Is Google CEO's "Tiny Bubble Car" Yahoo CEO's "Little Bubble Car"?

theodp (442580) writes "Back in 2011, then-Google VP and now-Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer brainstormed with BMW to sketch out an idea she had for self-driving 'little bubbles' that could ease office commutes. Here's Mayer's pitch from a BMW film short: 'All I really need is a little bubble that drives itself and when it runs into something, it doesn't hurt that much...and...you know, like it doesn't actually take up that much fuel because it's so lightweight and it's good for the environment for that reason.' So, with Google's newly-built, steering wheel-less self-driving car being described as a 'tiny bubble-car', one wonders if Google CEO Larry Page's "Tiny Bubble Car" has its roots in Mayer's 'Little Bubble Car,' especially considering the striking similarity of Mayer's concept car sketch and Google's built vehicle." Seems to me there's been plenty of concept art (as well as actual tiny bubble-like cars, even if they generallly have had steering wheels) for car designers to draw on.

Comments

It's more Total Recall's Johnny Cab

[mozumder]

Without the mannequin driver of course..

"DRIVE!!"

"I do not understand that address"

"GO! DRIVE!!!"

OTher way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Mayer was told about the concept at Google?

Re:OTher way around?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yeah. That's even in the summary. It says "then-Google VP" in the summary. Again, this is one of those stupid articles that 's carefully worded to make it look like something completely normal is actually a terrible conspiracy by Google.

Look, if you want to make Google look bad, just point people at its search engine. That's enough. You don't have to do anything else. You certainly don't have to make up stupid conspiracies that fall apart as soon as you process the words and understand what's actually being said.

Re:OTher way around?

[gbjbaanb]

You mean Marissa Mayer didn't come up with the idea, all by herself?!!?!

Seriously, you'll be telling me these executives are just morons who couldn't tie their shoelaces without a team doing all the work behind them, while the executive pops up to take all the credit.

And then you'll tell me Bill Gates didn't write Windows all by himself either!!!

Do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

work for Apple? Just because someone had an idea a few years ago, and someone else makes it a reality years later... its a CAR, its supposed to look like other cars.

Re:Do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

work for Apple? Just because someone had an idea a few years ago, and someone else makes it a reality years later... its a CAR, its supposed to look like other cars.

It actually look quite a bit different than most other cars, but that aside, it is quite an achievement to bring Apple into this. Some people seem to be very touchy about anything that can be perceived as criticism of Google. I didn't read this as negative towards Google at all, it is just a story noting the not very surprising fact that Google's car project started when Merissa Mayer worked on it at Google and have kept some of the original ideas she promoted then.

Re:Do you...

[Anonymous Coward]

I had the idea 20 years ago. Where is my headline-

Re:Do you...

[OakDragon]

Apple was working on these "bubble" cars years ago, but Steve Jobs killed the project because even bubbles didn't have enough rounded edges.

what's wrong with public transportation?

[alen]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

lobby SF and California to build some train tracks and stops at the big corporate parks to start and build out from there to the smaller towns.

i'm all for car ownership and driving on weekends but when you have the same trip that so many people take everyday there should be a public option

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's public. It has a certain stigma. I've known people to get groped or accosted by weirdoes. Having a private bubble is just that, private.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google and others tried a similar thing with buses.
The Locals howled and picketed.
The City Government pontificated and demanded money for using publicly funded (through tax dollars) bus stops.
Google, et al, did this to provide bus transportation in the Bay Area for their employees because the infrastructure does exist to deliver their employees from their homes in the suburbs to the urban office.

You really should try to keep up with the news.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Agreed. But then all these Internet Addicts would have to actually SIT NEXT TO SOMEONE!!! Eeeew! The KOOTIES!!!!

Public transport is the answer, but the entitled class confused nature of the California Ideology squanders forward movement for the sake of narcissism. The collateral damage is massive. Example: the asshole renting a 2 BR apt at 19th and Valencia for $10,500 a month. That comes out to about $350 a day. Someone who has that kind of dosh isn't going to want to spend time rubbing shoulders with someone who pays $1000 a month to share a flat in the Sunset. It just isn't going to happen. They're both fucking peasants (one is an extremely well paid peasant) but the well paid peasant thinks he's something special. Besides, every racist knows poor people have kooties.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[cascadingstylesheet]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

lobby SF and California to build some train tracks and stops at the big corporate parks to start and build out from there to the smaller towns.

i'm all for car ownership and driving on weekends but when you have the same trip that so many people take everyday there should be a public option

1. Freedom.

2. Groceries.

3. Children.

Not necessarily in that order.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[rubycodez]

are you kidding, California is nearly bankrupt. Absurd "green" laws have made the state's resources (which could be used in a "green" way with known engineering solutions) to be increasingly off-limits and that has precipitated a slow-motion economic collapse.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[cognoscentus]

This - so much this. For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.

But keep the bubblecars for trips to rural/remote locations, and the elderly and disabled who need door to door service.

Perhaps a shuttle-type tram/train with 'pod docks' would be the ideal combination, maximising takeup, reducing stop frequency and offering end-to-end service for those who needed it.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[marcello_dl]

No, you have to stay in your bubble and swear at those human drivers and check yahoo email with android phone to get ahead in your insane work schedule designed to keep other people unemployed so they can lower your salary. With public transport you might have conversations with real people and those usually lead to some truth. Stay in your bubble.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

But keep the bubblecars for trips to rural/remote locations?

What do you mean by "keep"? You know who will decide where these things go? The fucking free market—people choosing to pay for the service of their own volition.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live we have public transportation, but it pretty much of a joke. Its a small town, no regular bus routs, you have to call ahead for a ride. Wait times are far too long and you can only have 2 small bags of groceries. Frozen stuff is sure to be ruined by the time you get home.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[drinkypoo]

Agreed. But then all these Internet Addicts would have to actually SIT NEXT TO SOMEONE!!! Eeeew! The KOOTIES!!!!

Not necessarily.

(crap, mylkeyboard ls now spewlng spuriouls pipe chalacters. sletimes in place lf a keystloke, somelimes jsut lxt to onl. lhis islabout thelweirdestlkeyboard flailure I'le ever exlerienced.l)

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Gunboat_Diplomat]

This - so much this. For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.

But keep the bubblecars for trips to rural/remote locations, and the elderly and disabled who need door to door service.

Perhaps a shuttle-type tram/train with 'pod docks' would be the ideal combination, maximising takeup, reducing stop frequency and offering end-to-end service for those who needed it.

Something like this adopted for pod cars too.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[afgam28]

All government services are based on "theft" of resources from people who don't use that government service. This includes the roads that private cars drive on, which are funded in part by gasoline taxes but mostly through non-user-pays revenue streams such as income taxes.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[ShanghaiBill]

For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.

Not true. Most public transit is not particularly efficient. Trains and buses are very efficient when they are full, but they often run partly empty. On average, they are about as efficient as two people in an average car. An efficient self-driving on-demand electric car is probably better, both economically and environmentally, and they will be more widely used because they are more convenient. Eventually, self-driving taxis will kill public transit. There will no longer be enough demand.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[DrFalkyn]

For the most part, they already do ... the penisula has Caltrain which runs from San Jose to San Francisco, and it also has light rail line which between Mountain View and San Jose

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[artfulshrapnel]

I mean, the short list? Off the top of my head this solves problems like:

- Public transit only becomes economically viable above certain volumes. Anyone in too small an area doesn't have access to it and never will.
- Sometimes public transit doesn't run where you want it to go, especially if you need to make an unusual trip.
- Sometimes people need to go places at times when public transit isn't running, or need to go faster than public transit will allow.
- Some people are disabled, and would have a hard time getting to the nearest public transit stop even in an area that supports it.

There are lots of reasons why this is a useful solution. So many people in my city (Boston) keep a car that they use about once a week for odd or off-hours trips. A solution like this would take all those cars off the side of the road and replace them with about 1/20th the number of shared cars.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. California's economy is still climbing back from 2008, and even then, we have had a 1% recession since the year started. Public roads that are not toll roads are a thing of the past before US wealth moved overseas.

Self driving cars are the only way to get transportation to suburban areas. Buses kinda work, but when they run hourly, just hopping 2-3 buses can mean 3-4 hours wasted at bus stops. Self-driving cars can save man-years of productivity.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[ShanghaiBill]

are you kidding, California is nearly bankrupt.

