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."

38 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 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.

    5. 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'!"
    6. 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...
  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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)
    4. 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.

    5. 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"

    6. 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.

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

      Time to join DAMM. Drunks against Mad Mothers.

    8. 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."
    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 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)
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
  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.

  5. 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
  6. 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!
  7. Re:this is my dream too by Osty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have you considered taking the bus?

  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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 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.

  11. 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.
  12. (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
  13. 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
  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/