Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fully Driverless Cars Could Be Months Away (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Real driverless cars could come to the Phoenix area this year, according to a Monday report from The Information's Amir Efrati. Two anonymous sources have told Efrati that Google's self-driving car unit, Waymo, is preparing to launch "a commercial ride-sharing service powered by self-driving vehicles with no human 'safety' drivers as soon as this fall." Obviously, there's no guarantee that Waymo will hit this ambitious target. But it's a sign that Waymo believes its technology is very close to being ready for commercial use. And it suggests that Waymo is likely to introduce a fully driverless car network in 2018 if it doesn't do so in the remaining months of 2017. [...] According to a report on The Information, Waymo's service is likely to launch first in Chandler, a Phoenix suburb where Waymo has done extensive testing. Waymo chose the Phoenix area for its favorable weather, its wide, well-maintained streets, and the relative lack of pedestrians. Another important factor was the legal climate. Arizona has some of the nation's most permissive laws regarding self-driving vehicles. "Arizona's oversight group has met just twice in the last year, and found no reason to suggest any new rules or restrictions on autonomous vehicles, so long as they follow traffic laws," the Arizona Republic reported in June. "The group found no need to suggest legislation to help the deployment." According to the Arizona Republic, a 2015 executive order from Gov. Doug Ducey "allows universities to test vehicles with no driver on board so long as a licensed driver has responsibility for the cars and can take control remotely if the vehicle needs assistance." Waymo is getting ready to take the same approach.

160 comments

  1. No more pedistrains? by saccade.com · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...the relative lack of pedestrians.

    Let me guess: the "extensive testing" took care of that problem.

    1. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you a "C" on that attempt at humor.

      As a resident, I'll tell you that it has far more to do with 100 days a year of 100+ degree weather, and another two to three weeks worth of 110+ weather.

    2. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thoughts and prayers.

    3. Re:No more pedistrains? by zaft · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I live in Chandler and the Waymo cars are everywhere. I mean, I see them several times a day. And the article is right, we have wide streets, good weather and few pedestrians.

    4. Re:No more pedistrains? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a "C" on that attempt at humor.

      As a resident, I'll tell you that it has far more to do with 100 days a year of 100+ degree weather, and another two to three weeks worth of 110+ weather.

      I think you mean "100 days a year of 100+ degree weather including two to three weeks worth of 110+ degree weather".

      100+ includes 110+.

    5. Re:No more pedistrains? by zaft · · Score: 1

      Agreed but you would then need to say 120 days...

    6. Re:No more pedistrains? by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      The whole Phoenix area very badly needs less asphalt, more shade trees, and taller buildings.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    7. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luddites were right. The horseless car is nigh. We are the horses.

    8. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I take a afternoon walk in mid-town Phoenix most days and it was pretty oppressive when the temp was just below 120F for half of June.

      Just a little bit of shade cloth and misters would make a world of difference, but all of the buildings are locked down and the landscaping is Xeriscape with just a few Palo Verde trees here and there

    9. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who endures these temps in the summer, there is a reason the OP specified 110+...big difference not just for humans, but machinery out in the open.

    10. Re:No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like my last IT job the programs running the car will be tested in production.

    11. Re:No more pedistrains? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2

      The whole Phoenix area very badly needs less asphalt, more shade trees, and taller buildings.

      The self-driving vehicle thing will take care of that, too. Once they're a well established means of transportation, the next logical step is to make them fly. Eventually there will be little need to have asphalt everywhere, and that land can be reclaimed and/or replanted. And the savings on the infrastructure will be substantial.

    12. Re: No more pedistrains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Tempe and have seen them everyday for over a year in different iterations. Usually at least 3-4 times daily.
      They seem to drive themselves fine. They do take left turns rather sharp right next to the yellow lines, but I'm sure it goes wider if a car is in the way.

    13. Re:No more pedistrains? by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      No need. The Phoenix area natives are fine with that temperature, the ones who have problems with it are the wildlings. Admittedly, we've been so overrun with wildlings over the last 20 years that natives are now somewhat rare here. I'm a native and I keep my apartment at 82 degrees during the day to stay comfortable, and I start to get cold at or below 78 degrees. The wildlings, however, get hot at 77 degrees, so every fucking office around here is put at 72 degrees to accomodate the wildlings. Wikipedia says that the only room temperature range suitable for human occupancy is between 59F and 77F, which just goes to show that wikipedia is biased in favor of wildlings.

      If you doubt what I'm saying, go to any of the i10 on/off-ramps during July; you'll find plenty of people with expensive shoes holding up cardboard signs that say "I need money" under direct sunlight. Wildlings won't do that in a place like this.

      Besides, GP is wrong. The Phoenix metro area started out as many separate towns that were very far separated from one another for almost a century; just over 30 years ago there was wide open desert between each city...and then the wildlings came and drove up the housing costs. Just for comparison, the Phoenix metro area is roughly twice the landmass as the Los Angeles metro area, and has under a quarter of the population. That, combined with the fact that mas transit is impractical here (everywhere you try to bore a tunnel here is going to be either underground lake or bedrock) means that everybody here owns a car, even if its a total piece of shit.

      Likewise, we have some of the best designed roads anywhere in the US.

  2. Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    But won't be. I'm 28 (and healthy) and I doubt we'll see widespread driverlese cars in use within my lifetime.

    1. Re:Could be by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I'll bet that you will see them in your lifetime.

      I'm thinking that we're looking at about 20 years before driverless cars consist of at least half of traveled miles, assuming that the research projects don't hit a showstopper problem.

    2. Re:Could be by losfromla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I too disagree, I'm conservatively estimating that about 10% of cars will be driverless in about 20 years time (+/- 5 years). My guess is that a lot of these will be fleet or co-op owned vehicles.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    3. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be reasonable! Imagine for a moment that a company has developed a sophisticated system that uses cameras and sensors and a high speed network connection to an up-to-the-minute accurate database about nearby road conditions, and this system can identify hazards like ladders and ignore irrelevant objects like empty plastic bags, and all of this can be adapted to a standard fleet car with minimum hassle. That company has solved some of the most challenging problems known to mankind - arbitrary object recognition, automated situational awareness, nothing short of artificial intelligence itself!