Even a state teetering on bankruptcy can fund boondoggles by issuing bonds payable in the far future. California is in the process of building a bullet train from SF to LA, that is budgeted at nearly $100 BILLION, and take 30 years to complete. On average, these big ticket projects run over budget by a factor of three, so it they will likely burn through $300 billion or more before it is completed, or cancelled. That will be about $10 million per seat. The projected cost of a ticket on the train is far higher than the cost of driving a car or taking a plane, so it will likely serve rich people with more money than time.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[dabadab]

Conventional public transportation has lots of problems that all are well known and most of it comes down to the simple fact that mass transport needs masses and while some part of your route may coincide with enough other people (especially in rush hours of densely populated areas) but most probably not all of it.

The driverless cars actually could be the foundation of a new generation of public transport: you could think of these bubble-cars as the atoms of a peronalised public transport.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired of all those peons that have to drive everywhere sucking off of my rich mans teat. I spit on them as I fly over their heads in my private helicopter.

Honestly, it's time for a lot of poor people to burn mansions to the ground and hang the rich assholes inside from the perfectly manicured trees.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[OneAhead]

Are you sure you replied to the right post? Because the one I'm seeing above yours says "when you have the same trip that so many people take everyday". You're from a small town? Congrats, you get to take your car everywhere. That's the way it is, even in the countries that have the best public transport. I'm all in favor of elaborate public transport networks, even if they run at a slight loss and governments have to chip in. I believe governments often recover the cost in "externalities"(*) such as decreased road maintenance and stimulating the economy. But, one needs to be a bit pragmatic; one just cannot expect every tiny town to get service to all the nearby centers every 10 minutes, else the loss is not "slight" anymore. This is just an obvious disadvantage one ought to be aware of when moving to a small town.

(*) For the nitpickers among us: note that these only satisfy the definition of "externalities" from the narrow view of the transport providers; from the broader view of the government, they are not. Hence the quotes.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[tofu2go]

Why can't these bubble cars be the public transportation option? I.e. public transportation does not have to mean mass/joint transit. Rather than predefined stops that people get on and off at at fixed times, these cars could be made available to the public at any time of day to get them where they need to go with zero stops along the way. Just pay the fare like you would a bus or taxi ride. It would be nice if you could call a service from your mobile, send your GPS location, and have them automatically send out a car too you at an appointed time. And if there is inter-car communication, perhaps these cars can automatically coordinate themselves to minimize traffic jams and further reduce transit times, and maybe they can even drive bumper to bumper (at distances that a human driver cannot do safely) for improved efficiency (drafting). There are possibilities here.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't ... everyone else support public transportation?

Because SOME of us live in places where public transportation is never going to happen.
You need to do a bit of traveling so you understand the world is different in different places.

Take a trip to Wyoming, Montana, or numerous other western states some time. You will
see vast open spaces which contain no people. The number of people in such areas is
so low that the "user base" for public transportation is much too small to even begin to
justify the expense of such things are light rail or bus service. Also, try waiting for a bus
or a taxi when it is -30 Fahrenheit, which in the northern Rocky Mountain area of the US
happens often.

Public transportation is a solution which works in some places at some times. There is NO
solution which will work everywhere all the time.

Take a trip outside of your tiny little world. It might be scary but you might also enjoy learning
things you did not know.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Lumpy]

It costs that much because of corruption.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that as though it's a valid justification...

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[rubycodez]

no, California can't do that any more, massive amounts of bonds already issued (tens of billions of dollars worth) haven't been bought yet as investors are wise to California's plight

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[phantomfive]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

Because even when public transportation is good, it still takes longer to get places. I saw a survey of drivers in LA once. Something like 70% of the people surveyed wanted improved public transportation........so that other people would take the train and the roads would be cleared for them.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll also go the final 8 blocks that public transit fails to cover. Or gets you from point A to point B without having to take Bus 1 to to point C, walk to point D, then take bus 2 to point B, adding an hour to your travel time.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[phantomfive]

Example: the asshole renting a 2 BR apt at 19th and Valencia for $10,500 a month.

I'm wondering here why you think he's an asshole. Because he's rich? Your post doesn't make that clear.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[phantomfive]

Getting from the Caltrain station to Google is a pain, though

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[ShanghaiBill]

Please give me some sort of source to your claim.

According to this page the average number of bus passengers in the UK is 9, and buses get about 6 MPG. So that is 54 passenger-miles per gallon, which is about as good as one person in an electric car, or two people in a gasoline powered car. But even that overstates the case for buses, since they drive a fixed non-optimal route, where a car goes directly to the passenger's destination, so the "miles" are not equivalent.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[joe_frisch]

It takes me 20-30 minutes to get to work by car depending on traffic. It takes an hour, with 2 changes to get there by public transit. I sometimes have to work late hours without warning - if I'm too late for the last shuttle from my workplace, I'm stuck with a $50 taxi ride.

I work at a national lab. With overhead I cost the taxpayers something like $150/hour. Would you prefer I spend an extra hour a day working or sitting on a crowded bus? I pay taxes that help support public transportation, it just doesn't happen to serve my needs.

Companies like Google that provide comfortable group transportation where people can work while they commute are the target of protests. Is the wealthy that are class sensitive, or it it the poor?

That said, a bubble car wouldn't work anyway. Since I can't use it for long trips, I would be using up another very scarce parking space where I live. Its not at all clear that owning a commute car and a normal car is an environmental win over just owning an econo-box that serves all my driving needs.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

"For popular journeys" maybe, but I have not experienced the "popular journeys" anywhere other than working in Tokyo.

A few years ago I took a new job, unfortunately it involved a commute. By car with typical SF Bay Area traffic, door-to-door one way was 43-47 minutes. I researched the mass transit options and took several trips to test it. I live close to a CalTrains station with a station relatively close to my destination. House to station, all train stops in between, shuttle to campus drop-off, and then walking to the correct building took on average 1 hour and 50 minutes. The schedule for arrival and departure was very rigid, especially in the evening. Working late was never an option.

For my situation, I gladly chose the commute by car option. Two hours of my life (on average) back each day with a significantly more flexible arrival and departure time. As for cost, that's a complicated question. Mass transit was far more than I spent on gas, but when factoring in vehicle maintenance and insurance, the car was more expensive. But given the time savings using a car in my situation, it was well worth it.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

For popular journeys, mass transit is going to be considerably more efficient.

Not true. Most public transit is not particularly efficient. Trains and buses are very efficient when they are full, but they often run partly empty. On average, they are about as efficient as two people in an average car. An efficient self-driving on-demand electric car is probably better, both economically and environmentally, and they will be more widely used because they are more convenient. Eventually, self-driving taxis will kill public transit. There will no longer be enough demand.

Around 24 million journeys are made every day on London public transport. Try to add that capacity with millions of individual self driving cars on London roads, and I'll show you a transport that won't be efficient at all.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[phantomfive]

Probably. Rich people aren't like you and me.

No, they actually are like you and me. We're both assholes.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Bing Tsher E]

Corrupt people have to eat, too, you know.

And it's just as well that we encourage as many of them as possible to locate in California, so that the rest of us can stay far far away.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because rich people at Google don't want to use public transport.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[cognoscentus]

I suppose I should have qualified my statement. I was referring to a situation where a significant fraction of people taking a journey actually choose to use mass transit to do so. From the same page:

"A commuter service in Santa Barbara, California, USA, found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg-US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg-imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger mpg; with 70% filled, 231 passenger mpg.[60] "

Additionally, it need not be combustion-powered mass transit, but rather shuttle-or-train type transport, similar to the Chinese concept mentioned above. Again from Wikipedia:

"Considering only the energy spent to move the train, and taking as example the urban area of Lisbon, train seems to be on average 20 times more efficient than automobile for transportation of passengers, if we consider energy spent per passenger-km.[57] Considering an automobile which has a consumptions of around 6 l/100 km (47 mpg-imp; 39 mpg-US) of gasoline, the fact the on average cars in Europe have an occupation ratio of around 1.2 passengers per automobile and that one litre of gasoline amounts for about 8826 Wh, one gets on average 441 Wh (1,590 kJ) per passenger-km. On the other hand, a modern urban train with an average occupation of 20% of total capacity, which has a consumption of about 8.5 kWh/km (31 MJ/km; 13.7 kWh/mi), one gets 21.5 Wh per passenger-km, 20 times less than the automobile."

