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."

82 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. The Official Blog by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's the official blog announcement since I didn't see it in the summary or article.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. 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?

    2. Re:The Official Blog by Gerzel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes. And you, TimeCop, must go back and stop it.

  2. 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 cosm · · Score: 5, Funny

      1. Automated cars
      2. Bad human drivers

      if (rearCarDriver == human)
      {
      BrakeCheck();
      }

      3. Profit! Thanks state-laws-always-faulting-driver-in-rear!

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

      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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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'!"
    7. 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...
    8. Re:Rules of the Road by Dhalka226 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but you're a self-absorbed whackjob.

      A person who doesn't want a family is immature or irresponsible? I mean really? You know what I find to be irresponsible? Some notion that a person needs to get married and have children because some lunatic on the Internet says there is a societal benefit to it. I'm sure those kids will grow up in a fantastic loving home what with their parents wishing they were in any situation other than that one. It seems like a fantastic environment to raise kids.

      Not owning a home is a result of lacking willpower against compulsion? How about the possibility that they find owning some big house on some big lot to be a wasteful use of resources (and I'm not talking about their money). How about them feeling that they don't need 3000 square feet of space to knock around in on their own, since they have yet to get married and have children to please you?

      Maybe they mooch off of people with cars; unlike you, I'm not stupid enough to pant entire categories of people with the same brush. But there's also the possibility that they simply take public transportation or walk places. Tasks which benefit them monetarily and in terms of their own health, benefit society by not contributing unnecessary pollution to the air or crowding to the streets and even benefit businesses by not making parking some huge requirement and by freeing up more money for them to spend on loft apartments and $300 shirts. But I'm sure to you they're just being unfair to all the used car salesman and mechanics and gas station owners out there by not paying their fair share into those peoples' wallets. Those irresponsible kids.

      In short? I can tell you're not young by your user ID, but I see you still haven't managed to grow up either. Your idea of a perfect way to live your life is not everybody's idea, nor does it mean it is the right idea just because you happen to be the one who possesses it. So do us all a favor and shut the fuck up. Go about your business your way and everybody else will go about their business their way. Nobody needs your smug sense of superiority, least of all you.

  3. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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. It's those situations that I would be paranoid about if the car was driving itself. The problem would be that even if the human could intervene there is no guarantee that you could intervene fast enough or if the system would even let you.

      I think eventually we will get there. I mean I trust the antilock brakes and traction control on my car but those systems are very straightforward with simple goals and it still took a long time to get them right. A car driving itself is ridiculously complex.

    2. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Fallingcow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It'd be awesome not to need a DD (or risk a DUI) to go to the bar in the many US cities with no or inadequate public transit... though I bet the MADD assholes will lobby to make it still illegal, somehow, and probably try to force a breathalyzer to turn the damn auto-drive on in the first place.

    3. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by anUnhandledException · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think a lot of it is trust and acceptance. I would be willing to start small.

      Imagine if the leftmost highway lane was designed "auto drive lane". This would greatly simplify the potential scenarios. Vehicle would only auto drive when in the auto drive lane.

    4. 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" :)

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

      Truly a cunning retort.

      MADD are assholes because they don't actually care about stopping drunk driving anymore. They care about stopping drinking. As stated by their disillusioned founder Candy Lightner, they've become neo-prohibitionists.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    6. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Fallingcow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And these US cities have no cabs?

      Not everyone can afford to blow $80+ just to get to and from their night out. I practically never go out for that reason, and because I know being a DD sucks and wouldn't impose on someone like that. I go to a bar maybe a couple times a year, but I'd be far more inclined to accompany other friends who go more frequently if the transportation weren't an issue.

      As for MADD, they have a history of pursuing policy that has more to do with neo-Prohibition than keeping people safe. I don't dislike them because they're against drunk driving--hooray for that, in fact--but because they appear to be anti-alcohol. My comment about them trying to find some way to make this technology not a legal option for inebriated transportation was serious; I bet they would.

    7. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by XanC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They're a big part of this travesty:
      The DUI Exception to the Constitution"

    8. 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.

    9. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on the driver, it's certainly true for most drivers but not all of them. Of course most drivers also overestimate their driving abilities.

      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. There is no way a computer could accurately detect these things coming from a far distance on an intercept course with you. If the driver is preoccupied with something else they won't see it to intervene either (if the driver isn't preoccupied then what's the point of the autodrive).

      Also consider sometimes you have to drive off the road to prevent an accident, no way could this system handle that. I have driven over curbs to prevent someone from hitting me and driven into a ditch and back out to avoid people in the road on a blind corner (and didn't even use the brakes because that would have compromised my steering/handling). Software would not be able to analyze the situation and find an appropriate escape route. The best it could do is slam on the brakes or whatever but often that isn't enough.

