Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Secretly Tests Autonomous Cars In Traffic

Posted by timothy on from the just-having-a-bit-of-fun-yer-honor dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Autonomous cars are years from mass production, but technologists who have long dreamed of them believe that they can transform society as profoundly as the Internet has. Now the NY Times reports that Google has been working in secret on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver. With someone behind the wheel to take control if something went awry and a technician in the passenger seat to monitor the navigation system, seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. One even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco, one of the steepest and curviest streets in the nation. The only accident, engineers said, was when one Google car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light." Update: 10/09 22:37 GMT by T : Reader harrymcc points out that the dream of self-driving cars is nothing new: "Both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics have regularly reported on such experiments; I rounded up some examples dating as far back as 1933."

46 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. Rules of the Road by cosm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guarantee they will use their turn signals better that wet-bodies.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Rules of the Road by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Deciding to live over 35 miles from your workplace is a pretty fucking stupid decision to have made.

      That's a pretty fucking arrogant position to take. It's not like jobs fall off of trees, not in the U.S., not in the twenty-first century. Sometimes people have to do what they have to do, especially if they have a family depending upon them. If you happen to live a half a block from work and don't even need to own a car, you know what? I'm happy for you. But, if you should happen to lose that job, and maybe have a number of financial obligations you have to meet, well, I'll bet you'll get a fucking car and start commuting faster than I can say, "you're a dick."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Rules of the Road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the rear driver is so close that he can't brake when the car in front of him suddenly breaks, then he is endangering that driver and should be held accountable.

      If it was a regular problem that cars actually traveled backwards and hit the rear driver, then I might have more sympathy for the rear driver. But this doesn't happen. What DOES happen is a large animal jumps on to the road (or other unpredictable event) that forces a driver to hit the breaks. Drivers need to be able to hit the breaks without worrying about whether or not the guy behind them is too close to be able to stop as well.

    3. Re:Rules of the Road by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the problems I have seen is a little bit more confusing then a car backing into another car.

      Suppose you were driving down the freeway and you were maintaining a good assured clear distance from the vehicle in front of you. Your in the right hand lane doing the speed limit, or perhaps the middle lane and faster traffic is moving around you in the left lanes like they are supposed to even though they are statutorily speeding. Now someone else in a big hurry who was texting their friend about being late for cocktails, changes lanes in front of you and erases that assured clear distance. So being a good driver, you decrease your speed to provide the proper distance again, then all the sudden, the driver in front of you looks away from their phone and notices they need to take the exist you are about to pass and slams on the brakes causing you to hit them. Now suppose all this happened within about 3 seconds or so time so there was no safe way for you to react any differently that could have avoided the accident.

      I bring this up because the rear driver isn't always at fault by their own actions per se. I've seen that happen many times before on different highways all across the country. A lot of times, it happens to big rigs which also generally ends in major injuries and a highway that's locked up for hours.

      I otherwise agree with you. But there are times when the acts of others remove the ability for responsible driving to exist for a short period of time. It's those times in which blaming the person behind you is really attacking the wrong person.

    4. Re:Rules of the Road by dkf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except where state laws also prohibit driving in such a way as to cause a wreck, deliberately. Even if your vehicle is not involved in the impact, if your driving can be shown to have contributed to a wreck in which someone died, you can be charged with murder.

      If you're driving like a dick and cause an accident then it makes sense to charge you, whatever your position relative to the impact. It's entirely possible to be at fault even if your car is not actually in the crash, e.g., if you're switching lanes across a freeway in a crazy way in heavy traffic that causes others to stamp on their brakes.

      Rule 1 of driving: don't be a dick.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    5. Re:Rules of the Road by Nyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only people who think like this seem to be without any sort of corporeal responsibility. Their only perceived responsibilities are to themselves - their self-satisfaction.

      They don't drive, because a car is a liability and a cost. Easier to mooch off of others.

      They don't have families, because they're too immature and/or irresponsible to realize the benefit such things provide to society.

      They don't own homes, because a mortgage (and the associated payments) demand stability and willpower to resist compulsive urges.

      They're able to pay for small, single-person (or shared) apartments near their place of work because of the aforementioned lack of constraints. It's pretty easy to pay 1800/month for a loft apartment when it's just you living there and you haven't much more than a bottle of Jack Daniels and a pile of $300 shirts.