Think about all the traffic jams that exist in busy cities, and how much less congestion there would be with an organised public transport system where each passenger takes a fraction of the space.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[nschubach]

It also includes whatever fluids the previous rider left...be it piss, vomit, snot, or semen. And sure... you can send it back for another, but that just makes you late.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[sl149q]

Because most public transportation is less efficient than autonomous cars.

The exceptions are very high bandwidth routes carrying a consistently high amount of riders.

Most of the time for most routes you have large, expensive, low gas mileage vehicles running mostly at a loss.

Autonomous cars will be able to work efficiently in a dense configuration where they can operate very close together achieving almost the equivalent of the best of mass transportation.

And for the rest of the time (probably > two thirds) they are simply more efficient than pretty much any other alternative.

Autonomous cars also optimize for peoples time. The latency of your travel (time to get from a to b) will be lower. Since you don't have to walk to the closest bus stop, then take the local feeder bus to mass transit, then switch and wait for that, etc. You get picked up at home, and read your paper or work on your laptop until it drops you off at work.

Finally, building this out doesn't require mega-investments by local or state or federal governments. Since autonomous vehicles will re-use the existing road network (and more efficiently at that) multi-billion dollar investments in public transit lines won't be needed. Just encourage adoption of autonomous vehicles. As the old fleet ages out and the new one rolls out it becomes more efficient in its use of the road network.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[cognoscentus]

I have experienced the same sloth, albeit on fairly full buses. 1 hour to get 8 miles. Why? Because the bus stopped every 5 minutes to drop people off. It wound round nearly every single estate in town. Even though the volume of traffic on shared routes would support many more alternate services with fewer stops, if everyone were to abandon their personal vehicle.

Of course, that's a big if.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Self-driving cars are superior to public transport and regular cars in many ways. A long line of self-driving cars can drive like one long flexible vehicle - like a train with rubber wheels. Except any segment in the train can go its own way if the occupant needs to go elsewhere than the rest of the train. Self-driving cars are like a train that goes from your front door to where ever you need to go and where you get your own compartment. These compartments can be centrally routed to maximize the capacity of the road network. You can own your own compartment, so if someone trashes their compartment or takes a dump on the seat, that won't become your problem. They can park themselves more compactly than regular cars - the doors do not need to open when parked and you can box the cars in with other self-driving cars that will get out of the way to retrieve the boxed in car. Self-driving compartments can drive on the already existing road network. Granted, even these small bubble cars are not as dense as a fully loaded bus or train, but it's not like buses and trains are usually fully loaded anyway. If we can replace all the current cars with self-driving compartments, that will be a huge boon to everyone (well, maybe except professional drivers).

To answer your question, what's wrong with normal public transportation is that it doesn't go from where I am. Once I somehow get to a stop I have to wait for the next departure. Efficient public transportation is fully loaded, which means you get to be packed in with a mass of bodies - you don't enjoy that either. Once I arrive, I have to somehow get from the stop to where I want to go. So now I've wasted a bunch of time doing something unpleasant and I STILL need to find an alternative transport solution to get to where I actually want to go. Self-driving cars solve all these problems and more.

In the mean time, Google does support public transportation in SF.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't public transportation become self driving cars. It can drop you off at work and uber itself and come get you at the end of the day recharged,
maintained and clean. A good portion of cars on the road are just looking for a place to park.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[zr]

whats wrong with [public] transport carrying a single person (or a small group) from exactly where they are to exactly where they want to be?

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Rockoon]

So public transport is more efficient so long as we declare that its more efficient?

Nice.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Aighearach]

Well, slap a yellow light on the top and it might be able to provide a much, much cheaper taxi ride.

This would also be great for car-share programs.

If the costs get pushed down, and they're being built as commodity devices and not model-of-the-year, then it might even make sense to go the next step and operate them as public transit. They deliver you to your destination, and then instead of driving in a circle like a bus, they drive to spread out to be available for the next person. There is no reason for public transit to have to be a big bus with open seating. Something like an enclosed golf cart for local trips would be fine, and for longer distances, you might transfer to light rail in the middle of the trip.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Aighearach]

I know math is hard, but being at the end of your credit isn't the same as being out of money, or in a state of economic collapse.

Certainly failing to invest is the worst thing you can do in that situation.

Blaming '"green" laws" is kinda silly. You might investigate that and find some numbers before believing in it. I mean, unless you heard it on AM radio, in which case it just has to be true...

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Aighearach]

Eventually, self-driving taxis will kill public transit.

Not if they're owned by the local public transit organization. ;)

This is the future of public transit for people who insist on transportation freedom. It will be like an electric magic carpet. Instead of whistling out the window, and stepping onto the magic carpet as it flies up to the door, you just enter your destination on your phone/tablet, and the electric bubble drives over from the neighborhood underground automated parking.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Aighearach]

Think about all the traffic jams that exist in busy cities, and how much less congestion there would be with an organised public transport system where each passenger takes a fraction of the space.

A swarm of electric bubble cars could also prevent those traffic jams by using traffic-aware re-routing. That is really easy for computers, but humans are better at following known routes. Humans wait until they're stuck in traffic and then it too late to change the route. Computer cars with good sensors can also drive much faster when packed tight, by accelerating in unison. Humans add 1-2 seconds of delay for each car in a line that has to start moving.

A few bubble cars will just be more cars on the road, but lots of bubble cars means improved vehicle efficiency. And with electric, you no longer lose power idling.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[QRDeNameland]

All government services are based on "theft" of resources from people who don't use that government service. This includes the roads that private cars drive on, which are funded in part by gasoline taxes but mostly through non-user-pays revenue streams such as income taxes.

Which "non-users" would those be? Even among those who do not own a motor vehicle, how many of them buy no products or services or otherwise engage in the modern economy; or rely on no public services like fire depts, ambulances, police, post office, all of which are dependent on those roads to function?

Unless you are living a more off-the grid lifestyle than Dick Proenneke, you can not honestly claim to be a "non-user" of the road system.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[immaterial]

That's kind of the point - government services are (should be) to the benefit of society as a whole, and since we all live together in society, we all reap the benefits even when it isn't immediately obvious. People without children may complain their taxes fund schools - but those schools allow them to live in a society where even the poor are educated enough to have decent prospects (instead of falling to desperation and crime), where employers can expect a decently educated workforce, etc. Even if you're a rich man driving a private limo everywhere (in the strict, immediate sense a non-user of public transport), public transportation reduces traffic for you, reduces pollution for you, and ensures that the poors who shine your $1000 shoes can get from home to their shoeshine stations.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[jklovanc]

My commute in my car is 10 minutes. By bus it would be 40 minutes plus a 5 minute walk, often in the rain. That is an extra hour and ten minutes a day if I rode the bus. I used to work in the suburbs. I missed a bus one night. It took me over three hours to do what would be a 30 minute drive. Another time I needed to go to a suburb on a Sunday. It would have been a 35 minute drive but it was a 2 hour bus trip. Buses run infrequently to keep riders per bus up and make it look good but they also waste a lot of people's time waiting for those infrequent buses.

If I can afford a car I will be driving a car.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't public transport do what I want?

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Jeremi]

are you kidding, California is nearly bankrupt.

No, it isn't.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, California productivity and taxes carry the rest of the country which is failing even harder.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Guspaz]

Public transit is slow. It takes me two to three times longer to get anywhere via public transit than to drive there... and I live in the downtown core of a major Canadian city.

Why is it slow? Because on either end of the journey, I have to walk to/from the public transit stop, then I have to spend time waiting for the bus/train to arrive, then it stops frequently on the way to my destination, and I also possibly have to wait for transfers between busses/trains... The trains come infrequently (only three trains per day on Sunday) and accelerate very slowly (they're not light rail), the subways have a max speed comparable with a go-cart, and the busses are rarely on time.

The alternative is a taxi, which will get me there in a fraction the time, but costs me between five and twenty times as much.