      Having solved those problems, it makes sense for that company to leverage those advances to operate a fleet of autonomous taxis. What better use for this revolutionary technology?

    4. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the headline is correct and fully driverless cars could actually be (240, give or take) months away?

    5. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a better chance that within your lifetime it will be illegal for a person to manually operate a vehicle or, perhaps face the death penalty for running red lights

    6. Re: Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My prediction is most new cars will have near-driverless (level 3) capability by 2035. Then, most new cars will be driverless by 2045. A majority of cars on the road will be driverless by 2060 due to vehicle turnover. So basically if you live to be 72. You will see it.

    7. Re:Could be by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Waymo's self-driving cars work by having an extremely detailed 3D map of the area in which they are driving (important details like the height of the curb are included). With such a detailed map, self-driving is easier. You don't have to do object recognition of things like stop-signs, you know where they are. If there is an unknown obstacle detected, the car can stop. It doesn't have to distinguish between pedestrians and trees, because the trees are all mapped out.

      If Waymo wants the car to leave that small, well-defined area, then they have two options: map the whole world (at a much, much higher quality than Google maps), or develop new algorithms for self-driving cars.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first contruction zone not on this map will cause serious problems with this approach. Same for an intersection that had the traffic flow changed.

      The correct approach is for the car to rely on what it gets from the cameras and only use the map for navigation. But this also means, that the car has to be able to understand what it gets from the cameras and that's the problem.

    9. Re: Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An accurate 3D map isn't going to do a whole lot of good in the aftermath of a widespread natural disaster like a hurricane with all of the road debris, and no electricity, which might make it difficult for the car to receive updates from the server if local cell towers are not functioning.

    10. Re: Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because this technology might not properly work (by not work I mean the car would slow down or stop) in an extraordinary scenario that is very unlikely to happen in most places of the world, we should not embrace it?

    11. Re:Could be by houghi · · Score: 1

      It might make it seem easier if everything is detailed, but you still need to have enough algorithm to know if things are there that should not be or if things or not there if they should be.

      You can't have a car stop, just because some person places a box too close to the road for trash pickup and the AI is not smart enough.

      And what should it do if the tree is gone? Did it not see the tree, or is it really gone or is there something else going on? What about a street light? That can be gone, because of an accident and then replaced 3 months later.

      So having a detailed map will not exclude a very good AI, but a very good AI can do with a very basic map. Have you seen paper maps? We where able to get where we needed to get, regardless. A better map made it easier, not impossible.
      I have traveled half over Europe with a car and no map. And I killed nobody by accident that I know of.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    12. Re:Could be by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      They said we'd have flying cars when my grandfather was a kid, by the time he was an adult it hadn't happened. He was born in 1913. They also said that when my father was a kid. He was born in 1949. They said that when I was a kid too, that was ~40 years ago. And people have also been saying driverless cars, robots that will do everything and a life of ease that we'll never see.

      Serfs might have worked harder, but they had a hell of a lot more leisure time then we do. I doubt we'll see driverless cars within the next 40 years. Hell even the trucking companies who've run trials with driverless trucks are finding that while the workers complain, they still got a better return. If we see a demand for driverless stuff it'll be there first, especially since there's a huge demand for drivers in north america and not many people wanting to do it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Could be by b0bby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the summary hints at it, but in TFA it states it outright:

      The company has built a real-time command center that allows self-driving cars to "phone home" and consult human operators about the best way to deal with situations it finds confusing. The ability to remotely monitor vehicles and give timely feedback on tricky situations will be essential if Waymo hopes to eliminate the human driver from its cars.

      So they are taking a hybrid approach, at least initially.

    14. Re: Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you brush of extraordinary scenarios. Vsauce did a video a while ago about coincidences. It was basically about how often incredibly rare things happen. He ends the video by saying "the truly extraordinary day would be the day that nothing extraordinary happened". This really is true. It's all covered in the probabilities of rare things in very large data sets.

      Basically, what I'm saying is, these systems not being able to deal with extraordinary situations is a huge problem, because they'll be dealing with extraordinary situations thousands of times a day.

    15. Re:Could be by gnick · · Score: 1

      They said we'd have flying cars when my grandfather was a kid... And people have also been saying driverless cars...

      I don't get it. Driverless cars are HERE. They need work before we can say confidently say they're safer than humans, but we have prototypes driving around. These aren't illustrations in "Future Now!" magazine; these are actual, moving, autonomous car prototypes.

      Hell even the trucking companies who've run trials with driverless trucks are finding that while the workers complain, they still got a better return.

      For now. Early adopters never see the highest ROI, but I'm more confident than you that these human truck drivers are endangered.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    16. Re:Could be by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No you don't see any driverless cars. All the "driverless" cars have at least one driver/engineer in them, usually two. Autonomous driving is a joke and is decades away, if it ever arrives.

    17. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is a driverless car any less driverless because it's carrying human cargo that never touch the wheel?

    18. Re: Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. After moving from Arizona to Utah I see driverless cars all day on I-15. There is a person sitting where a driver should be, but that person is not a driver. Otherwise I can't explain the things they do.

    19. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have flying car prototypes. Something that *looks* like it works (ignore the man behind the curtain) is not the same thing as something that works from a practical perspective.

    20. Re:Could be by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I didn't expect this to become relevant so quickly

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Could be by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's problematic. Waymo right now has a (relatively) limited AI, with some very good maps of some areas (Arizona is one of those areas, apparently). The interesting question will be whether that combination is good enough to do better than human drivers.

      Apparently we're going to have a live experiment where we find out.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    22. Re:Could be by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      I'm 28 (and healthy) and I doubt we'll see widespread driverlese cars in use within my lifetime.

      Really? When do you plan on dying? The advantages are so ridiculously enormous that it's inevitable.

    23. Re:Could be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The advantages are so ridiculously enormous that it's inevitable.

      Adults should not be allowed to say this kind of thing in public. Hovercraft are vastly superior to cars, the advantages are so ridiculously enormous that widespread hovercraft use is inevitable.