      I don't talk crap about the way you choose to live.

      --
      Be seeing you...
  2. I wold love a car that drives itself... by anUnhandledException · · Score: 5, Insightful

    even if initially only on highways.

    The ability to read, or surf the web, or watch a movie/TV show durring my commute would be wonderful. Almost like getting a free hour everyday. 52 * 5 * 1 = 250 free hours a year.

    1. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ability to read, or surf the web, or watch a movie/TV show durring my commute would be wonderful. Almost like getting a free hour everyday. 52 * 5 * 1 = 250 free hours a year.

      You mean fill out reports and attend conference calls. :(

      In too many situations if we have more time to work, we'd just work more. Capitalism rewards productivity... if you can be more productive than your competition you have an advantage.

      This is why we don't have the effortless 1-hour work days envisioned in the "Jetsons". The premise was that technology would increase our productivity and give us more free time. It didn't account for the fact the competition would just use that freed up time to be more productive, forcing everyone else to do the same.

      Just as blackberries and laptops and VPNs have resulted in millions taking their work home to continue into the evenings and weekends, self-driving cars will just result in another hour in which to do more work, at least for millions of people. :(

      I've been fortunate enough to establish a work environment I'm very happy with, but I know a lot of people who recall our teenaged fast-food/retails years with envy... "punch-in, work, punch-out, don't work" :)

    2. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by hedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And these US cities have no cabs? MADD is not a bunch of assholes, they're by and large pushing the right things to deal with a real problem. The only exception I've heard of is their insistence that an interlock device not be used as a part of the punishment.

      If anything the penalties for drink related offenses are way too lenient.

    3. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Note to our Euro friends: subsidizing fuel costs and road systems is democracy. Subsidizing railways and mass transit is communism.

      It all makes sense if you don't think about it.

    4. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no way current technology can make this work. Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the system would not be able to detect. Animals running across the road, snow and mud slides, road alligators being flipped up from the car in front of you, etc.

      Consider how many things could be coming at your car from the periphery that the human eye would not be able to detect. Computer systems can have more sensors with longer range. Computers can track more objects coming from more directions than the human eye can track simultaneously.

      There is no way a computer could accurately detect these things coming from a far distance on an intercept course with you.

      Of course they could. It's just a matter of having the right (expensive) sensors on board with sufficient range.

      There are even types of sensors such as radar that can detect objects a much larger distance, and infrared sensors that can detect objects (such as children) much smaller than the human eye can, or objects such as child pedestrians that are obscured by a parked car.

      The computer can track and predict the object that would not even be visible to your eye, and anticipate the child outside your field of vision about to try and run across the street in front of you.

      The human eye is a pretty good, versatile sensor, with a wide range of things it can pick up, but it has limited range (especially if the driver is nearsighted and only has the minimal 20/40 vision required to get their license), and you only have two of them.

      For example... you can look to the front, to the side, or behind you, but not in both places at the same time.

      This matters, for example, if you are changing lanes.

      You can look behind you and to your side to verify clearance, meanwhile, while you glanced behind you for that second, a car in front of you has slammed on their breaks, or a vehicle turning onto the highway has turned in front of you or changed lanes in front of you within 50 feet, and the time you have to make a decision and react was drastically reduced.

    5. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That used to be one of the best selling points of mass transit. Yeah, you shared it with people, but you didn't have to worry about driving. You got on, took a nap, read a book, looked through the paper, used your wireless internet, whatever. Now, if people can just use an autonomous cars, they'll just jump in the car and let it drive, regardless of the inefficiency. It's kind of sad, really. It's taking a giant leap forward in engineering, AI, probably safety, while, likely (yeah, I know, it's not a foregone conclusion, but I'd be willing to bet) causing a giant step backward in energy conservation. True, there will be gains in efficiency if the cars can work to avoid creating traffic jams, so they go though faster, but with all the duplicate heavy equipment (the extra sets of tires, brakes, springs, engine blocks, cooling equipment, etc), I seriously doubt efficiency in traffic flow could make up for inefficient usage.

    6. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Fuck you. DIAF. Lose a child to a drunk driver.

      TL;DR: Fuck you.