Hopefully, short-rental self-driving cars will be a good middle ground: faster than public transit, cheaper than taxis.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[flyingsquid]

Unless you are living a more off-the grid lifestyle than Dick Proenneke, you can not honestly claim to be a "non-user" of the road system.

Even the Unabomber used the U.S. mail...

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Guspaz]

Bubble cars could also enhance public transit. You could use them like park-and-ride, only without the problems of parking.

And in terms of cost, well, owning a car is super expensive... $150 a month just to park the thing in your apartment building, then there's insurance, gas, maintenance, lease...

I bet that you could get a lot of bubble car trips for the cost of owning/storing/using a car...

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

A short-rental self-driving car is a taxi that does not need a human driver, which is why it _can_ be cheaper. But it's still a taxi, right?

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[cognoscentus]

No, we declare it more efficient with perfectly spherical, rational humans operating as a coordinated whole. It would be nice to believe this sort of cooperation could be a naturally emergent behaviour but city planners exist for a reason.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Guspaz]

Sure. Call it a driverless taxi... If it gets me there faster than public transit, and costs less than a regular taxi, I'm sold.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Please give me some sort of source to your claim.

According to this page the average number of bus passengers in the UK is 9, and buses get about 6 MPG. So that is 54 passenger-miles per gallon, which is about as good as one person in an electric car, or two people in a gasoline powered car. But even that overstates the case for buses, since they drive a fixed non-optimal route, where a car goes directly to the passenger's destination, so the "miles" are not equivalent.

So ... us "bitter clingers" with our icky big families in our minivans have that beat by a country mile :)

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[rubycodez]

hardly, about 11% of agriculture, and nothing they make can't be bought elsewhere

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[rubycodez]

Math is easy, California is near the end of their ability to pay interest on their massive credit.

Blaming "green" laws is exactly what mainstream economists analyzing California are doing.

I know, you're probably a patriotic resident of the land of fruits and nuts and like to think of your state as some independent super-state in the world

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom, Groceries or Children. Pick two.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[schlachter]

don't u see that these cars ARE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION?
they're not MASS TRANSIT, but they would awesomely form the backbone of next gen public transportation.
Tens of thousands of these guys can be on the road, using minimal fuel, picking up people and dropping them off for a fare.
you could make larger versions for main routes, but small ones would suffice for most uses.
they will support at least 2x density on the roads bc they will tail each other super close...maybe they can even link up to each other at times.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[nickberry]

Sure, tell me how mass transit is going to be the solution for the midwest? I drive 40 miles one way to my job every day. And there's all of 5 other people that live where I do, and drive to the town I do. Next problem none of us work the same hours.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google buses are private.
They have AC, wifi, and restrooms.

What they don't have is the right to stop a private vehicle at a public bus stop to load and unload private passengers.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[radarskiy]

"why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?"

Because that is damned dirty communism.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[bjwest]

Besides, every racist knows poor people have kooties.

TIL poor people are a race of their own.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like you got your 11% figure from the official CDFA statistics pages, which quotes 11.3% by the way. It's significant.
Puns aside, you fail to mention that California is the single largest contributing state to U.S. Agriculture. And that 11.3% figure is 42.6 billion dollars. If all that California produce up and vanished, your pocketbook would notice.

Be less stupid.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about just replace all that shit public transport with a fleet of tiny self driving bubble car.

And if you're caught vandalizing one - it just doesn't let you out and drives you right to the police station.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who want cars, will have cars.

Here in holland, nearly every household has a car in one of the most densely packed countries on the planet - on a sq km basis 4x that of China and equal to China if you only take their arable land. In numbers that's 13m people over 18 which is the driving age, and 9m cars.

Our cars have a base price that's higher than the US. In addition we pay a standard 21% VAT tax at time of purchase, and a 8% special car tax. Then every quarter we pay a road tax based on the weight of the car. This for my 3000lb 2001 BMW is about €1000 per year. And then there's gas. Which is at current exchange rates, $8.78 per gallon. And I still drive 70 miles per day.

Ownership isn't as high as the US because a lot of households have only 1 car. This is because we generally choose to live biking distance from one person's work while their partner drives. So the lesson is... stop living so far from work. Get a flat near one person's work and let the other drive. Stop being so damn attached to cars, and for the people that do want cars because they make 20k per month... let them. Just let them pay the real costs of it.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[AmiMoJo]

1. Freedom.

2. Groceries.

3. Children.

You take your children to work? Everyone does a major grocery shop during their lunch break? By "freedom" do you mean the freedom to sit in stationary traffic for an hour a day, breaking in all that lovely PM2.5, or something else?

Public transport is not designed to meet all your needs, just the needs of a lot of people making similar journeys while largely unencumbered.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[AmiMoJo]

Because even when public transportation is good, it still takes longer to get places.

That isn't good public transport. Good public transport is faster than driving yourself once you factor in time wasted in traffic and looking for a parking space, and costs far less. The problem in the US is that you really don't have any good examples so you think it must always suck. Decades of building cities to be unsuited to public transport doesn't help either. Try living in Japan or any number of western European cities for a while.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

why can't ... everyone else support public transportation?

Because SOME of us live in places where public transportation is never going to happen.
You need to do a bit of traveling so you understand the world is different in different places.

Take a trip to Wyoming, Montana, or numerous other western states some time. You will
see vast open spaces which contain no people. The number of people in such areas is
so low that the "user base" for public transportation is much too small to even begin to
justify the expense of such things are light rail or bus service. Also, try waiting for a bus
or a taxi when it is -30 Fahrenheit, which in the northern Rocky Mountain area of the US
happens often.

Public transportation is a solution which works in some places at some times. There is NO
solution which will work everywhere all the time.

Take a trip outside of your tiny little world. It might be scary but you might also enjoy learning
things you did not know.

I used to catch the school bus in -40C weather in Canada, what is wrong with -30f? To be honest though, places where the population density is too low (like semi-rural and country towns), a fleet of autonomous vehicles would be the best form of public transport. How often would everyone want to drive somewhere at the exact same time where a fleet of 20 such autonomous vehicles not be enough?

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Gavagai80]

Well at least people are getting much closer to spherical, if not rational.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[geekoid]

I actual know a lot of rich people; through marriage.

Guess what? the vast majority of them are just like you and me.

Funny how you call them an asshole as a blanket statement; that kind of makes you an asshole.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[geekoid]

Those two thing are not related. Prop 13 is why Ca. is Bankrupt.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[geekoid]

It cost that much becasue it's a huge engineering and land problem.

The rest of you post just indicates you can't actual thing about paying off over decades ans some how thing,it need to be paid for on the first trip.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[CountZer0]

Sounds like you are referring to 'mass transit' ie: commuter trains. Not 'public transit' ie: busses

Public transit is routinely used for ferrying children and groceries. In fact, in many municipalities, that is its majority use. Additionally, there is a significant stigma associated with its usage in many areas. I haven't used it personally since I was a teenager in Denver, but judging by those whom I see waiting at bus stops, the patterns haven't changed much in 30 years. People who cannot afford cars use the bus. Often with carts full of groceries and strollers filled with children. Add in non-optimal transit patterns and scheduling issues, public transit is viewed by most as the transit choice of last-resort, only to be used by those unfortunates who have no other choice.

I use mass-transit daily to commute via train to Manhattan for work. Commuter trains mostly solve this issue fairly well, although there are still issues around scheduling and quality of service (ie: my 90 minute commute is only a 90 minute commute if I am able to leave work at exactly the right time. Get held up for 5 minutes on my way out of the office and I get to sit at Grand Central Terminal for 30 minutes waiting for the next train, turning it into a 120 minute commute).

In major cities (Subway in Manhattan, The Underground in London, Tokyo's subway system, etc) there is a hybrid solution that actually works well, being used both for mass transit and public transit. These options generally have minimal delays (5 - 10 minutes between trains, max) and service all types of commuters. Of course, these types of systems are only feasible in areas with sufficient density of population and commercial interests and should really be viewed as exceptions rather than a model to be adopted by all regions.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[SecurityGuy]

Because it's awful, that's why. I can either drive myself in 30 minutes, or sit my butt on a series of 3 buses for an hour and a half, and that doesn't count the time walking to or from the first bus stop. Sometimes it's hot out, so I'd get to the office all sweaty. Sometimes it's cold out, so I'd be cold waiting at the bus stop. Getting in my own car and driving is just so far and away a better solution. That's why.

