Google Actually Patenting Its April Fools' Joke

theodp writes "On April Fools' Day, Google joked it was partnering with NASCAR on self-driving cars. Google Racing, the search giant joshed, had its roots in Project Caddy, which demonstrated the viability of self-driving golf carts. And in the future, Google added tongue-in-cheek, your kids will travel unattended in driverless-car car pools. Funny stuff, huh? Only thing is, GeekWire reports the USPTO disclosed Thursday that Google actually has a patent pending for driverless golf carts, as well as cars that can autonomously pick up kids from school and be switched into 'sport mode,' where 'the vehicle may navigate through turns at the maximum speed that is safe.' In addition to cars, trucks and golf carts, Google's patent application calls dibs on autonomous busses, boats, airplanes, helicopters, lawnmowers, recreational vehicles, amusement park vehicles, trams, trains, and trolleys. Google also describes how its invention will enable autonomous police cars to conduct high speed chases and give law enforcement vehicles 'a limited amount of control over nearby vehicles.' So, is the patent application legit, or did Google team up with the USPTO on a belated April Fools' goof?"

Comments

Can they do that?

[samazon]

If they're applying for a patent, it means that they must have some sufficiently viable method of producing the tech. The "limited amount of control over nearby vehicles" sounds the most ominous, considering the inability of a percentage of law enforcement to not abuse their powers. I smell the singularity brewing inside the Googleplex....

Re:Can they do that?

[ColdWetDog]

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"

(Just goes through my head when I think of this subject.)

Re:Can they do that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to imply that having autonomous cars removes human error from the equation. You are ignoring that:
A) Not all cars will be autonomous; those that aren't are obviously susceptible to human error.
B) The algorithms these cars use are still made by humans, and are thus susceptible to human error.
C) Not all cars would be on the same level of communication. It's up to humans to devise a standard, which is susceptible to human error.
D) There are always going to be humans not in cars on or around the streets, who are susceptible to human error.

Re:Can they do that?

[CAIMLAS]

They're going to have a hard time controlling all the older vehicles, too, nevermind the ones which run without any electronics (other than the battery and coil).

Oh, right - that's why they wanted to get rid of all those highly efficient older and still serviceable vehicles from the 1980s via Cash for Clunkers: you can't chip or wirelessly control a vehicle which has no computer.

Re:Can they do that?

[treeves]

So when a less-than-alert driver driving a less-than-well-maintained car is driving over the ridiculously low speed limit in less-than-optimal conditions on the less-than optimally maintained road on which you also happen to be driving doesn't end up killing you: is that worth anything?

Re:Can they do that?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That's really disappointing, given the number of auto manufacturers who could and should be given the opportunity to pursue driverless cars without a by-your-leave from Google. I mean the idea has long been around in sci-fi, look at Arnie's Johnny cab in Total Recall. And it is just an idea at this point. It would be like patenting horseless carriages or something.

Re:Can they do that?

[patchmaster]

Human error will be removed from the equation not long after humans are removed from the equation.

Not all roads are limited access super-highways. I do most of my driving on surface streets. There is sufficiently little pedestrian traffic that one tends not to think about them, and just enough pedestrian traffic that forgetting about them becomes a big problem. Until you make it illegal for pedestrians to enter the roadway, there will be humans and human errors as parts of the equation.

Re:Can they do that?

[geekoid]

Science isn't art. Please stop trying to minimize what you don't understand.

" I am a technician myself,
we got a bad ass over here!

" I mean, who else but us arrogant humans can come up with the idea that we understand "laws of nature"? "
The laws of natures are scientific laws based on current daa and understanding. Things that have been tested many, many times.

" I think it's ok not to know it all, "
Yes, nothing as warm as the blanket of ignorance.

And just so you know, human error is being removed already. many flights happen every day with no pilot interaction. Computer respond to incident much fast then people.

Re:Can they do that?

[TapeCutter]

Give that post a mod point!

As a licensed driver for 35yrs I say anyone who cannot comprehend that point and obey the posted speed limit is NOT a competent driver. Turns out any fool with lady luck in the passenger seat can push a rust busket to it's 'safe limits' and survive to drink another beer. I was definitely an incompetent driver when I was young and I fully deserved the 4-5yrs of constant legal trouble that came my way because of it. Looking back now, having seen friends and teenage children of friends die from the sheer arrogant stupidity that seems inate to young men in cars I realise how very fortunate I was not to have maimed or killed someone.

Ignoring speed limits and driving at the 'safe limits' of a car on a public road really requires the ability to accurately read the minds of everyone else around you. Since accurate mind reading requires an exchange of tea leaves we have the next best thing, road rules! There's also a licensing regime to ensure every driver knows how every other driver expects them to behave. Watch a police chase on the TV, the only reason the perp and the cops can drive like that is because the other drivers are abiding by the rules and behaving in a predictable manner. In fact when a semi-driver listening to his CB radio DISOBEYS the rules and blocks two lanes then the perp is fucked.

Now to assume every driver in day to day traffic will strictly adhere to the rules is suicidal, but knowing what to expect makes incompetent drivers much easier to spot and avoid, even when the incompetent driver is a younger more alert you..

Your's sincerly,
Crusty Old Bastard.

Re:Can they do that?

[kurzweilfreak]

Computers can make decisions much faster than people with sensors that can't get distracted. Where a human is thinking "wow, look at that hot girl as I pass her by OH SHIT A KID IN THE ROAD!!!!!", the computer will easily sense the suddenly oncoming child and automatically respond safely rather than wildly swerve out of the way while locking up the brakes. I don't see why pedestrian traffic would be any more of a problem for autonomous vehicles than any other obstacle.

Obviously that's not to say that these accidents will NEVER happen, but I'm confident that the statistic will drop by multiple orders of magnitude.

Precedent

[tool462]

It's quite the achievement turning an April Fool's joke into an actual product.

Come the fuck on, Slashdot.

[PCM2]

This is hardly a new story.