Slashdot Mirror


Dispatch From the Future: Uber To Purchase 2,500 Driverless Cars From Google

First time accepted submitter Dave Jurgensen writes "Uber has said it will be purchasing 2,500 of Google's self driving GX3200 cars to be used around America. They are hoping to have their first set of driverless cars on the road by the end of the year. From the article: 'Uber has committed to invest up to $375 million for a fleet of Google’s GX3200 vehicles, which are the company’s third generation of autonomous driving cars, but the first to be approved for commercial use in the U.S. The deal marks the largest single capital investment that Uber has made to date, and is also the first enterprise deal that Google has struck for its new line of driverless vehicles.'" Update: Yes, this is a piece of speculative fiction.

4 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Don't wanna be first... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My guess, the list of people waiting on organ donors will get longer.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. Re:Jeez, did you even READ the article? by Thruen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm seeing a problem with internet news...
    http://www.designntrend.com/articles/7363/20130826/report-2-500-google-robo-taxi-driverless-cars-will-take.htm
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2402047/Would-hail-cab-driven-ROBOT-Rumours-Googles-self-driving-cars-day-form-robo-taxi-service.html
    http://www.efinancehub.com/uber-has-decided-to-invest-up-to-375-million-for-google-inc-nasdaqgoogs-gx3200-sedans/122229.html

    There's more, too. How scarey is it that this is being reported as news elsewhere based on an article from TechCrunch that opens with a date ten years in the future in bold letters? They didn't just not investigate, they didn't read the article they then based their own articles on. At this point, I'd be surprised if it wasn't on Fox tonight.

  3. Re:Don't wanna be first... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not that this will stop anyone the first time the car backs over a kid, despite their excellent safety record.

    The Google cars have backup cameras, radar, and bump sensors. They have been specifically designed and tested to not run over kids/pets while backing, under many different light and weather conditions. So your scenario is very unlikely to happen.

    A much more likely scenario: After self driving cars are common, some human driver backs over a kid, and people ask why we should continue to allow humans to drive.

  4. Re:Don't wanna be first... by Rogue974 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A quick search reveals this:

    http://mashable.com/2012/08/07/google-driverless-cars-safer-than-you/

    And their math says 165,000 miles per accident for a person.

    This one below says 5.7 crashes per million miles driven for women and 5.1 crashes per million miles. That gives you 175K or women and 196,078 for men. A bit off from the first, but not too far off.

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml

    There are a few other links. So while you say 300,000 miles without a single at fault incident is not that good, it is almost twice what people do from the articles I can find.

    While having any accidents will trigger panic and people screaming how terrible this is and how it should be banned, if people examine the data it says that at the present 300K we would reduce accidents by nearly 30%-50%. If it goes to 600K without an incident, we just reduced accidents and deaths to 25-30%% of what they were.