    10. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Gamma747 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If your job can be done from your car, then it can also be done from your home.

    11. 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.

    12. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Time to join DAMM. Drunks against Mad Mothers.

    13. 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."
    14. 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.

    15. 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?

    16. 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.

    17. 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)
    18. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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?

      I was going to reply to the GP but you said it pretty well. I think some people need a roomful of noisy, drunken strangers screaming at sports on a big-screen TV to enjoy a few drinks. Never really understood that, myself.

      I also agree with you about MADD. They've gone completely around the bend, off the deep end, into a bizarre, and completely untenable Prohibitionist position.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. 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.
    20. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      It also has to do with the State using highly suspect technology in order to file that DUI in the first place. The Breathalyzer should never, ever have been accepted by the government for that purpose: too many lives have been destroyed by defective, poorly-maintained, badly-designed and improperly used equipment. The same thing applies to police radar, but the difference there is that a speeding ticket is nowhere near as devastating as a drunk-while-under-the-influence.

      The State sees the things as an easy way out, and is willing to tolerate a certain number of false positives (more properly termed "collateral damage" because people can be badly hurt by a false accusation.) I don't drink and drive, but I would refuse a breathalyzer test: if the cop wants to take me to a local hospital and have them give me a blood test (with a sufficient quantity of blood drawn and stored such that my defense attorney could have the test reperformed if necessary) at the State's expense, well, that would be okay. But they don't want that: they want a simple go/no-go test that effectively convicts you, and it's very hard to argue with the results in court. That's because a machine is generally considered more trustworthy and more reliable than any human being. The fact that it may or may not be even remotely accurate is much less relevant to the legal system that it should be.

      There was a case a few years ago, where a man accused of a DUI got the court to force the manufacturer of the Breathalyzer unit in question to turn over the embedded controller's source code for independent review. It was apparently so badly written that not only did the man get off, but all the cases where that model was used had to be readjudicated or otherwise reviewed. Ohio, I think, but I'm too tired to look it up. I hope that outfit lost every government contract it had, and they should probably have been made to pay the legal costs of all the people their gadget fucked over.

      I've been a software developer for thirty years, and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow the legal system to use someone else's drain-bamaged firmware to convict me of something I did not do. Hell, I hate the fact that cars are so totally dependent upon embedded systems nowadays: makes me more nervous the more lines of code they add.

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

      The offenses for drink-related offenses are often far too lenient. But the laws deciding what counts as a drink-related offense? In just about every state, sleeping in the drivers seat of your car while you have a .08 BAC is a DUI. In some, sleeping in the back seat of your car with a .05 BAC is a DUI.

      Bullshit like that dilutes the meaning of actual DUI's, and MADD fully supports it.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    22. 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.

    23. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by hitmark · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How so? why not drill passive RFID into the road-bed that tells the car what lane it is in, what the speed limit is and so on?

      Hell, these could be deployed by a maintenance truck driving up the lane, drilling a hole and shooting down a marker ever so often.

      A cars sensors do not in any way have to conform to the limitations of the human sensory organs.

      a radar or lidar in the front, and it can detect and respond to objects appearing in the path of travel. There is no need for it to be able to tell the different between a kid, a ball or a animal. Only that there is a object there at is in, or will cross travel path, if it maintains the current direction and speed. This is something various radar systems have been doing with aircrafts for decades already, at much longer ranges than what is needed for the usual traffic situations.

      And the biggest win would be that you can in no way distract a computer. A screaming kid in the back seat, changing channel or song on the multimedia system, conversations with other passengers or callers on mobile phones. All those are distractions that can have fatal consequences if it happens at the wrong time.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    24. 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.

    25. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by wootest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The composition of the driving logic is the most important part. It can't be a big switch case. It has to be a bunch of interconnecting heuristics, constantly looking for every sign of trouble, being able to figure out context and priority of every such signal and also failing gracefully.

      There are also tough tradeoffs: It's obvious that if someone's running out in front of the car, you can't go even if the light just turned green, but if a small animal ran out in front of the car, you're doing 110 km/h, every lane is packed and you're on a bridge, you're probably best off actually continuing. It becomes an equation with a thousand terms, solved continuously.

    26. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also a car won't be drunk... or get a a ego trip over how awesome a driver they are and speed etc...

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    27. 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.
    28. Re:I wold love a car that drives itself... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't go to bars to drink, I go to bars to socialize and chase women -- it gets lonely living by yourself. But if you're in a bar, you drink.