    24. Re:Could be by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Driverless cars are HERE.

      They aren't here, that's the thing. Those prototypes still have people in them, they still run red lights, still hit people, still drive off the road. Take one into downtown Toronto and it would be in an accident in 8 seconds.

      For now. Early adopters never see the highest ROI, but I'm more confident than you that these human truck drivers are endangered.

      It has a negative ROI, just like electric trucks do. The problems that persist in driverless cars exist in those trucks too. My favorite case being the truck that got lost, the one that drove off the on-ramp, and the other one that got into on-coming traffic. They aren't even close to prime time deployment. Hell they can't even backup a trailer into a dock, shunt drivers still do that work.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Please tell me... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 2

    ...how is this ride-sharing?

    --
    Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    1. Re:Please tell me... by losfromla · · Score: 2, Funny

      It picks me up on the way to work, notices that you're also going the same way, picks you up, drops me off, picks up someone at my workplace going somewhat in your direction, drops them off cause they're on the way and you're good on time, then drops you off.
      P.S.
      Before you get mad about getting dropped off last, my co-worker is super-hot and single and thought you were kind of cute and had a good sense of humor. My co-worker has a thing for chubby neck-beards ;-)

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    2. Re:Please tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not... no more than they weren't a taxi service avoiding regulations before.

    3. Re:Please tell me... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How will they keep the cars from being trashed?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Please tell me... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      If that's so, then congratulations Silicon Valley, you've just invented a new ride-sharing service previously known as the bus! (Only without the friendly, personal touch that you get with a human driver).

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    5. Re: Please tell me... by losfromla · · Score: 1

      You didn't catch that this was an on-demand just-in-time custom route? This is nothing like a bus, much more like a very optimized taxi.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    6. Re: Please tell me... by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      You haven't been out in the world much have you? Busses that are more like taxis = marshrutka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... share taxi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and if you want a proper integrated city transport system, Helsinki seems to be doing it right: https://www.theguardian.com/ci...

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  4. Arizona is a great petri dish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the self-driving cars mow people down, it’s just Republicans, so who cares?

    1. Re:Arizona is a great petri dish by amiga3D · · Score: 1, Funny

      As long as one of them is John McCain it's all good. Jeff Flake would be a plus.

  5. Always be prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jetpacks, shields, airflow, ... 9__________)==fill-in-the-blank

    1. Re:Always be prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hundreds of miles per hour into crowds of pedestrians.... ok yeah unleash this bitch

    2. Re:Always be prepared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to rocket smak into these assholes. watch me

  6. Massive payouts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jump in front of these things for a massive payout.

    1. Re:Massive payouts. by losfromla · · Score: 2

      Not any more than pulling the same jack-assery on a meat-bag driver. Don't forget these are literally mobile data gathering systems. It will accurately record how maliciously(and awkwardly) you threw your three hundred pounds of cheeto smeared mountain-dew dribbled slovenly self in front of its nicely maintained chassis.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    2. Re:Massive payouts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You seem to think I am going to let it hit me. I'm not. I know how the computer works, and I know how quickly the car stops. I won't jaywalk in front of a human because they might hit me. But the computer will go into maximum breaking, and throw all the occupants up against their belts, while everything not nailed down careens into the windshield, with surprising regularity and accuracy.

      The kids playing frogger on my commute at 55mph on the expressway are going to love it. No more standing on the median getting honked at ... just walk! The car will stop.

    3. Re:Massive payouts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I won't jaywalk in front of a human because they might hit me.

      AI on the other hand records a video of you braking the law and reports you to the police, possibly getting your name from facebook with facial recognition. Do you really think you can just break the law and not get into trouble, just because the AI can prevent the danger?

  7. Check list. by BrookHarty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Check list.
    * Favorable weather
    * Well-maintained streets
    * Lack of pedestrians.
    * Everyone driving slow golf carts
    * Shopping malls don't always work.

    Sounds like not really ready for prime time, just cherry picked locations.

    1. Re: Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cherry picking is part of the process. Just because surgeons don't operate on everyone, doesn't mean surgery isn't ready for prime time.

    2. Re:Check list. by losfromla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Gotta start somewhere. They'll work out the bugs. I know this, if I was a taxi or uber or lyft driver, I'd seriously be making alternative career plans. I'm guessing they'll have to buy out the taxi drivers that have invested in badges and such. Lyft and Uber drivers are SOL.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    3. Re: Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we can't get the technology to work in an uncontrolled environment, we will obviously have to create an artificially controlled environment to make the problems easier. Progress looks like a great place, where everything is clean and sterile and it is illegal to walk within 20 feet of the autonomous vehicle lanes. It will be like Disneyland, and it will be wonderful, and you can enjoy your visit as soon as you finish your janitorial shift.

    4. Re:Check list. by swillden · · Score: 1

      Sounds like not really ready for prime time, just cherry picked locations.

      Sounds like a cautious start in a state that allows it.

      Good engineering mandates aggressive testing, but production deployment should be done slowly and in the most favorable environment first. You don't do your first real surgery on a tricky brain aneurysm, you start with an ingrown toenail or similar. Oh, and you also do it in a state which gives you legal permission to practice medicine.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re: Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are thinking all or nothing. the artificial environment is not the end goal, but part of the way to the ultimate goal of working in an uncontrolled environment. I guess you must not be used to the idea of practice.

    6. Re:Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta start somewhere. They'll work out the bugs. I know this, if I was a taxi or uber or lyft driver, I'd seriously be making alternative career plans. I'm guessing they'll have to buy out the taxi drivers that have invested in badges and such. Lyft and Uber drivers are SOL.

      True, but Lyft and Uber drivers should be doing that anyway. Uber is burning through cash at a literally record-breaking pace. They are already squeezing their drivers even as they subsidize every ride. Once the smart VC money has cashed out and the dumb VC money dries up, there is no future for Uber and Lyft drivers.

    7. Re:Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course it will be hacker proof.

    8. Re: Check list. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, I dunno. Starting deployment in a limited scope is actually a good way of getting an idea of what problems you're going to face down the road before slowing edging out in larger and larger scope. I think the author just basically wrote a click bait title implying that it was being brought out en masse instead of a controlled environment.