The solution is not to convince everyone that riding public transportation isn't actually pretty bad, it's removing the problems with private transportation. The only thing public transportation has going for it is that it's cheaper and better for the environment. So make cars cheaper and better for the environment.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Chalnoth]

Google actually does support public transportation. They're paying some $6.8 million to fund a San Francisco public transit program, for example.

Honestly, the big problem with public transportation isn't companies like Google. It's racism and classism. Here's a good article describing how racism has crippled Atlanta's public transportation and exacerbated the effects of this winter's snow storm, for example.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering how much energy it costs to get 9 UK bus passengers to Santa Barbara, CA.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[phantomfive]

Good public transport is faster than driving yourself once you factor in time wasted in traffic and looking for a parking space, and costs far less.

See, this is the thing: public transportation is only comparable to driving if you make driving more miserable. If traffic is bad, and parking spaces are expensive, then public transportation is better, but it's not because public transportation is better.

And even in Tokyo or Madrid a taxi is more convenient unless the train goes exactly to and from where you want to go. And in places where a bus passes every five minutes because he population is dense enough, a car will still get you there faster.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[mspohr]

Asshole is not really very specific. Actually, I think they are greedy entitled bastards.
I'm sure they are nice to you in person. Of course, that doesn't say anything about what they really think of you.
It's just that to get and keep large amounts of money requires a greedy, entitled mindset and their behaviour towards the peasants is usually focused on extracting money from them or denigrating them as lazy, etc.
Occasionally, they will undertake "charity" with a small part of their wealth. These are usually projects which stroke their ego such as the "arts" or church or some pet project. They would never give away enough of their wealth to cause them any discomfort. They always choose "deserving" recipients who share their values.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[wolja]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

lobby SF and California to build some train tracks and stops at the big corporate parks to start and build out from there to the smaller towns.

i'm all for car ownership and driving on weekends but when you have the same trip that so many people take everyday there should be a public option

Look at the start up costs of light or heavy rail vs a more energy efficient car especially for areas where Public transport is spotty or non-existent.

Building driverless bus lanes would be a good idea but the Nimby's would shoot it down initially. The start up costs are still very large.

Re: what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

California holds 11.9% of the US population, so California is a net importer of agricultural products.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have road taxes in US? Here in India, less than 10% of road tax collected goes to road, they say.

Re:what's wrong with public transportation?

[Laura Ammaniti]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

lobby SF and California to build some train tracks and stops at the big corporate parks to start and build out from there to the smaller towns.

i'm all for car ownership and driving on weekends but when you have the same trip that so many people take everyday there should be a public option

1. Freedom.

2. Groceries.

3. Children.

Not necessarily in that order.

Try to get kids to kindergarten/school, go to work, on a way back to get some groceries, get the kids and their backpacks, go home, feed them, get them to the ballet/football practice... and all that by public transportation.

that raises (not begs) the question:

[Anonymous Coward]

is it me not giving a shit or is shit not giving it to me?

Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ugly anyway.

This is what it should look like:
http://weknowmemes.com/2014/05/dear-google-self-driving-cars-should-look-like-this-meme/
(K.I.T.T. - from 1982)

or at least something more futuristic:
(Peugout Moovie - from 2006)

Re:Who cares?

[rubycodez]

how about this, or is this 1942 car too futuristic? http://www.inautonews.com/six-...

Re:Who cares?

[SourceFrog]

Kids today think everything is new.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're all fucking hideous anyway!

Tiny Bubbles????

[Ralph Spoilsport]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Re:Tiny Bubbles????

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad they don't have the Dean Martin versions there. Seem to recall him doing more then one version of the song virtually without changing a word. Crooning it in a melancholy manner, his drunken alcoholic routine, in a manner similar to Don Ho's performance there and perhaps more. Been a few decades,,so...

Wonder if the majority of the public eventually goes with "self-driving vehicles" that open container laws can be dropped? If there is a "self driving vehicle" that has an internal combustion engine fueled with alcohol, can it be charged with a DUI? Charge it with resisting arrest for not following the officer's instructions? "Close your eyes, lean back,,,,now touch your nose."

Law of headlines

[rasmusbr]

Betteridge's law of headlines says no and the summary pretty much nails it.

The bubble shape maximizes the amount of internal volume given an amount of materials, or minimizes the amount of materials needed to make a car with a given volume. Take a bubble and attach crumple zones front and back and you have the shape of a typical car. I suppose the idea is that these self-driving cars won't need crumple zones. We'll see about that...

Re:Law of headlines

[OneAhead]

Well, if you add aerodynamics to the equation, the bubble suddenly isn't that favorable anymore. And then there's stability and, as you already brought up, safety.

That said, I fully agree that the only sensible answer in "no". Striking similarities? What striking similarities? Google's car looks much more like a Smart than like Mayer's concept, and Smarts have been around (and copied) since 1998, 13 years before Mayer made her "bubble car" sketch. Slow news day?

Re:Law of headlines

[PapayaSF]

I suppose the idea is that these self-driving cars won't need crumple zones. We'll see about that...

Indeed. In fact her statement "when it runs into something, it doesn't hurt that much" is oddly ignorant: your vehicle running into something is part of the issue, but something running into you is the other part. You do not want to be in a "tiny bubble" when a truck or SUV or bus hits you.

Re:Law of headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Drive slow enough and you don't need crumple zones (assuming you're not hit by non-homogeneous buses, trucks, SUVs, Ferraris doing 185, etc...)

Re:Law of headlines

[martin-boundary]

You do not want to be in a "tiny bubble" when a truck or SUV or bus hits you.

How curiously short-sighted of you. The "you do not want to be in a 'tiny bubble' when a truck or SUV or bus hits you" is a statistically insignificant period of time spent in a state of unhappiness. The vast majority of time aside from that, novbody cares.

Cardiff

[johnsie]

Cardiff city in Wales were planning to have driverless taxis. The project was cancelled though because committees. http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

Bubble cars have been around since the 1940s

[Viol8]

This type of design seems to be news only to Americans. You could call the current Smart car the descendent in spirit of those early cars due to its profile and 2 seater layout. In fact I believe there are even electric Smarts for sale now and unlike Googles car which look like something designed by a 5 year old girl, they don't look too bad.

Re:Bubble cars have been around since the 1940s

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad had a Messerschmidt when he was 17. It as relatively inexpensive, and could be registered as a motorcycle since it had three wheels. My grandmother referred to it as the 'mess o shit'.

Re:Bubble cars have been around since the 1940s

[DigiShaman]

A golf cart would be safer. At least the bubble would keep the dead sack of meat in one place upon impact. Or would it?

Or maybe

[meerling]

Or maybe it's based on about 70 or 80 years of sci-fi that describes the same thing.
(Mostly written, but there are some drawings, paintings, and videos that have those.)

I know it's hard to find, but you really should check out some of the really old sci-fi from the 1900s. You'd be amazed what they wrote about in the 20s, 30s, and 40s.

Re:Or maybe

[rubycodez]

no, there were real bubble-shaped electric cars from 70+ years ago

Key phrase being "then-Google VP"

[Anonymous Coward]

Any ideas she came up with and developed while at Google are property of Google, like with most tech companies.

Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

On one side we have an actual prototype. On the other a napkin sketch.

In both cases it is a common device. I do not give a F#ck about who thought of the self driving bubble car first. Unless there is a good point about a technical innovation from it's implementatino on either side that the other side actually is infringing I can only see this as a symptom of a broken patent system.

If this was a century ago and I had heard that Ford had made a newfangled automobile called a truck and that maybe someelse had thought gee... wouldn't it be a gas if I could haul more stuff in the back of my spiffy vehicle and Fred down the street had made a similar thing I would not have cared.

Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[SuperKendall]

why can't google and everyone else support public transportation?

I like public transportation to some degree, but self-driving cars are WAY more useful.

They could really get anyone from anywhere, to anywhere. With public transport you might have to arrange a few transfers, defiantly have to figure out how to get to a pickup location. And it may not go very close to where you want to go.

But a self-driving car solves all those issues. If you think longer term, you could even have self-driving public transports that took a group of people going to roughly the same place to where they wanted to go with a few stops along the way.

