

Google: What We're Driving At - piinbinary
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/what-were-driving-at.html

======
zsouthboy
I sadly feel we'll never have cars that drive themselves.

The _first_ time, ever, one crashes, regardless of the circumstances:
"COMPUTER DRIVEN CAR DEATH! DO COMPUTER CARS MAKE YOU UNSAFE?" is shouted from
the media rooftops, citizens get outraged, laws are passed, and we're all
doomed to sit in traffic and continue to lose many lives to manual driving
forever.

~~~
d2viant
I can see that too, but I don't think it's impossible. I don't think it will
be an instant transition from driver to computer, it will be more gradual.
More and more things in your car will become automated, starting with the
simplest until we've reached the point that the driver is there simply to be
transported.

For comparison, I think about other methods of transportation that have
already been automated. Autopilot on planes, fully automated airport trams,
etc. To be sure, these are dangerous systems if something goes wrong, but the
infrequency of catastrophic occurrences let's us mostly trust in their safety.

~~~
paganel
> I can see that too, but I don't think it's impossible.

Honest question, how do you automate this:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dzsA-
qKPw&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85dzsA-
qKPw&feature=related) ?

~~~
borisk
Easy, you apply a bit of game theory. A system similar to say a poker bot can
make the high level decisions.

------
mjfern
One of the key issues for Google, from a corporate strategy standpoint, is
"freeing up people's time." Driving is one of last places where we spend
significant time awake without being able to use the Internet and hence any of
Google's services (except if you use a smartphone, which is now illegal in
some states, and in any event isn't an ideal place to be clicking on ads).
There is a safety issue here as well. Although using a smartphone while
driving is illegal in some states, people are driving while using their
smartphones with increasing frequency. We need our Internet "fix."

I am sure this driving technology also taps into several of Google's key
capabilities: e.g., programming expertise, its voice recognition technologies,
search, its mapping software (Google Maps and Navigation), etc.

------
apu
Something no one seems to have mentioned: the post is by Sebastian Thrun, a
professor at Stanford. His team won the DARPA Grand Challenge in 2005 and
placed 2nd in the DARPA Urban Challenge in 2007, so he's one of the most
experienced people in the world in the field of autonomous driving. He's also
done important work in robotics and mapping, two of the key skills needed for
autonomous driving.

I didn't realize he was also at Google now, but this is probably good news for
everyone, since Google will likely support him better than DARPA could.

Links:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Thrun>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge>

------
btilly
Awww.

I liked the idea of waiting to April 1 to announce this, complete with videos
of the cars driving.

(Disclaimer, I work for Google and have known about this project for some
time. I have no connection to it.)

~~~
sage_joch
This looks like something that could be game-changing. But Google seems to
dabble with ideas that don't ultimately go anywhere. Do you have a sense for
how seriously they're taking this project?

~~~
andreyf
Is "as seriously as possible" a satisfactory answer? This stuff isn't easy ;)

------
donaldc
_According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are
lost every year in road traffic accidents._

That is an incredible number. 1.2 million out of 7 billion. If the average
person lives to age 70, that means that on average, one has a 1.2% chance of
_dying_ from a traffic accident.

~~~
code_duck
I'm not a statistician, but something about that doesn't sound right to me.

~~~
Estragon

      >>> p = 1.2e6/7e9 # Probability of dying in any one year
      >>> scipy.exp(log(1-p)*70) # Probability of NOT dying 70 years in a row
      0.98807069644395429
      >>> 1-_
      0.011929303556045712
    

There might be some roundoff error in the exponentiation. I am too lazy to
check.

~~~
lliiffee
Out of interest, why do you prefer the second line to

    
    
        (1-p)**70
    

? Is there some kind of improved numerical stability?

------
oldgregg
It's interesting to me that the cars are legal under California law. It means
they could theoretically partner with car makers to sell it as an expensive
option -- advanced cruise control. Much less scary sounding than automated
vehicles. Once you get enough early adopters on the road it seems like the
public opinion would likely shift pretty quickly -- is there anything people
resent more than driving?

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
> ...is there anything people resent more than driving?