  8. Scam by the city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whatever municipality is green lighting this bullshit, I'd sue the fuck out of them if I lived there. My city is not your beta test environment UNLESS you want to pay ME and not my city - and it's gonna have to be a fuckton of money too because it's risky and you can afford it. Or go test in India.

    1. Re:Scam by the city by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Go ahead. Find a lawyer that will take your case, move there, sue. I'm guessing YANAL, cause you sound like you have it all worked out.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  9. So you've got great weather but stay indoors? by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Sounds weird to me. Where I live, people enjoy warm sunny days, so more pedestrians are on the streets when the weather is like that than when it is cold and rainy.

    1. Re:So you've got great weather but stay indoors? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm good up until the high 90s. After that, I'm looking for shade by a stream.

    2. Re:So you've got great weather but stay indoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Phoenix we call "warm sunny days" Winter.

    3. Re:So you've got great weather but stay indoors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever tried to spend an extended period of time in 110+ temperatures, you would NOT be using "enjoying" those 'warm sunny days'.

      There's a big difference between an enjoyable 80-degree day and a 110+ temperature!

  10. Working in Tempe, you see driverless UBER.. by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    ..multiple times every day. It's no surprise that we're taking a more liberal stance on testing the technology. With that said...

    Another important factor was the legal climate. Arizona has some of the nation's most permissive laws regarding self-driving vehicles.

    That's because of our lousy state legislature (a.k.a. Ducey's rubber stamp).

    The McDonald's manager's pay package ($30K/year salary for their time and trouble - it's for about 6-7 mos out of the year) keeps a lot of people out of the job. Then you get the legislators' pool watered down more by having such a strong GOP-leaning electorate. GOP candidates have a 20% margin of stupidity error, so you get some even more unqualified people in office simply because they're a member of the popular tribe.

    So - What kind of results are you going to get out of that "talent pool"?
    A: At best: well-meaning but ultimately not-too-bright people willing to tow the Doug Ducey party line. At worst: Evan Mechams and Russell Pearces... Outright kooks with unrealistic agendas, ideologically-driven manifestos, and an SB1070 cherry on top.

    If you said "flying car" to them, most would imagine "The Jetsons" cars and just say, "Cool!"

    1. Re:Working in Tempe, you see driverless UBER.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we might have a lousy state legislature, permission self-driving car laws are not part of said lousiness.

    2. Re:Working in Tempe, you see driverless UBER.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a few deep breaths. Slow down. Collect your thoughts.

  11. What about speed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So last weekend I drove down I-5 to L.A. Trucks in the right line going 55-60mph. Cars in the left lane going 90mph, or passing anyone on the right who isn't.

    So how does this work with automated cars? because I didn't see a SINGLE car on I-5 traveling at the legal limit. Will the Google car go 100 on I-5? Cause I can't imagine anyone wanting to ride in one if they only go the speed limit.

    The automated future looks like this?

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjc74PF1NXWAhWFZCYKHdgvC_oQtwIIKTAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOoETMCosULQ&usg=AOvVaw3MIoTgv0uPGe1y2g--CUp6

    1. Re:What about speed? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I have seen people say that you will be so comfortable doing your own thing in your automated vehicle that you will happily accept a longer ride. Not something I'd be interested in, but there it is.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. In other words by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

    So in other words, soon we'll be seeing articles about how a self driving car ran over this child or that pet, and automated car proponents will be in full force explaining how that pet or child were using the outside wrong.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Waymo cars have have gone 2 million miles with only one at fault accident which makes them the safest "drivers" on the road by an order of magnitude. Now, if you are riding in a Waymo car you are actually more likely to be hit than in your own car because Waymo cars take the unusual step of actually obeying all the traffic laws which is something that takes most human drivers by surprise.

    2. Re: In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely we will read articles about pets or children hit by human drivers, where that outcome could have been avoided by self driving cars.

    3. Re:In other words by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Tesla Autopilot has already killed several people. Yet Tesla owners continue to use it. Statistically, it is still safer than a human driver.

    4. Re:In other words by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      They HAVE PEOPLE IN THEM

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    5. Re:In other words by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      So my manual car is safer, and it would be illogical for me to use autopilot. Maybe autopilot is statistically safer for average people, I guess I'm above average since I have never killed anyone and therefore don't expect to. I would be stupid to use a technology that may kill someone.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Lies by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    They can't drive in the snow or rain. They can't drive into the sun. They can't understand road construction. They can't dodge potholes. They basically can't drive in real world scenarios. No way in hell are these coming out in a month.

    1. Re:Lies by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Not only that but they then go ahead and compare cherry picked perfect driving conditions that self driving cars operate under to freezing rain pileups and heavy traffic jams human drivers deal with and declare that they are safer.

    2. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither can most people

    3. Re:Lies by b0bby · · Score: 2

      According to TFA:

        The company has built a real-time command center that allows self-driving cars to "phone home" and consult human operators about the best way to deal with situations it finds confusing. The ability to remotely monitor vehicles and give timely feedback on tricky situations will be essential if Waymo hopes to eliminate the human driver from its cars.

      We can fly drones in Afghanistan from Nevada, it's not too far fetched to think they can have a remote driver for tricky situations. One human could supervise multiple vehicles.

  14. don't forget the cleaning costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should your child or pet get hit by an automated vehicle, you will automatically be billed for the costs of cleaning and inspecting the vehicle for damage incurred during the incident.

  15. But you can have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A steamy pile of crap now.

  16. ully Driverless Cars Could Be Months Away, But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ully Driverless Cars Could Be Months Away But they are not Fully Driverless Trains and Planes are not here yet.
    There is years of testing left. No one is close to driving on real roads. Then how good is good? People are not 100% how will AI be? In rain snow, ice, Fog? In slush? behind a truck spraying the car with salt? How about Maintenance? Hydrogen Cars may be closer.

  17. What about the drivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, the public transport drivers, how will they find another job.