    7. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to say that I like the idea of a car driving itself. In theory it should be able to be better than any human. However, software is what I do for a living and it seems there are always circumstances that can not be predicted if software but would be easy for a human to handle.

      The part of me that is a programmer agrees with you. The part of me that is a driver and a road cyclist must concede that the bar has been set ridiculously low for the car AI to drive better than the average human.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    8. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by XanC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This doesn't have anything to do with driving. It has to do with being convicted, and going to jail, without being able to mount a defense.

    9. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you stay home and get hammered there instead?

      And if I'm not driving, is it any fucking business of yours?

      I like to drink. I like to drive. It's really stupid to combine the two, so I do my driving early (to the beer store!) and get it out of the way, and when I get home, it's then that I fire up the grill and have a drink.

      I oppose drunk driving. I oppose MADD. My two positions are consistent. Are yours?

    10. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      actually I read a while back that there were effectively holes in the laws of many states since they refer to the driver of the car.
      In some states if there is nobody in the car at all then the car could speed without breaking the traffic laws.

      Now in this case

      "Safety has been our first priority in this project. Our cars are never unmanned. We always have a trained safety driver behind the wheel who can take over as easily as one disengages cruise control."

      they did in fact have a licensed driver behind the wheel at all times so no these experiments were not illegal

      As it stands yes you would be convicted of drunk driving even if the vehicle were autonomous because you still have "care and control".
      In the future if such systems prove capable of driving safely without any human intervention(ie with the occupant asleep on the back seat) such laws should change to merely treat it the same as a sober driver carrying a drunk passenger provided they're not behind the wheel.

    11. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Working to stopping drunk driving? Noble cause.
      Working to stop drinking in general with bad abusive laws? Assholes.

      You are letting your emotions get the better of you instead of looking at the situation rationally.

      You want to avoid doing this because being emotional makes you easy to manipulate. MADD takes advantage of people like you to further their prohibitionist campaign.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    12. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In PA, it's constitutional for a game warden to search your car without a warrant - in case you have been poaching..

      No, it's considered legal under that State's laws, and is in fact probably unConstitutional. The problem is, the only way that law would ever be struck down on Constitutional grounds is if someone gets pissed off enough to take it to court. Most Constitutional violations in modern government (and there are many, that document is the Supreme Law of our Land but it has less and less force of law every day) remain indefinitely because nobody is willing or able to challenge them. Law enforcement searching your property and effects without a warrant just because you might be committing a crime is gong to raise legal issues no matter why he is doing it. There are reasons for why the Founders set up our government the way they did, those haven't changed (and are, if anything, more relevant today) and permitting gross violations of the Constitution, even for "good" reasons is, in the long run, very, very harmful.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    13. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by ryanov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not an accident that there's not as much public transit as there could be in the US. When people continue to buy houses built in the middle of nowhere in great areas of sprawl, of course this problem will exist. You'd "take the train if we had one?" Who bought your house, or otherwise moved you where you live? There is plenty of vacant real estate in cities and in rationally planned streetcar suburbs, but people bitch that "it's too small" or "I can buy a mansion out in the middle of nowhere for the same price." OK, fine, but don't then turn around and tell me that mass transit doesn't work because there are no trains where people live.

      When the price of gas finally goes up to what it should be, people will not be able to afford to travel from where they live and this problem will go away.

    14. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're switching cause and effect. The US is spread out because of subsidies to a car-based economy, not the other way around. General Motors has killed public transport every chance they got, and now your country has lost the ability to use more efficient methods of transport.

    15. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by halltk1983 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or your could keep all of the road information available in a large database, something similar to google maps, perhaps.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  3. What will cities do? by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cities will have to step up drug enforcement big time to make up for budget shortfalls, if these become common. No more traffic tickets means dramatically lower revenue for many towns.

    1. Re:What will cities do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or you know... legalize and tax more psychoactive substances once they aren't that much of a danger in the form of wasted drivers.

    2. Re:What will cities do? by santax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is true for the cops. I am also sure that everybody would be happy if there would be a lot less traffic deaths cost by human error. However - here in the Netherlands - the income from traffic violations are a post on the yearly government budget and in your country it is the same. They make millions and millions of them. If that money would disappear they will find a way to let you pay their 'missing' income in another form. They need that money, because they already spending it.