I for one absolutely love driving; it's the traffic-filled commutes to and
from the office every day that I resent. If I could optionally automate the
driving for times when I don't want to be driving, ie, in highway traffic
jams, on long road trips, or when I'm tired, then I would gladly pay extra for
the option.

~~~
mmorris
This is exactly how I feel, and I think it plays right into the "Advanced
Cruise Control" perspective. A mode that one might use on highways (whether on
a long trip or stuck in stop-and-go traffic), where there are much lower risks
of unexpected pedestrians/bicyclists/blind driveways/etc (and thus lower
liability risks).

Also, I have to add that this is the kind of research that I love that Google
is doing. I might not love everything they do, but I don't think there are
more than a handful of corporations actually pushing things forward with far-
out, jump-into-the-deep-end projects the way they are.

------
kadavy
The idea of "highway trains" is promising. Cars are still inefficient - only
1% of the energy they consume is actually used to propel the driver.

It's hard to get too excited about anything involving cars.

~~~
borisk
Car industry haven't made enough progress in the last 100 years, but your 1%
is way off. A modern car diesel engine (like the one in BMW 320d ED) can
exceed 45% efficiency.

~~~
TheSOB88
Car weight = ~4000

Average person = ~200

~~~
ubernostrum
That's not a problem with the efficiency of the engines or other parts. That's
a social issue of people who drive with no passengers.

~~~
philwelch
Once you've overcome the social issue of each person wanting their very own
vehicle, you don't need cars at all. You can use buses and trains.

~~~
shin_lao
Except where you want to go where buses and train don't go...

~~~
philwelch
Funny, no one ever complains about the times you want to go where highways
don't go.

Seriously, though, countries with functioning infrastructure have trains that
go nearly everywhere, or at least close enough you can walk or bicycle the
rest of the way.

~~~
protomyth
I'm in the US. The closest bus stop to the college I work at is > 90 miles
away and the closest train stop is 13 miles away but is unstaffed and not for
local transit. Roads are the base transportation infrastructure in the US, so
using that existing infrastructure is a good bet.

~~~
philwelch
I'm in the US too, and it sucks. That's why I said "countries with functioning
infrastructure" (because with anything bigger than a small town, driving
around isn't functioning infrastructure). But you're not going to have any
kind of sustainable infrastructure when it takes a 1-2 ton vehicle to move a
100-300 pound person any distance, whether or not the vehicle is automated.

~~~
protomyth
We are going to have to come up with something "sustainable" with only 1 or 2
people in the vehicle, because the US still has a lot of rural areas.

~~~
philwelch
Rural areas make up very little of the population. Although there's some
improvement there--I live in a rural town that's quite navigable by bicycle
and has a good bus system.

The real problem is the suburbs.

~~~
protomyth
Uhm, there are no buses here (see other posts) and bicycles don't work in
certain conditions (high winds, snow, -40F below weather). Plus, let's also
remember that a lot of places don't have facilities for people to bike into
work (like showers), not to mention the people who can't use bikes.

~~~
philwelch
So what? We live in the sticks. There aren't enough of us to matter. If we
keep driving around with one SUV per person it doesn't add up to much,
comparatively. The low hanging fruit is fixing the metropolitan areas. Most
people live there, and demographically, people are still moving there. So
fucking around with making cars and rural areas more efficient isn't going to
make much difference compared to making metropolitan areas more efficient and
reducing car usage within them.

That said, rural college towns can have pretty awesome bus systems that run
all year, even during subzero temperatures, and they can also have bike paths
that go mostly everywhere, which are usable for nine months of the year.
Because mine has all that. I'm sorry yours doesn't; but obviously, there is
room for improvement, which is exactly my point.

------
aristidb
This explains Eric Schmidt's "casual" remarks about cars that should drive
themselves recently at the TC Disrupt conference (
<http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/28/schmidt-on-future/> ).

------
csomar
It would help a lot if every car get connected to GPS and a global network
identifies cars that are in the nearby. Now the server should decide how these
cars should go. And in addition, there should be an independent regulation in
the car itself in case Internet is down.

If every person gets connected to GPS using his mobile phone, then they can be
integrated in this complex network reducing the risks of accidents.

The server would also connect with others to check for roads constructions,
weather... and decide the best and fastest path to take.

It would be really amazing and complicated. But believing is how we can get
these things done.