  18. Arizona calls this a new thing? by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    Cars are operated like that in South Florida . . . all the time!

  19. out of money for lawyer fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a last ditch effort to get in the spotlight so they can pay their lawyer fees after stealing their tech from other companies

  20. So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What all of you luddites are missing is a very simple point - a driverless car only needs to be a little better than the average human driver, and it will take over like wildfire from humans.

    Not only is there the obvious savings of not paying every increasing salary and taxes to pay a human driver, but there's the massive hidden savings on insurance costs as driverless cars ratchet up the quality of performance relative to again, the average human.

    The demand will be enormous, not only driven by taxi/trucking companies, but by an aging population who no longer have to worry about driving as senses and reflexes deteriorate.

    As for the examples you list - most of the deployments would be hard pressed to be confused by much, they will not need ANY network connection because on-board they will have the entire system they might be driving within already stored for comparison with external sensors. And the examples you gave? Why would any *human* driver not be equally confused by a bag or a ladder, plenty of accidents have been caused by people swerving to miss something innocuous - a computer system can classify and react to something WAY faster than human can, while also knowing with certainly if cars are to either side to maneuver - something most humans cannot handle.

    I cannot believe how behind the times most Slashdot readers seem to be of modern performance and capabilities of neural networks, to the point where calling this place a technical site anymore seems pretty questionable. I never really bought fully into the idea of the Singularity, but there are facets of life like driving where that concept is obviously valid.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only slightly better than the average driver, well that should be a piece of cake! Oh and I see you mentioned neural networks, and an on-board system that contains the entire contents of the Library of Congress. Where is this system? Where are these amazing engineers who are capable of building something of such staggering genius?

      And the examples you gave? Why would any *human* driver not be equally confused by a bag or a ladder, plenty of accidents have been caused by people swerving to miss something innocuous - a computer system can classify and react to something WAY faster than human can, while also knowing with certainly if cars are to either side to maneuver - something most humans cannot handle.

      Where is this amazing system? Surely someone could provide a hint as to the architecture of such a marvel. Oh, is this that amazing technology that Google is developing with their CAPCHACHA where you pick out the squares with the traffic signs? Because that sure is impressive - impressive that we're still working on the street sign problem. Say, is that a mountain or a store front? Okay, so say we have a DEEP LEARNING NEURAL NETWORK that can identify street signs, now we just need to link that up with a system that can process that neural network in parallel with 1000 more neural networks, each of which is identifying features and sending them off to other networks for processing, and then back to some kind of master control neural network that will made the decisions that control the vehicle. What kind of hardware will we need, probably at least a Pentium II?

      Nah, the first autonomous car, which won't exist for 30 years at least, will probably require over $1 million in hardware and will will weigh 1/2 ton in addition to the chassis. Imagine an array of iPhones, 10x10x10, with sufficient power and cooling hardware. This is the computing power you will need to produce something that is slightly better than the average driver.

    2. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is assuming self driving car don't crash often. I for one will NEVER put my life in the hands of a computer. As with any computer, eventually there will be an error.

      It will be as popular as electric cars... not very popular.

    3. Re: So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is wrong in many ways - captcha recognition is not at the forefront of deep learning capabilities and low power low latency GPUs, FPGAs and ASICs exist rather than strapping iPhones together...

    4. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is assuming human driven car don't crash often. I for one will NEVER put my life in the hands of a human. As with any human, eventually they will make a mistake.

      FTFY

      It will be as popular as electric cars... not very popular.

      That sounds like something that would have been said of cars when horse drawn carriages ruled the street.

    5. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by houghi · · Score: 1

      The real reason it will go fast is money. People cost money and if you do not have to deal with the money for people, it will be the way it will go.

      The cost of people is two-fold
      1) People to drive the car
      2) People in accidents

      So even if they where the same; the companies would start wanting them, because they are cheaper.

      If you have a job where you drive, that will be gone in 10 years or so. Not sure what job won't be in danger.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is assuming self driving car don't crash often. I for one will NEVER put my life in the hands of a computer. As with any computer, eventually there will be an error.

      It will be as popular as electric cars... not very popular.

      huh?`what the fuck are you talking about. people put their lives into the hands of a computer, one way or Another, all the fucking time. Have you never flown? Never had any Medical intervention?

    7. Re: So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very right in many ways too.

    8. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by gnick · · Score: 1

      I for one will NEVER put my life in the hands of a computer.

      Good luck with that. Maybe you'll never willingly/knowingly put your life in the hands of a computer, but if you've ever flown then you already have. That's not the only example.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      This comment is spot on, and I'd like to echo what I have argued is the most salient point: The needs of aging baby boomers. Boomers are starting to lose the ability to drive, and have the money and the clout to make autonomous vehicles happen. A second market is commuters, like myself. If I could spend the two hours a day I'm stuck in traffic doing something else that would be worth thousands. For those who are getting ready to say, "live closer to your work, duh", that would cost me $15,000 to $20,000 thousand a year. A $20,000 premium on a driverless car, spread out over four years, would be a bargain.

    10. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Personally I could also see if having detrimental effects if we don't make the cars more energy efficient at the same time. The waste of time spent driving is all that's stopping from people moving out of the city and taking on even longer commutes. Nobody wants to spend 4 hours a day driving back and forth to work, but if the car is driving you, it all of a sudden becomes reasonable.

      We should be looking for solutions that help people drive less. Whether that includes autonomous cars or not is open to question. If we had a good network of autonomous cars we might be able to get some people to drop owning a car altogether. Move closer to work and user a combination of public transit, bicycles, and self driving taxis to meet all your transportation needs.

      I really don't want self driving cars to turn into a reason for people to spend even more time sitting in cars.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    11. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure he's talking about a level 5 fully autonomous car.

      Commercial airplanes still have pilots that are always paying full attention to the flight and can easily take over full control if something goes wrong.

      If you are in a self-driving car and it's fully autonomous, maybe you aren't paying full attention, and you certainly don't have time to take over when you are going 70mph with other cars right around you if something suddenly goes wrong.

    12. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incredible! Non luddite in Slashdot.