    3. Re:What will cities do? by sir1real · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is BS. The Los Angeles city council admitted that they were installing stop light cameras to make up for budget short falls. When it it did not generate the expected revenue the failure was widely reported.

  4. Re:What about unanticipatable factors? by vandoravp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Same thing humans do, watch out for them and react. Except, unlike humans, autonomous cars aren't so distractible and can react much more quickly. Also, if networked, the cars can be warned of hazards by another car well before actually encountering it.

  5. Study Bad Drivers Too? by DougF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They studied 6 drivers "with spotless records" behind the wheel. I would argue that they could gain valuable information by also studying poor drivers and teaching the program to a) avoid such behavior in it's own driving; and b) learn how to react to poor drivers out there on the road (e.g. passing on blind corners, turning without signaling, aggressive/NASCAR type diving into limited spaces, etc)

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
  6. Re:this is my dream too by Osty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you considered taking the bus?

  7. Re:Hours wasted in traffic by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A widely-available car that even properly follows laws would also save, collectively, many hours per day of everybody's time, even among those who don't drive it.

    A few seconds here because an intersection wasn't blocked... A few seconds there because a turn signal allowed some advance planning... Another few seconds because lane merges were done earlier than the last possible moment...

    Here's to the future, and hoping it comes soon!

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  8. Liability will prevent this from happening by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Companies that might otherwise be interested in bringing autonomous vehicles to the masses will be scared off by the huge monetary risks involved. Any autonomous vehicle involved in a deadly accident will result in a massive lawsuit against the manufacturer, even if the accident was someone else's fault, and even if the manufacturer admonishes the owner to monitor the vehicle's performance at all times while it's in operation. What's more, juries will distrust the "correctness" of autonomous vehicle controllers, to the point that manufacturers will lose lawsuits even when there's no real evidence that the vehicle was to blame.

    1. Re:Liability will prevent this from happening by izomiac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to wonder. Surely these vehicles will have blackboxes that record the last minute or so of sensor data in case there is an accident. The driving program would be absolutely consistent with the law and best driving practices. It would be fairly simple to blame the other vehicle as being responsible for the accident, with a fancy 3D reconstruction (according to what the computer perceived, not necessarily exactly consistent with reality) and complete rationale for every action the computer took. The human would only have their word.

      Of course, this won't happen until computers are better drivers than most humans. Once that happens, having a human driver will become the liability. After all, juries like flashy visuals and I suspect they'll favor "computers don't make mistakes" rather than distrust of new technology. Of course, they'll all think that they personally are a better driver than a computer, but that confidence doesn't extend to other people. We've all seen bad drivers and the human tendency is to think we have control over our life, so an accident was obviously caused by the crappy driver making a mistake.

  9. Think of the jobs by WrongMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving. Truckers, cab drivers, even pizza delivery. A computer can work 24/7, so even if the system costs $100,000, that's still saves money over paying for employees.

    1. Re:Think of the jobs by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving.

      It'll improve the economy by removing a large "tax" on everything that requires transportation (that is, almost everything) and freeing up the labor pool for more productive uses? By your argument we should be making self-service gas stations illegal as a job creation program. And maybe outlawing wireless meter reading systems -- those cost jobs too!

    2. Re:Think of the jobs by arkenian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't mean to be a Luddite, but if this works out, do you know what it will do to the economy? Tens of millions of jobs are based almost exclusively on driving.

      It'll improve the economy by removing a large "tax" on everything that requires transportation (that is, almost everything) and freeing up the labor pool for more productive uses? By your argument we should be making self-service gas stations illegal as a job creation program. And maybe outlawing wireless meter reading systems -- those cost jobs too!

      You laugh, but I have never observed a self-serve gas station in New Jersey....

    3. Re:Think of the jobs by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that a lot of unemployed people won't have enough money to spend on less expensive goods. I'm sure they'll take comfort in knowing all the things they can't afford are cheaper than they used to be.

      This is the problem with free market thinking. Yes, the GDP will improve. Prices will drop. Efficiency will go up. But even if all of our prices drop by 50% at the expense of 50% unemployment only a select few in the current economy can benefit from those reduced prices. Without income it doesn't matter what something costs--you can't afford it. On the brighter side you can cut the food stamps you're giving them since the grocery prices are reduced.

      The rich get richer and the poor still have nothing.

