driver with software, and many people don't
notice or think of it like that, because it just works, requires no input or
interaction, and doesn't fail.

Honestly I think that in the end, Google will probably end up with a better
product, but today, there's probably no one better equipped than car companies
to make autonomous vehicles that align with consumer expectations of what an
autonomous vehicle should be, both in engineering and resources.

Edited to add:

Look at what's already been done as far as software controlled driving.
Mercedes has a system that will stop your car if you're about to rear end
someone/hit something. A bunch of manufacturers have systems that will warn
you when you're drifting out of your lane. Maintaining speed to the car in
front of you instead of just setting a fixed cruise control speed is getting
pretty widespread too. All of these by themselves seem like simple iterations,
but when you start putting them all in one package, its moving closer and
closer to an autonomous car, and all of it works so well that many people
don't even notice.

------
naner
Anyone remember reading an old article about the relationship between safety
equipment and risky behavior? The idea was that the more safe you feel, the
more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior. The example given was that
cyclists with helmets were much less cautious of traffic than bicyclists
without helmets.

So I'm not sure if this has to do with cars feeling more safe or just the
prevalence of smart phones, but driving down the interstate and paying close
attention to what other cars are doing is terrifying. Literally every day I
see a number of people driving 70+ MPH and slightly drifting over the lines or
driving with their phones perched in front of them on the steering wheel. And
it is not just teens or other classes of people typically associated with
risky behavior, it is everyone.

This transition from smart-cars to self-driving cars is scary. As the cars
become more attentive it seems we get less attentive.

~~~
ryandvm
That's an interesting thought, but we are already incredibly inattentive
drivers - as evidenced by the 33,000 automotive deaths last year in the U.S.
alone. Self driving cars can't come soon enough.

Fortunately, the same technological advances that have given us hand-held
computing to distract ourselves are also going to give us self driving cars to
save us.

------
dang
Expectations have downscaled:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3909931](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3909931).

------
TheBiv
>>"The roads will be equipped with sensors and cameras that enable roads to
communicate with cars to alert drivers to hazards and congestion. The
technology, to be deployed along stretches of Detroit’s busiest freeways, will
monitor vehicle speed and position, though that information will be anonymous
and police won’t use it to ticket drivers, Lauckner said."

Call me skeptical, but I highly doubt that this type of tech would not be used
by police

------
empressplay
I wonder if the "vehicle-to-vehicle" technology could be implemented faster if
it was included in GPS mapping apps. Sure, your GPS can't slam on your brakes
but it could warn you of hazards, and your data might be used to slam on the
brakes of the car behind you (and prevent you getting rear-ended!)

------
droopyEyelids
Actual news about this will tell us how the system deals with distracted or
sleeping drivers.

Right now we assume a computer driven car can handle the highway. How it
handles its human occupants is the real question.