So getting self driving cars working helps public transport as much as private transport...

Re:Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[Nemyst]

This.

Self-driving cars would open up an entire new kind of public transportation. Instead of having large buses which are only ever used at capacity for very small time slots and which must follow pre-planned routes that are almost invariably inefficient for the users of said buses, you could have extremely granular transit where people could just enter their desired destination and time, and they'd get processed into the network of self-driving cars for the most efficient route possible. Minimal time lost, minimal fuel usage (if the car's not used, it just parks instead of looping like a bus), almost-ideal saturation, precise start and end points.

As it is now, I'm taking the bus and it's taking between 25 and 75% longer than by car. Moreover, I still have to drive to the bus stop because it's much too far to walk and connections are hilariously bad (think adding an hour for what's a 5 minutes ride because of mismatched departure times). Public transportation based on self-driving cars would mean I'd be able not to own a car at all while being nearly as fast as if I had one. You'd see a much faster adoption if public transit worked that way.

Re:Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[schlachter]

self driving cars are public transportation. they are public transportation 2.0. they make it cheap enough to run individualized public transportation.

people and companies may own these first batches as they perfect them, but the ultimate model will be public or leased transport. no need/desire to own/park/maintain these machines.

Re:Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[RicktheBrick]

I live in a small city of around 10,000. In my lifetime, I have seen virtually all of the commercial business move from the city to just outside of it. There are big box stores with parking lots with more area than the stores. Just by eliminating the parking lots, it would save half of the area needed. By timing things well, one could even have the products be unloaded from the trucks to the self driving cars and totally eliminate the need for the stores. One could totally use all of the space in a store as one could store items 20 feet above the floor with very narrow isle. Robots would retrieve the items. So I see self driving cars reducing our need for commercial areas by at least one half. When we decide that building underground will save energy and life, than self driving cars will be so much easier to program as there will be almost nothing to get in their way. So I can see eliminating around half of our transportation needs, thus giving us a lot more idle time that we will have to fill with something.

Re:Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also the other major issue with today's public transportation that self-driving cars solve. The "I work nights" issue. It's simply not cost effective to run public transportation all day, even in some incredibly densely populated cities (eg: Boston). So when you either work evenings and come home late, or you work nights and need to go to work, you have to pay for an incredibly expensive cab.

Hopefully self-driving cars make for cheap cabs some day.

Re:Self driving cars offer way more advantages

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming that everything I need from the big box store fits in that little self-driving bubble, which I assure you is not reality.

It's a PRT

[Animats]

Lots of little shared-use autonomous pod cars running around? That's a PRT, a Personal Rapid Transit system. The idea has been around for decades, and a few prototype vehicles have been built. Older designs were rail based. Later designs used guideways, but the vehicle had some steering smarts. The latest designs steer themselves, but still use dedicated roads. Nothing much has been deployed, except for a few small systems at airports and fairs.

Re:It's a PRT

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Nope, no one has ever thought of light weight cars that have collision safety concerns ever. It is revolutionary, considering the Paradox car with one big door and was designed to fling passengers as far as possible in a collision.

All Cars

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much look the same

Another Timothy community building exercise??

[Jmc23]

Can we please stop with all the childish spoon fed 'discussion' builders.

We get it, you want the newbs who like the shiny to feel at home, but you're just pissing everybody else off by intentionally lowering the topics and quality of discussion!

Yeah, total brainstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the bubble cars in Logan's Run.

Why does it still looks like a car?

[houghi]

This reminds me of when the first automobiles were made. They looked like coaches without the horses.

These look like cars without a steeringwheel. Why not start completely from start. e.g. people facing each other, so they can see each other.

Re:Why does it still looks like a car?

[Bing Tsher E]

So they can barf on each other, rather than on their own lap? Or is it only the half of the people facing backward who do all the barfing?

Hmm, why not be really creative and have the passengers stand on their heads?

Re:Why does it still looks like a car?

[Anonymous Coward]

because motion sickness.

Re:Why does it still looks like a car?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buses and trains have seats facing backwards. I don't see people barfing on them. (except for on Friday nights)

Tiny little death-traps

[kheldan]

Sounds to me more like 'little rolling coffins'. Why not make them bio-degradable as well so when something screws up and a dozen people get killed, you don't even have to bother prying them out of the damned things, you just dig a hole in the ground and drop them in? Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that getting into a box on wheels that you have NO direct control over is a bad idea? At least with trains and buses there's someone at the controls, even if it's otherwise automatic, who can override the system if there's a problem, but this? No thanks. I can't be the only one who thinks it's a bad idea.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me more like 'little rolling coffins'. Why not make them bio-degradable as well so when something screws up and a dozen people get killed, you don't even have to bother prying them out of the damned things, you just dig a hole in the ground and drop them in? Honestly, am I the only one who thinks that getting into a box on wheels that you have NO direct control over is a bad idea? At least with trains and buses there's someone at the controls, even if it's otherwise automatic, who can override the system if there's a problem, but this? No thanks. I can't be the only one who thinks it's a bad idea.

Most smaller cars are orders of magnitude safer today (curtain and dash-mounted air-bags, crumple zones, drop-away engine mounts) than cars made even 10 years ago.

They may look ugly to you, but the new VW Bettle has one of the highest safety ratings for a car of it's size due to that bubble shape.

These cars will likely be mandated to be safer. After all, you're not controlling it. If something goes wrong, it could go VERY wrong and you have no control to stop it. DOT should be considering that as a factor in the safety ratings floor.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[Threni]

Turn that around, and look at the number of deaths on the roads. Once this becomes the norm people are going to say "what?! you let any f**ker just get in a car and drive...unaided...what if they're old and blind or with slow reactions? What if they're off their face on drink/drugs? What if they're going too fast in the fog and there's an accident they can't see?" It's going to be considered pretty hilarious.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[dave420]

You have two choices when answering this question - assume you know best and go with gut instinct, or look at the statistics and make an informed decision. The statistics show that your gut instinct is wrong - humans are not made to be drivers, as our "sensor package" was designed to run around jungles being scared of movement in bushes, not to control a heavy machine travelling at decent speeds.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[kheldan]

Listen, buddy (and everyone else who is taking the opposing viewpoint, here), it comes down to CHOICE: Why are you advocating giving up yours and everyone else's CHOICES? Why are you advocating not having the CHOICE to control the vehicle you're riding in? Why are you CHOOSING to give up that control to someone you've never met and will never meet? What it comes right down to, is: I don't believe you for a minute. I think you THINK this is right and you THINK you'd be OK with it, but you're wrong, you would NOT be OK with it when it comes down to it. Either that or you've somehow been made into forever a child that would rather have some 'adult' make your decisions for you. In my world, at least, 'being an adult' means making your own decisions, taking care of yourself, and taking responsibility for your own actions, especially when you make a mistake. Me? I've been driving for ~35 years, and have only ever been in an accident that was my fault ONCE. Note that that 35 years includes 10 years with nothing but a motorcycle, and by the way I have all my original bodyparts, no prosthetics, so you can't say that I'm the typical shit driver you find littering the roadways these days. At late 40's I'm still riding a motorcycle almost daily, and drive a pickup truck with a 5-speed stick. I am NOT interested in someone taking away MY choice to be in control of the vehicle I'm travelling in -- and I do NOT believe for a moment that I'm alone in that, or that I'm the only man left on the planet who is actually competent to operate my own vehicles safely. So, then: Who are YOU (and anyone else who shares your viewpoints) to decide for ME that my ability to choose should be taken away?

I steadfastly maintain: 'Autonomous' vehicles should always maintain a set of manual controls, which may be used at any time, for as long as the operator of the vehicle wishes to use them. Period. Not negotiable.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[kheldan]

Once this becomes the norm..

You're making an assumption that it will ever be allowed to 'become the norm' at all, which I and many others believe will never happen. I'll ask you the same question I asked to someone else who commented: Why do you want to give up your ability to choose, and more to the point, where do you get off thinking it's OK to take away MY or anyone else's ability to choose? How do you feel about it when someone else takes away YOUR choices? Do you really think that's right?

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[SecurityGuy]

Why do you want to give up your ability to choose

Because I truly believe someday cars like this will do a better job than I can, and will let me do things I'd rather do than drive.