    13. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I for one will NEVER put my life in the hands of a computer.

      You put your life in the hands of computers every day. You just don't notice it.

    14. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by eepok · · Score: 1

      What all of you futurists are missing is a very simple point - the first publicly usable driverless car only needs to be massively more competent than a human driver or wrongful death lawsuits will put the company out of business. You also don't understand the concept of distributed liability.

      If Google was able to replace ALL the vehicles in the US with fully-automated vehicles overnight and reduce the deaths and injuries on the road by 75% you might think it would be a success... but Google would cease to exist. Over 30,000 people die on American roads every year. Hundreds of thousands are injured. If the reduction in death is "only" 75%, Google would be directly responsible for 7,500 deaths. Do you think that Google could survive 7,500 wrongful death suits? Do they even want to deal with as many as 100?

      The reason our current system works is because the individual drivers of vehicles hold individual liability. A person screws up on the road and only those directly involved pay the price and only the driver(s) at fault share the cost. If Google "drives" all the cars, Google holds ALL the liability.

      Thus, "slightly better than the average driver" is insufficient. Even "massively more competent" may be insufficient. The vehicles need to be damn near perfect. Which is why levels of autonomy were established.

      Level 0: Human driver controls everything.
      Level 1: Emergency assistance (auto-braking)
      Level 2: Cruise control, lane assist.
      Level 3: Semi-Autonomous, but requiring driver intervention from time to time.
      Level 4: Fully-autonomous in specific environments (autonomous transit, taxis)
      Level 5: Fully-autonomous and adaptive like a human.
      Look -- we don't even have level 1 autonomy on that many vehicles today. Level 1 & 2 together would save thousands of lives per year, but they're so expensive to include as default on vehicles that the general public can't afford them. So what in the world makes anyone think that people would widely accept level 4 or 5? A religious faith in science? No. That won't happen.

      We need to just include a LOT more level 1 and 2 features in vehicles and watch the death toll drop. Then people will get used to "vehicle intervention" and be sufficiently curious about level 3. Then 4 and 5.

    15. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no fucking idea what you're talking about and need to shut the fuck up. They're SHIT. They're going to be SHIT for decades to come, and companies like Google that invested millions and millions in the stupid quest for something people don't even really want are forcing them on us via hype and trickery, and they'll end up being LESS SAFE in so many ways that nobody will even believe it until the moment comes when they're going to crash and realize they have ZERO CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE ANYMORE. Fuck that, fuck self driving car bullshit, and fuck you and your shit.

    16. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to get out more
      Visit Scottsdale and drive up and down Scottsdale road between Thomas and McKellips.
      You will see 2-3 Volvo SUV's that are self driving in that 2 mile drive.
      They just have somebody behind the wheel to prevent some unexpected event from leading to a lawsuit.
      If you want, I did, you can try cutting them off or braking hard in front of them.
      They adjust, slow down, etc without the guy in the driver seat doing anything

      The most obvious sign is the LIDAR cone spinning on the roof, there does not appear to be a half ton of additional equipment on the vehicle

    17. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, all caps and foul language, that is a very compelling argument (not):/

    18. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      The reason our current system works is because the individual drivers of vehicles hold individual liability.

      That's not how it works in practice. Liability insurance is mandatory. It's the not the driver that is financially liable, it's the driver's insurance company. Driverless cars will not take over all at once, Google will only have to cover the liability insurance on the ride-share cars that they operate. If the driverless cars have a lower accident rate than other comparable commercial vehicles, then Google can negotiate for a proportionately lower insurance rate.

    19. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      I argue that A driverless car only needs to be almost as good as the average human driver, and it will take over like wildfire from humans.

      Even if driverless cars increased the rate of accidents by a small percentage, it would not be enough to stop their adoption. So the question becomes, what safety level is required? The most important statistic here is really perception, not reality. Think of the people who avoid planes, even though planes are safer than cars. We will only know the true long-term safety until after they have widespread adoption. The worst-case scenario here is that 1 horrible accident causes the public to completely distrust them and laws are passed to cripple their development, evne if they are in reality safer.

    20. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is assuming human-driven cars don't crash often. As with any human, eventually there will be an error.

    21. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is that supposed to impress? They have solved the most tedious aspect of driving, the ability to follow the traffic flow, that takes up 90% of a driver's time. What about the other 10%, the pulling out of a parking space, navigating a parking lot, pulling into traffic, dealing with obstacles and road closures, the weather, buying gas, a funny engine noise?

      Lane following is not impressive. It is the first skill a new driver will master.

    22. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google and Tesla ARE pushing this down the throat of drivers. We had autonomy and privacy when it came to cars. No more! 95% of driving is making simple adjustments to the steering wheel to stay in the lane. We don't need to give privacy and control to automate this already stupidly easy job.

      Let's wait a few years to find out how wonderful these driverless cars are when the AI decides to crash and kill the driver to save some pedestrians.

      Driverless cars are an intrusion into the driver's privacy (where you go and what you do is not the government's or large car company's business). As such, drivers should have the right to decline using invasive tech and drive a manual controlled car.

    23. Re:So many reasons why adoption will go rapidly. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Commercial airplanes still have pilots that are always paying full attention to the flight

      That's one theory, sure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Think again curb rash by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Before you step into the path of a self driving car, consider this - there are going to be MANY cases where the programming will consider pedestrians expendable. After all, if braking super hard means the car behind may slam into them and harm many people, everyone involved will be happier if it just slows down somewhat and hits just you - trying to minimize harm to you, but you are the LEAST important thing in the equation and you should remember that possibility before playing games.

    Afterwards of course, it will have a face scan from you that it shares with the network and future cars that encounter you will know to pay you even less attention because they know you are asking to get hit...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Think again curb rash by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Even supposing the AI can't do this: if a pedestrian knowingly or recklessly steps into the path of an oncoming driverless vehicle he will be legally responsible for any resulting damage.

      I suspect one or two assholes will try this until the consequences make national news and their life is destroyed to pay for the damage they've caused.