      Happily, you can hardly throw a beer bottle in this town without hitting a tavern, so driving to a tavern here is insane. Well, driving home from a tavern -- lots of Saturday mornings I walk to the bar to retrieve my car.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  4. 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 zmollusc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah, imagine a street with a 40mph limit and a steady stream of robocars doing 39.99999mph. Just set up some roadworks and a temporary 20mph limit for 'safety'. $Ker-ching, $Ker-ching, $Ker-ching, $Ker-ching, $Ker-ching.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    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.

  5. 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.

  6. And now it all ties together... by Cylix · · Score: 4, Funny

    The reason Google was collecting wireless data was for the simple necessity of controlling it's autonomous fleet of vehicles. Eventually, these drones will sweep the nation day and night using the plethora of open access points around the nation. Our own ineptness will be our downfall as the machines eventually become self aware. Sure, it was all for marketing and advertising to earn a few dollars, but I just can't live in a future they are creating. Yes, I am talking about autonomous sales droids that watch you day and night while analyzing your garbage. They will be on the front door to pitch you a customer tailored vacuum cleaner the moment you try to escape your home. It's a truely dark future that lies in the waiting.

    --
    "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
  7. 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!
  8. Parts inside by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/10/10/us/10google3.html

    1) http://www.applanix.com/products.html
    2) http://www.velodyne.com/lidar/lidar.aspx
    4) http://www.topconpositioning.com/
    7) http://www.netgear.com/

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  9. Re:this is my dream too by Osty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you considered taking the bus?

  10. Machine Ethics - Scenario by cosm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Will it pick up hitchhikers?
    Will it courteously let people pull out who have been waiting?
    Will it flick-off people who drive 30 under?
    Will it flick-off people who drive 30 over?
    Will it flicker brights to warn of speed traps?
    Will it pull over for emergency vehicles?
    Will it draft large semis?
    Will it bring me hookers and blackjack?

    Also, who receives the citation in the event of a stop?

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  11. This is troubling, deeply troubling by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Streetnet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes on-line August 4th, 2017. Human decisions are removed from traffic management. Streetnet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the charging plug.

  12. Price of the car? by realisticradical · · Score: 3, Funny
    I can't wait until you can buy different models of cars that have different quality self-driving systems. "Buy BMW we only crash 5% of the time."

    Unfortunately I'll still be stuck with the low end Toyotas which crash 80% of the time.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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 X0563511 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... and not for any job reasons! Because politicians think people can't be trusted to handle such an immensely dangerous item as motor fuel without proper training and certification!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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

    7. 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

    8. 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!
  16. 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.

  17. They're pulling a fast one. by WED+Fan · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, I think they are pulling a trick on us. My money is on the fact that they are actually outsourcing the drivers to India. There's no computer, just drone car drivers in Mumbai, web cams, and a really fast internet connection. This could also explain why traffic patterns in SF and Mumbai are almost identical.

    And, who cares, if it can't fly, and I can't hop from my car to my 34th floor office using my jetpack, I don't want it.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
  18. (Un) Official Google Reply by webmistressrachel · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a not-so-official Google reply - "It will do no evil".

    -- Will it pick up hitchhikers?
    This is an option available in the comprehensive Android for Cars(TM) Options screen. It is set "Off" by default for passenger safety.

    -- Will it courteously let people pull out who have been waiting?
    Using a variation on BitTorrent P2P technology, Android for Cars(TM) will auto-negotiate with other Car-OSs (including Windows 9 for Cars and Linux) priorities based on waiting time and resultant collective fuel efficiency to assign priorities.

    -- Will it flick-off people who drive 30 under?

    Android for Cars(TM) will predict the path and speed of all non-AI traffic based on it's currert course and the layout of terrain ahead. It will likely overtake and ignore most slower traffic, unless there is a risk in doing so.

    -- Will it flick-off people who drive 30 over?

    Android for Cars(TM) will predict the path and speed of all non-AI traffic based on it's currert course and the layout of terrain ahead. It will likely ignore and allow faster traffic to pass, unless there is compensation to be had. See "Legal Destruction of Road Traffic" in the Reference Manual.

    -- Will it flicker brights to warn of speed traps?

    Android for Cars(TM) complies with all National and State Laws regarding speeding and speed control. Google ourselves have a "Do No Evil" policy. For both these reasons, Android for Cars(TM) will ignore speed traps and law enforcement and meatbag's reactions to them.

    -- Will it pull over for emergency vehicles?

    Android for Cars(TM) incorporates two systems which will effectively provide for this situation. First, faster moving traffic is given priority anyway, and emergency vehicles running Android for Emergency Vehicles(TM) can signal direct commands to your vehicle.