~~~
protomyth
It would also help if the map attached to the GPS was actually accurate. I
seem to find a lot of secondary highways in rural states that are not located
correctly. It is a true pain when your GPS starts screaming about "getting
back on the road". Really a pain having to turn off the sound when you come to
certain highways.

------
rodh257
I've always imagined that there would surely be a way to optimize traffic to
the extreme if it was completely automated. For instance, in many
circumstances I could see that instead of a set of traffic lights, instead of
slowing down, cars could communicate with each-other and adjust their speed
accordingly, so that they criss cross each-other perfectly. (think Traffic
Rush on iphone/android)

That sort of precision would require a ton of computing power, but Moores Law,
the cloud and wireless internet are making that all possible. Exciting stuff!

------
rwhitman
Considering that San Francisco has arguably the most difficult city streets to
drive in the country, I'd say this is no small feat

------
swah
Why would their technology just lower the death rate instead of eliminating it
almost completely?

~~~
swah
Why the downvote, its an honest question. When all cars are automated, the
accidents left should me near zero...

~~~
lukifer
Bizarre road conditions, mechanical failures, the percentage of humans who
insist on driving old cars or operating their smart cars manually, improbable
edge cases which the software fails to account for ("race conditions"?),
illegal drag racing, hackers playing pranks which turn deadly...

Probably lots of other scenarios. You'll never eliminate error completely, but
I think we'd all be a lot happier if car crashes happened with the frequency
of airplane crashes.

~~~
chrisbroadfoot
Don't forget, also, pedestrians who run out onto the road and get hit by an
automated driver.

------
miguelpais
"In terms of time efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates
that people spend on average 52 minutes each working day commuting. Imagine
being able to spend that time more productively."

You can, it's called taking the bus, and in the process it actually employs
some people such as drivers, cleaning personnel, etc.

~~~
protomyth
Not every place in the US has buses. I commute about 45 minutes each way and
no public transit available.

~~~
miguelpais
Of course, but as the statement was said it was if there was no way of
commuting without oneself being the driver.

------
urza
So we are getting there, at last :)

[http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/11/disneys-magic-
high...](http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/11/disneys-magic-highway-
usa-1958.html)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6pUMlPBMQA>

------
natch
I can drive a car with no driver, no driver, no driver...
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA>

Well it's a good song anyway, even if it isn't talking about an AI... yet.

------
protomyth
I wonder if there is something that can be done to the actual road to make it
more "friendly" to robot vehicles? Roads are constantly being worked on and it
would be interesting to attack parts of the problem from that angle.

------
jrockway
A few months ago, one of my friends who works for Google told me, "In the next
year, Google is going to announce something that will change the world." Is
this it?

~~~
logicalmind
I thought your ideal future was everyone riding bicycles ;)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1699114>

~~~
jrockway
I wasn't making a value judgment, just wondering out loud. I thought it was
going to be a new app for my phone ;)

------
uuilly
Robo Prius in 2008: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10042320-76.html>

~~~
uuilly
Surprised I'm being down-voted. This story is real. Both cars have the same
Lidar scanner and other hardware.

<http://bit.ly/d8nIZp>

Trace through the people in both stories and you'll see the connections.

------
tocomment
Is there any information on the algorithms behind this?

~~~
dmoney
I'd like to know how often the human drivers have had to take over.

------
borski
For all the sexiness that is the idea of automated cars, there is one fatal
flaw: way more people are going to be driving drunk. Yes, eventually, maybe
the tech is good enough that it won't matter what state you're in, but for now
there should be a human operator there for emergencies; one that is able to
respond quickly and isn't intoxicated.

~~~
lovskogen
Fixed by a ID-system and a blowtest for alcohol.

~~~
lovskogen
Why not?

------
palish
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the biggest issues with general
acceptance of this system:

Police will be able to force anyone to pull over anywhere, at any time, and
for any or no reason.

Even though they can do that now, people still _decide_ to pull over. They are
not _forced_ to.

And what if there becomes a database that police forces compile, showing the
history of movements of everyone? That database could potentially be leaked. I
think the privacy implications of this should get at least some thought.

~~~
wriq
"Even though they can do that now, people still decide to pull over. They are
not forced to."

If you decide not to, then you are forced to. Unless you have Jason Bourne-
esque driving abilities.

~~~
palish
Reality isn't really the issue. People's _perception_ of reality is what will
determine whether this system is accepted.