    2. Re:Think again curb rash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afterwards of course, it will have a face scan from you that it shares with the network and future cars that encounter you will know to pay you even less attention because they know you are asking to get hit...

      Yeah, I'm sure that will happen. Why wouldn't they program in spite and negligence?

    3. Re:Think again curb rash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, even when recklessly stepping into a vehicle's path, it sometimes doesn't seem that simple, at which point it will be tested in court.

      Repeatedly, I'm sure. And, win or lose, that will cost the company money.

  22. Yes they will exceed the limit by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Probably not as much as the faster drivers you are seeing, but they will generally be programed to follow the flow of traffic, which is much safer than following a speed limit. Except for school zones where the programming would probably keep it pretty strict out of an abundance of caution...

    Basically just think of the best drivers on the road, that is what self driving cars will be doing. Only better. Because once they know how to do something well, they just improve from there.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes they will exceed the limit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not as much as the faster drivers you are seeing, but they will generally be programed to follow the flow of traffic, which is much safer than following a speed limit. Except for school zones where the programming would probably keep it pretty strict out of an abundance of caution...

      So, now they are being programmed to break the law? I would be surprised if that comes to pass. Who pays the fine when they get stopped for speeding? Or will automated cars be exempted from speed limits? Will we now have two sets of laws; one for automated cars and one for human drivers?

  23. Will we have to pay more insurance? by rgutbrod · · Score: 0

    We already have to pay for "Uninsured Motorist". Will this give the Insurance companies a New fee for "Driver-less Motorist"??

  24. What are the Liability ramifications by oldgraybeard · · Score: 2

    sarcasm
    I would like to know what happens if one hits me. Does the vehicle just try and drive off and perform a return to base, while I am trying to get the lic number and vendor id before it gets out of sight.
    Will it drop a little paper note saying, "Call this number to settle up with us over your accident." ;),
    And when you call you get a message saying, "Your call is very important to us! Someone will be with you soon." ;) If you do not settle with us legal action :"WILL BE" taken. . zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
    Do these vehicles have orange flashing beacons on the roof letting everyone know "Warning, Be Careful, Be Aware, Automated Machine in your midst!" ;) lol
    /sarcasm
    Do they have any liability protections built in to the laws to protect the companies deploying these vehicles?
    Is it assumed the human is wrong and the autonomous vehicle is right?
    Do the companies have complete control of all the logs on the vehicle before the authorities? Do they get to choose what to hand over and when?

    I am very suspicious about this being fast tracked. About issues and accidents being covered up. What are the liability protections for the public and the riders?

    I think it would also be interesting to hear from inidivduals working in one of the Amazon warehouses that have both bots and individuals working in them. What is their experience? Maybe that would be informative ;)

    I am not against this, I just think the path is longer than most think ;) And a central point to this is the degree of risk the CEO's, bureaucrats and politicians are accepting for the public at large as the kinks get worked out of this technology.

    1. Re: What are the Liability ramifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same liability as manufacturer defect resulting in death (e.g. malfunctioning brake system). I don't know what that is, but it's not without precedent.

    2. Re: What are the Liability ramifications by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      When one hits you? Good news, even though all the IP is owned by Alphabet in general, and even though the rider contracted Waymo to drive you around, that car was actually fully owned by a special LLC that only owned that one vehicle. Oh, and it was entirely underwater (debt-wise), so the LLC had no assets to sue. Enjoy your state minimum insurance payout.

      For the rider, it's even more fun. Because they EULA they agreed to means that they have to agree to individual arbitration with the LLC, and have already waived the right to sue Waymo for any failure of the LLC's automatic car to perform as intended.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  25. What level of autonomy? by Beeftopia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are five SAE accepted levels of autonomy:

    Level 0: No self driving features
    Level 1: Some driver assistance
    Level 2: More driver assistance
    Level 3: Conditional autonomy
    Level 4: Nearly autonomous.
    Level 5: Completely autonomous.

    When will it get here? Dates range from 2017 (Ol' Musky) to 2026 (president of IIHS) and beyond, from people in the know.

    Every bit of driver assistance I think is a good thing, but Level 5 - true autonomy - is still a ways off, it seems to me.

    1. Re:What level of autonomy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is level 3, obviously.

    2. Re:What level of autonomy? by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      From the Washington Post article:

      "Level 3: Conditional autonomy. Many automakers such as Ford and Volvo have indicated that they'll skip this step—and for good reason. Unlike Level 2 cars, Level 3 autonomy can control a car in all situations and the car is constantly monitoring the road, but unlike higher levels on the SAE scale, Level 3 cars will return to human control if the system can't function correctly. According to the SAE definition, Level 3 cars will ask drivers to intervene when the self-driving systems fail, but for many automakers that presents a safety problem for drivers who rely too much on the systems and may not be prepared to take over."

    3. Re:What level of autonomy? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that Musk is wrong. Tesla haven't even got their Autopilot V2 hardware working as well as the V1 yet, let alone self driving. I see they have release a V2.5 hardware as well, which doesn't bode well for people with V1 and V2.0.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:What level of autonomy? by Lastfree · · Score: 1

      And "Level 5: Completely autonomous" is where we, as humans, say bye bye to the world.Complete autonomy of machines will make us beings of the inferior sort.

      --
      And for coloring fans: Topcoloringpages
  26. Months and months by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    So...100 years = 1200 months. So yes, definitely just months away!

  27. remotely so are they paying an sat + cell link wit by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    remotely so are they paying an sat + cell link with no caps and no roaming fees?

    or an drive in to mexico or canada can cost $10K-$20K for just 1GB of data on some plans.

  28. what is it like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is it like to believe in magic?

    It must be wonderful, this fantasy world you live in.

  29. Obligatory xkcd references by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    It is amazing to see that the number of xkcd references are starting to outnumber the number of references in the original Slashdot post, isn't it ?!?

  30. We are not ready yet by Lennie · · Score: 1

    While automakers focus on defending the systems in their cars against hackers, there may be other ways for the malicious to mess with self-driving cars. Security researchers at the University of Washington have shown they can get computer vision systems to misidentify road signs using nothing more than stickers made on a home printer.