    4. Re:Think of the jobs by cduffy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He probably hasn't considered that those unemployed people will have to do something to support themselves.

      No, I think people are resourceful enough to find other legitimate employment... especially in a hypothetical world where business is booming due to cheap transportation costs.

    5. Re:Think of the jobs by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't really think we can be handcuffed for future technology because of people it might disrupt

      Nobody stopped making cars because livery owners (people who rent out and care for horses) would lose their livelihood. Nobody stopped making electric lights because candle makers go out of business. Nobody stopped building computers because it would put all the accounting clerks out of business (people paid to add and subtract for businesses)

      The fact of that matter is this wouldn't happen overnight. And in the years or decades it took to fully implement the system, people would have a chance to change employment. Some wouldn't go into trucking because of reduced job prospects, some would retire, and some would retrain. For some people it probably wouldn't be a happy move, but one of the basic tenants of capitalism is we value the net effect for society -- not whether one person might be unhappy about the change

    6. Re:Think of the jobs by selven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And all those salaries would go into the pockets of the public, which would then provide the same number of new jobs because they now have more money to spend.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

    7. Re:Think of the jobs by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are, by definition, a Luddite.

      You know what part of the economy was wreaked by cars?
      The Horse and cart business. The horse breeders, riders and the cart wheel manufacturing jobs were decimated.

      Oh, they all got different jobs? Well who would have though that a human is flexible.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  10. Profoundly? by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I doubt transportation that requires little human intervention will have as profound an effect as something that has revolutionized the way information is distributed. It's like saying automatic transmission had as profound an effect as the invention of the printing press (or radio, or television.) There is no comparison.

  11. Why personal autonomous cars will never arrive by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And these US cities have no cabs?

    Not everyone can afford to blow $80+ just to get to and from their night out.

    Question: Why does a cab cost $80?
    Answer: The driver.

    If you have cars which can drive themselves. No driver required. Therefore, much cheaper cabs.

    You only have business running costs, repairs, fuel. no driver.

    ok. so you've just blown $50k on a new personal autonomous car. What are you going to do with it? Put it in the garage all day while you work? It cost 50k, you bought it on credit, you are paying for finance. Its autonomous, it can drive itself it doesn't need to sit in a garage all day. It can carry passengers while you are at work and pay for itself.

    So there you have it. When the autonomous car arrives, it'll end up as a taxi cab. It'll put the existing cabbies out of business, and the concept of personally owning a car will also go out of the window (This will also kill the mass market for cars entirely). Why spend 50k on a personal autonomous car at all? Cabs are now cheap and will pick you up at the door.

    --
    Deleted
  12. Go CMU! by awtbfb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Urmson (PhD, faculty on leave), Montemerlo (PhD), and Thrun (former faculty) all have ties to Carnegie Mellon. Autonomous driving has been a steady effort at CMU. For example, No Hands Across America was in 1995.

  13. Re:The Official Blog by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They already tested them secretly for more than 140k miles combined. Now they've announced it. Has that announcement rippled back through the timeline to expose the secret in the past?

  14. Re:Wow! I could be so productive! by sl149q · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who thinks that automated transportation will be 100% safe and trouble free and with absolutely zero fatalities is just being stupid.

    The question is whether it can reduce in some significant way the number of injuries and fatalities incurred. We already have a very dangerous transportation system.

    The second question is how much are we willing to pay for such a system.

    And what is more interesting is that autonomous cars may actually achieve the former (many times safer) while actually reducing costs significantly.

    See here for a much broader discussion: http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/

  15. Re:also in big city areas it's cheap to live outsi by Cylix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That really depends on where you live.

    I actually live in a nicer section in a metropolitan area. Now, the rent I pay is not awful and it is not great. However, if you live outside of the city there are several additional expenses that have to be calculated. Vehicle, insurance, fuel and parking will quickly tear away at the reduced costs of living outside of the city. In fact, with my "more expensive" living conditions I actually live quite a bit cheaper then my commuter counter-parts.

    There are some various pros and cons to living in or outside of the city, but these have to be weighed by the individual and/or family. For instance, it is quite a bit less to own a home in suburbia and these areas I would consider more youth friendly. Now, in downtown the nightlife is waaaay better. In fact, it's about that time.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra