Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California DMV Told Google Cars Still Need Steering Wheels

Posted by samzenpus on from the keep-your-hands-on-the-wheel dept.

cartechboy writes Google showed us what it feels is the car of the future. It drives itself, it doesn't have a gas or brake pedal, and there's no steering wheel. But that last one might be an issue. Back in May California's Department of Motor Vehicles published safety guidelines aimed at manufacturers of self-driving vehicles. After seeing Google's self-driving car vision, the California DMV has told the company it needs to add all those things back to their traditional locations so that occupants can take "immediate physical control" of the vehicle if necessary. Don't for a second think this is a major setback for Google, as the prototypes unveiled weren't even close to production ready. While the DMV may loosen some of these restrictions in the future as well all become more comfortable with the idea of self-driving vehicles, there's no question when it comes down to the safety of those on the road.

11 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Not surprising by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting
    California is playing it safe. It will take a while for us to trust the software enough to remove the steering wheel.

    In fact, it would not surprise at all if the brake itself is NEVER removed. I can easily foresee a situation where these vehicles are used to transport unwilling people, or simply undergo a malfunction and the occupant will always want the ability to stop the device.

    But I can see the steering wheel and accelerator going away completely - don't want to let untrained people having the ability to make things worse.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Not surprising by TWX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's going to depend on who's allowed to use a self-driving car and under what conditions, and even so far as what seats are allowed to be occuppied.

      I can see a tiered system where licensed drivers with a normal operator's permit are allowed to always occupy the driver's seat in a vehicle with the capability of full control. I could see a special provision of license for those who once held normal operators' permits that voluntarily gave up those licenses (elderly, poor vision, etc) so that they could basically pull-over the vehicle in a crisis. There could also be a special class of license for learners' permit operator licenses that allow the person to occupy that seat. Everyone else will be required to occupy any-other-seat unless all seats are occupied, then there would have to be conditions to allow that seat to be occupied while the controls are disabled.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Not surprising by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree, having a manual break should be required as a bare minimum.
      Even if the software is perfect, if there is an unexpected power outage, you will need a manual break to stop the car that just may be aimlessly costing.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Not surprising by rossdee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I agree, having a manual break should be required as a bare minimum."

      A manual brake would be even more useful, along with a kill switch for the engine.

    4. Re:Not surprising by Xoltri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cause of the Toyota problem was people hitting the accelerator instead of the brake. http://www.caranddriver.com/fe... So if you take away the accelerator pedal I think we're good to go.

      --
      -Xoltri
    5. Re:Not surprising by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's going to depend on who's allowed to use a self-driving car and under what conditions, and even so far as what seats are allowed to be occuppied.

      Under California law, a licensed driver must be seated in the "driver's seat", and must be paying attention (no yacking on the cell phone). These requirements won't be permanent, but at least for the first few years of SDCs, that is how it will be. Once a safety record is established, and the pubic is more comfortable with the technology, the restrictions will be relaxed. In a decade or so, cars will likely be able to drive with no people on board, or even transport children with no adult in the car.

    6. Re:Not surprising by weszz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My whole concern is you sit there for say 2 months letting the car drive itself and you sit paying attention and all is good.

      Then you go on a 2-3 hour drive, maybe to the really boring Illinois highways (just drove north on them, and yea, straight and boring) so you nod off a little or pay less attention mainly because you can, and life has been good with no issues.

      How do you know to take sudden control of the car to save your life, or can you even possibly understand and react that fast?

      Is sitting facing forward now a more dangerous position? what if EVERYONE faces backwards in these for safety (granted some will get sick doing it), or maybe you could be better protected laying down?

  2. Of course by Meneth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have they not seen "I, Robot" (2004)? Of course you need a manual override.

  3. Re:Horseless cars must accept horse harness by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Early cars were required to have a harness attachment point. Which was actually sane at the time. So is this.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Move a broken down vehicle? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If a driverless car has no manual means of steering, and if it broke down and you had to push it, how could you control it?

  5. As usual, the wrong question by taustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That Google thinks their self driving cars are ready for the open road isn't the issue. The issue is that they think they are ready to go straight from traditional cars to cars with no ability for the human passenger to take control if the new, unproven technology fails. That, by itself, convinces me that Google's judgment is flawed, and cannot be trusted. Were I making this decision, I wouldn't let Google's cars on public roads at all until they show some evidence that they understand why this is a bad idea.