Why do you want to give up your ability to choose, and more to the point, where do you get off thinking it's OK to take away MY or anyone else's ability to choose?

I think it's like smoking. I really don't care if you go home and smoke all you want, just don't make me do it with you. If we someday get to a point where there are 2 kinds of cars, automated ones that almost never get in accidents that are their fault, and conventional cars that crash as much as they do now, I don't get why we shouldn't phase out the dangerous ones.

I guess I see you as being like the annoying neighbor who thinks he has a right to let his dog run around off leash. So long as it stays in his yard, fine. When it chases or bites me, not fine. If you can keep your self-driven car from hitting anything else, fine. You can't.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[kheldan]

If you can keep your self-driven car from hitting anything else, fine. You can't.

I've proven year after year that I'm a competent driver that doesn't cause accidents (which debunks your 'dog' analogy), yet, again, you're mroe than happy to take away MY choices just to satisfy YOUR desires. You sound like a jerk that just doesn't like dogs, regardless of whether or not they're behaving themselves. Good thing that people like you don't get to decide for everyone else, you're obviously the exact wrong sort of person to be allowed that sort of responsibility. Your 'dream' will NEVER become a reality.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[skinymike]

Since you are keen on showing your age, let me use a reference you may understand - "Come mothers and fathers Throughout the land Don't criticize What you can't understand Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is Rapidly agin' Please get out of the new one If you can't lend a hand For your times they are a-changin'" - bob dylan. I get what you are saying but if this has a chance to better humanity why not try it? for every day YOU weren't in an accident there 10000+ people who were

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[SecurityGuy]

Actually, I have 3 dogs. I just don't let them chase people.

I hate to break it to ya, but you live in a world where your actions affect other people. It just doesn't work to say "I'm going to do what I want!" and have me say the same thing when we want opposing things. There has to be some compromise. Or someone has to lose. I don't know a better way to handle that than majority rule. To be clear, I'm not proposing some sort of dictatorial regime where I or someone else gets to make that choice for everyone. I think it should be a consensus. If and when enough people want human driven cars off the roads, yeah, I think it should happen.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[kheldan]

But, see, it's not going to happen. At least not anytime soon, because it won't be as safe as you think it will be.. Do you have children? Ask yourself: Would you really put your child(ren), alone, in a driverless vehicle, and send them off to Grandma's house? Or would you think it would be better for an adult to accompany them? You could argue that airlines allow unaccompanied children aboard flights.. but in that case flight attendants (adults!) are made responsible for them. Computerized passenger mass-transit aircraft are a more-or-less mature technology, can take off and land all by themselves even (most dangerous times for any aircraft), and the systems involved have multiple redundancies -- yet there's still a human pilot and co-pilot aboard, with a full suite of manual controls. Why? Because there's always a chance of it falling out of the sky and killing hundreds of people. Trains, for all I care, could be 100% computer controlled. The SF Bay Area's BART system was, and still is, designed that, way -- yet there are human operators because something can and sometimes does go wrong with the system. Automobiles aren't and shouldn't be any different: there should always be a set of manual controls, preferably with mechanical linkages to the steering and braking systems, that can completely override the automatic system at any moment, and the State should always require a licensed driver to be at the controls at all times. Same reason: You can't program for ALL circumstances or emergency situations. Also, what if, like some have commented elsewhere, you just want to 'drive around' for the fun of it? Literally randomly? You can't program that any more than you can write a program that creates a master-class painting or other art, either. Finally, I personally believe that humans being required to learn fewer things and fewer skills is not good for us as a race, it's making us lazy and less intelligent overall. We're becoming just a race of Consumers, rather than Makers and Builders, and that's heading down a dead-end street if I ever saw it. Also, on a more personal note, you can take away my motorcycle when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands, thank you very much. Also, as a side note, what about, as some have pointed out, bicycles? Are you going to take those away from everyone, too, just because they're operated on public roads? I think not.

Current legislation mirrors what I'm claiming should be: Manual controls, licensed drivers only. Consensus says that's the way it's going to stay. Please do enjoy your full autopilot mode if and when it becomes available (at dramatic cost, by the way, it'll never be cheap), but you'll just have to put up with that nasty 'ol steering wheel in your way.

..and for the record: I don't own a dog, and I don't 'do whatever the hell I please and screw everyone else', either, so don't get the idea that IDGAF about how I affect everyone else -- but at the same time I'm not going to let 'majority rule' dictate how I live my life, either. In this case: We're either the master of our machines, or they are the master of US, and I'll be damned if any machine is going to rule ME.

Re:Tiny little death-traps

[SecurityGuy]

But, see, it's not going to happen. At least not anytime soon, because it won't be as safe as you think it will be.. Do you have children? Ask yourself: Would you really put your child(ren), alone, in a driverless vehicle, and send them off to Grandma's house?

Ok, that's fair. If it's not as safe as I think it'll be, then I don't want it either, and you and I don't actually disagree at all. My entire argument is conditional and predicated on that. IF and only if automated transportation is significantly safer, I want it. If it's ridiculously safer, by which I'm thinking 10 to 100 times safer or more, yeah, I don't want you to have a choice. Or at least I want to be able to travel on a different set of roads than you do. Maybe you're the best driver ever, but I see plenty of idiots every day, and I see 3-5 accidents a week on my 20 mile, mostly interstate commute.

And yeah, absolutely I want to put my kids in a driverless vehicle if they have many fewer accidents per mile than I do. I don't see it as any different than putting my kids on a plane. I *feel* safer driving them. I'm in control. I trust me. Nevertheless, they're statistically less likely to die going from A to B on a commercial airliner, so I relinquish control and let them be a little safer.

I really don't see it as giving up mastery at all. I hope to get in a car someday and say "drive me to work", then take a nap or read a book. My car will still be absolutely my servant, I just won't have to help it out so much.

Wonder who the...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am wondering how the corporate life insurers feel about this??

Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing nobody else has ever thought of this stuff before. Ever.

CEO in a Bubble

[bayankaran]

Marissa Mayer is the same class as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and others. They are going to remembered for blowing up their own organizations. What all these nincompoops have in common is a "severe lack of imagination". There is no cure for that.
She's is right about the bubble...she's in one.
The cheapest car in the world - TATA NANO - failed to make a mark. The other bubble car - Mercedes Smart is a failure in every sense of the word.
And the Google bubble car will be as popular as Segway.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[Lumpy]

Are you nuts?

The SMART is hugely popular and has been so for over a decade. In europe they are one of the most common cars seen on the roads. It's the bullshit that the USA forced on it that makes it a failure in the usa. The SMART is safer than most cars made in the USA, but they had to add a lot of useless safety crap to meet US regs designed to stifle importation. Europe and Canadian safety regs are good, but US regs are designed to stifle importation of cheap cars.

Then they did stupid shit like not importing the Diesel model that get's well over 60mpg. it sells rapidly in Canada, but you cant buy on in the USA. Maybe if the US regulations would allow a real SMART here the ones that sell for $7800 NEW in Europe they would sell like freaking hotcakes as they would be the most affordable car sold and have a market that is huge.

Instead we have only a handful of dealers so anyone that buys one has to have it serviced 150-400 miles away. They choose to not buy one because Mercedes is stupid and will not let the cars be serviced at a standard Mercedes dealership.

Lastly, they took so long to get it here, they got stomped on by toyota. the iQ is all the car the smart is with a dealer network to get it fixed all over the place. Plus it has a huge advantage of being built in the USA so they can side step all the roadblocks that were in front of the SMART. But the iQ is overpriced at $17,000. It's a $9,000 car and the morons at Toyota refuse to sell it as such. Instead they pile all kinds of extra crap in it to try and justify it's sky high price tag. Same problem as the Smart. Overpriced because the executives are too stupid to know how to price a tiny commuter car so that it sells like hotcakes.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[mean pun]

... The other bubble car - Mercedes Smart is a failure in every sense of the word.

For a failure it is doing remarkably well. Here in Europe it has now been for sale for more than a decade, and there are no signs that its market is collapsing. It's true that not everyone is driving it, but if that is the benchmark, nowadays all cars are failures.

And the Google bubble car will be as popular as Segway.

The Segway also doesn't look like it will go away in the near future, it has found a few niches (e.g. getting around fast in large buildings such as airports and shopping malls, and guided tours for tourists).

Also, Google's bubble car is just an experimental platform for now.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[drinkypoo]

Overpriced because the executives are too stupid to know how to price a tiny commuter car so that it sells like hotcakes.

No automaker wins a race to the bottom. Every automaker wins a race to the top, because there's more profit on cars with added bullshit. They don't particularly care about the people.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[SourceFrog]

To be fair, Yahoo was already in trouble before Marissa took over. She was tasked with a turnaround. Sometimes companies fail to 'turn around' for no reason other than they no longer offer much value to the market that isn't served elsewhere already. Carly, on the other hand ..

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[SourceFrog]

It's true, I've seen those SMART cars all over Europe - and yet, they still look silly.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[Jeremi]

It's true, I've seen those SMART cars all over Europe - and yet, they still look silly.

As a Smart owner, I won't disagree -- I'll just note that there is something to be said for looking a bit silly. Taking yourself too seriously is a recipe for dissatisfaction.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Marissa Mayer is the same class as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and others. They are going to remembered for blowing up their own organizations.

Not at all. Fiorina took a company that could have gone either way and ran it into the ground. Whitman left eBay running pretty well, and it's still quite profitable; she might even be helping HP today. Mayer took over a sinking ship and has done nothing to prevent it from going under.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[DaTrueDave]

I don't understand why anyone would want one of those little SMART cars with their horrible gas mileage. They only get around 35 mpg. A 300 horsepower Ford Mustang gets around 30 mpg. That's ridiculous when you think about it.

If you want a truly "green" car that gets good mileage, wait until the Elio starts rolling off the line (next year?). 84 mpg in a $7000 American made two seater.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[phantomfive]

The SMART is safer than most cars made in the USA

That's probably overstating the safety case. The small size hurts it a lot in terms of safety

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[Archimonde]

I actually wanted to buy the damned thing, but I was stunned that it has such a poor gas mileage. I talked to two owners and read a lot online and the car definitely isn't austere.

Went and had a go in hybrid Toyota Yaris, and the thing was loud, wobbly and glacially slow. I went with Volkswagen Up and couldn't been happier.

Re:CEO in a Bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart is damn popular. Just not in your bass ackwards neck of the woods the rest of the world likes to call the United States of Retardation.

Besides the Smart for two and Smart for four, here are a few other "failures": Original Mini, New mini, Toyota iQ, old Fiat 500, new Fiat 500, Citroen 2cv, Oh and let's not forget the original VW Beetle. or the Volkswagen Polo.

As for your comparisons of CEOs... Whitman did a phenomenal job at eBay. Or did you forget that under her eBay actually grew during the first dotcom bust and ended up dominating online marketplaces and payments? the cost-cutting Whitman, and Fiorina, are disasters, granted. No defence for Fiorina. But for HP, there's little choice. HP has to be de-bloated before returning to growth. I also find it interesting that you immediately put her in the same category as other female CEOs. That tells me something about you. If you wanted value-destroying CEOs I would have earlier chosen Mark Hurd, John Sculley, or Kenneth Lay.

And the putting Mayer in the same category as any value-destroying CEO is just ignorant. She's turning around Yahoo and giving the company more purpose than they've had since the first 5 years after founding.

Hmm-Google is Testing the Bubble Car on Seniors

[theodp]

Don't get into that Google bubble car, Grandpa! Didn't your read this? :-)

Yahoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Never invented anything of worth.

Bubble cars...

[fustakrakich]

I like it!

Bad idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

They should go with squares so they don't get sued over them being too curvy.

Woody Allen

[Anonymous Coward]

Created the idea in "Sleeper". Self driving, egg shaped cars. EOS.

Fuck beta

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop forcing it on us.

Why do they need seats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Driverless but with seats?
What is the point of these things?

Jealous much?

[mmell]

Just thought I'd ask. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with.

How do you feel about the opposite sex, or people of different ethnicity than you?

Re:Jealous much?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Example: the asshole renting a 2 BR apt at 19th and Valencia for $10,500 a month.

Please not the definite article the. May be Ralph Spoilsport is talking about a very specific person renting a 2BR in 19th @ Valancia.

Re:Jealous much?

[mspohr]

Getting rich and being rich are behaviours which are observed across all ethnic boundaries.

All that is wrong with Business

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost everything that is wrong about our society, and about Business in general, and "hot" companies in particular, is summed up in the 1st sentance
On what planet is a CEO with a tech background remotely qualified to brainstorm a new car design ?
That she thinks she is is all that is wrong - she thinks she knows it all, and as a result, does all sorts of things where she has no special insight or understanding, just like a host of other CEOs

The Messerschmitt KR200

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200
As seen in the movie Brazil.

The Peel Trident springs to mind, too. Everything old is new again...

Solution = trains + small battery motor cycles.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Presently people think one has to drive all the way or ride public transport all the way. That is why the solutions are unsatisfactory to most people. Trains are incredibly efficient in carrying payload, they are very good for longer distances without stopping. A gallon of fuel for some 450 ton-mile of pay load. The additional cost of carrying both the passenger and his/her battery car/motor cycle is not too much.

Rethink rail transportation. Design small battery powered motor cycles, one or two riders, with some 30 or 40 miles range, with some moderate protection against rain. Drive it some 5 or 10 miles to the train station and board the train with the motor cycle. Train serves only the main trunk route, with stations spaced 5 miles apart. Get off the station and ride the last few miles to work. Such a solution will be very attractive lots of commuters.

Such an urban mass commute transit has the potential to slowly create inter city train services for such small personal vehicles and their riders. At some point it could grow into a national transportation network of trains bearing 80 to 90% of journeys. The first 5% and last 5% of the journey will be done on personal vehicles. For longer distance inter-city journeys, the savings on tolls, wear & tear, gasoline, car rental at the destination, avoiding motel stays along the way etc will make it quite cost effective to pay for taking a small personal vehicle on a train. It will be quite attractive to lots of people. There will always be people who need or want a full sized pick up truck. But all those people who are currently driving econoboxes, they will happily switch to lower range low cost personal battery vehicle, if their long distance travel need could be met.

Re:Solution = trains + small battery motor cycles.

[Anonymous Coward]

There will always be people who need or want a full sized pick up truck. But all those people who are currently driving econoboxes, they will happily switch to lower range low cost personal battery vehicle, if their long distance travel need could be met.

Based on what logic? If all those people would happily drive motorcycles then they'd already be doing so.

Road Trains

[Marrow]

I think we need to have stations where you drive your electric vehicle into the station and it gets linked in a line to a tugboat device that pulls it into the city. Then you are separated and can go park your vehicle. The battery you need is only to go from station to destination.
The tugboats could run on dedicated roads. The tugboat could even charge you through the link.

how do these work in snow?

[Anonymous Coward]

that will be funny to see. at least when you crash it won't "hurt that much"

then you stand by the road until (????) saves you

it's still Google's

[Anonymous Coward]

When you work for a company, you get paid and they get your work. You don't get to own your work unless you've taken the risks of running your own business or have special conditions.

The new tech bubble

[SourceFrog]

It's the bubble bubble.

Marissa Meyer should hand them out for free

[gelfling]

To all the thousands of Yahoos she forced to stop working from home.

No - Google's has advanced beyond napkin sketch st

[itomato]

A wishful thought (with a happy countenance) vs. an actualized prototype?

Simpsons did it

[antifoidulus]

They are both just copying Homer Simpson

Bubble Car Tautology

[PaddyM]

Google's car reminded me of Steve Urkel's car, which is in fact a BMW Isetta, so maybe this is BMW's Isetta revisited?

Google IP?

[Anonymous Coward]

If she was brain storming with BMW when she was still working for Google as a Google employee, this is Google's IP, not MMs. If she was doing it as a side that's a different story, but I see no actual story here. This is simply tech media pandering to create a controversy where there isn't one.

I must have my comment threshold as an AC too low because I haven't actually seen anyone comment about this.

some of my questions !!

[jamieeloran2110]

my question is will those who are not allowed to legally drive in the first place, such as those who are medically prohibited because of such conditions as Epilepsy, be allowed to operate these kinds of cars? and Do you know the kind of world, the options, this kind of car would open up to those of us who are not allowed to drive a conventional vehicle? This would be astonishing..