    UW computer-security researcher Yoshi Kohno described an attack algorithm that uses printed images stuck on road signs. These images confuse the cameras on which most self-driving vehicles rely. In one example, explained in a document uploaded to the open-source scientific-paper site arXiv last week, small stickers attached to a standard stop sign caused a vision system to misidentify it as a Speed Limit 45 sign.

    https://blog.caranddriver.com/...

    --
    New things are always on the horizon
    1. Re:We are not ready yet by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      There's a 35 MPH sign in my area with graffiti that makes it look like 85! On a city street! Yikes!!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  31. Maximum breaking by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    But the computer will go into maximum breaking

    So... what, you're emitting gamma radiation that disrupts the silicon? Or do you plan to smash through the hood with a hammer to break the computer?

    Enquiring minds want to know!

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  32. Re:Of course ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And don't forget that the value of those cars will be zero after the warranty expires. No insurance company will cover 5 year old tech for liability.

  33. NO THANK YOU! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Sorry, No thanks!

    Driver-assist? Lane keeping? Collision warning? Auto-park? Cool.

    But I ultimately refuse to put my physical safety into the hands of a machine built AND programmed by humans.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:NO THANK YOU! by thenitz · · Score: 1

      Then don't step into that elevator! Take the stairs!

      Joking aside, nobody steps into an elevator thinking "I'm locked in a box dangling on top of a deep shaft - I put my physical safety into the strength of a cable". They trust the machine.

      Same when flying across the ocean, or driving at speed down the motorway. Planes and cars are orders of magnitude more complex and they can easily kill their passengers if anything goes wrong. Yet people trust them because they work just fine the vast majority of the time.

      Safe driving cars will be the same. Yet another layer of complexity that will eventually work fine and people will get used to. IMO it will happen rather quickly.

    2. Re:NO THANK YOU! by Chas · · Score: 1

      An elevator travels inside a brick/concrete vertical tunnel. Not on a public road with dozens/hundreds/thousands of other cars.
      An elevator's controls actually DISENGAGE the brakes to travel between floors. If the controls fail, the car locks itself in the shaft.
      A plane flies in a pre-determined path that's cleared of other traffic in a fully 3D medium of which the plane occupies an infinitesimally small percentage of.

      A motorway has a person in charge of a car. People generally don't suffer software failures that often.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  34. Google cloud vs tesla by kfh227 · · Score: 1

    LOL,

    Think of all the data Google can collect about road data and road closures via 3d capture methods. Then share it with all it's cars to prevent accidents.

    Sorry Tesla, you don't have a chance.

    1. Re:Google cloud vs tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until hackers get into that system... they will have a field day with Car 2 Car networking. Someone who wants some peace and quiet in their street will pay someone else to declare their road as 'closed' for example.

  35. The critical point by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    Once air temperature nears body temperature (~98 F) it's officially hotter'n Hell. Fans and breezes have little to no cooling effect.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:The critical point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only applies when the humidity is above a certain level.
      The old saying in Phoenix is, "But, it's a dry heat"

      And it really does matter, I have used an evaporative cooler exclusively for the past decade.

      When it is 119F, but 10% humidity the cooler still drops the inside temp down to 85F, not chilly but livable.
      Later in the Summer, wen the monsoon hits, the cooler struggles with 105F and 60% humidity to keep it at the same 85F indoors.

      I can only assume that you are from Houston or Florida were 90F and 90% humidity can be a real drag.

  36. Driverless cars also make electric practical by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Personally I could also see if having detrimental effects if we don't make the cars more energy efficient at the same time.

    That is obviously going to happen at the same time, a big benefit you get from driverless cars is they can go find a charging location while you are busy, meaning you don't have to have every parking spot have charging capabilities (which will not happen).

    Instead there will probably be charging hubs cars scattered through cities that cars can top off at, then return to be close to you before you need them.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Driverless cars also make electric practical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you've just answered the question "what new jobs will become available?".

      Automatic Vehicle Charging Station Attendant.

  37. such a detailed map will need an big data plan / e by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    such a detailed map will need an big data plan / endless updates for years. And just remapping roads say each 6 months (may be to long of gap) will big a lot of work / need a lot of hardware.

  38. and a drive outside the usa can cost a car in roam by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    and a drive outside the usa can cost you the cost of a NEW CAR in roaming fees at are as high as $15-$20 a MEG.

  39. I applaud this plan! by Daetrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps when it's Waymo/Google's cars that get stuck trying to make a left turn across a four lane road at an uncontrolled non-intersection during rush hour because Google Maps thought that was quicker they'll get around to correcting those suggestions.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  40. Re:such a detailed map will need an big data plan by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    Yeah, from a logistical standpoint it seems completely impractical and uneconomical. But hey, I thought the same thing about Google maps with streetview in the first place, so who knows.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  41. Less Traffic Violations = Less Revenue by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    So, what do you think municipalities will do when they realize that by allowing driverless cars, they've effectively slashed their revenues to the bone?

    In the (alleged) words of George Westinghouse, "where will we put the meter?"

    Lots of great ideas have died horrible deaths by being suffocated by red tape.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    1. Re:Less Traffic Violations = Less Revenue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "where will we put the meter?"

      I know right?
      Througout history no ride sharing service or taxi service has ever figured out how to charge their customers.

    2. Re:Less Traffic Violations = Less Revenue by bangular · · Score: 1

      Government agencies relying on fines for operation has always bothered me. If you need $x to run your department properly, then justify it in a budget and let's raise the taxes appropriately. Funds collected from fines should be diverted in a way the original issuer sees no benefit.

    3. Re:Less Traffic Violations = Less Revenue by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I agree that's how it should operate, but the trouble is, that's not how it actually operates.

      I can see local and state officials scrambling to find new revenue streams once they realize they won't be making fat bank of writing tickets anymore.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  42. Re:such a detailed map will need an big data plan by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    streetview is years out of date in some areas

  43. hope for a criminal case where that EULA shit goes by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    hope for a criminal case where that EULA shit goes away!

  44. And my farts for the next year won't smell either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And my farts for the next year won't smell either.

    Both are lies.