    -- Will it draft large semis?

    Google failed to understand your question. Please retype or rephrase you enquire. Back to Google Android for Cars(TM) Home.

    -- Will it bring me hookers and blackjack?

    Google Android for Cars(TM) can and will run in completely automated mode, completing assigned journeys efficiently. However, identification of such subjective things as "Hookers" and "Blackjack" will require an independent Bending Unit, a supplementary control system, available seperately from Mom's Friendly Robot Company.

    -- Also, who receives the citation in the event of a stop?

    As legal "Owner" and "Operator" of the car, you do. This is why we provide full source...

    Rachel x

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  19. The first adopters of these will be... by alispguru · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... long-haul trucking. A robo-truck could drive 24-7, stopping only for fuel and loading/unloading, and would never have an accident due to driver drowsiness or speeding to meet a deadline.

    If a robo-driver costs, say, $100,000, it would pay for itself in a few years in avoided driver pay alone.

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  20. 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
    1. Re:Why personal autonomous cars will never arrive by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not alone in enjoying my own private personalized micro-environment while being transported

      Unfortunately, I think you'll find yourself replaced by someone cheaper who pays $3 per day to be driven to and from work using an autonomous cab vs your 50k capital expense and ongoing finance servicing.

      Existing mass transit is group based and suffers some significant disadvantages vs cars and so people who make use of public transport today; cabs, buses, trains, also suffer those disadvantages. With autonomous cabs, those disadvantages go away.

      Cabs are also not economical in many suburban or rural areas as the fuel cost is amortized among too few clients (with possibly many miles of empty transportation between them).

      That is only because so many people have cars. When they don't need to own one, because a low cost cab will pick them up at a call, there will be many more clients.
       

      --
      Deleted
  21. 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.

  22. 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/

  23. Re:Why is the heck Google doing that? by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Company filled with really smart curious guys and a bunch of cash.... I think at least one or two of the Microsoft guys are involved in commercial rocketry efforts BTW...

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  24. Re:Hours wasted in traffic by bored_engineer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a delay-based definition of LOS. (There are other definitions for LOS, but I like delay best. It bears the most relevancy to drivers. There's a lot of work that goes into deciding the delay numbers, but that's a pretty good quick definition. Wikipedia has a good definition that goes beyond the HCM definition. I couldn't find any pretty pictures, but this pdf shows approximately what we mean by the different levels of service.

  25. 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
  26. I Have Seen These on The Road - Dozen Times by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

    I live in San Francisco, and work in Silicon Valley.

    Some of you know what that means - reverse commute down 280. Generally that describes the traffic - "Goes to Eighty"efarious afoot..

    These retrofitted Prius', with spinning turrets on top - like vertical-axis turbines - shoot along, between Mt. View and San Mateo. This happens several times a week, just off peak commute hours.

    I was sure they were some bizarre expansion of street-view, and commented as much, to several friends.

    I now see, this is correct. This being Google, there is something nefarious afoot... Mark my words.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  27. Re:Hours wasted in traffic by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The issue is that when you have a nonzero number breaking them, you want 40% breaking them. Too many, and it's chaos. Too few, and the few rule breakers cause larger disruptions. 40% has some asses and some who break the rules to essentially cover for the damage the asses would have done. No one should have done a study with 0%, because that doesn't exist in the US, and so couldn't be accurately studied, and if it was accurately studied, wouldn't have any applications. So doing that would be a waste of time and money.

    If 0% were to break the rules, then it should flow better than any other number (assuming the rules are changed to take advantage of the possibilities in a 0% breaking scenario), but we can't determine that until we have some way to enforce the rules well enough find out for sure.

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  28. Skynet by dokebi · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think it's suspicious that I keep trying to tag the story skynet, and it (the machine) refuses.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  29. TU Braunschweig by Kensai7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why nobody is talking about TU Braunschweig's efforts in this matter? Hell, we even have a video from them, drop Google's "secretly".

    --
    "Sum Ergo Cogito"
    1. Re:TU Braunschweig by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, apart from the fact that you're missing the "Google factor" (it's from Google!), I'd say you also have to learn how to make an interesting video. That video bored me enough that I didn't completely watch it. It didn't even have any explanations!

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  30. We can't even get this right with trains yet! by Builder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In London recently, there was a case where an automated train skipped something like 6 red signals and caused passenger trains to have to stop and wait until someone could get control back.

    This is a train, that goes on rails and can't get into too much trouble. There are limited variables to deal with, and we can't get it right yet. I don't even want to think about doing this with cars in populated areas!