Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype(plus.google.com)
plus.google.com
Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype
https://plus.google.com/+GoogleSelfDrivingCars/posts/9WBWP2E4GDu
200 comments
> The car that they put forward first needs to be non-threatening, safe, and easy to adopt.
Moreover, I think Google wants their car to be recognizable as a driverless car. They don't want it to blend in, because people would (at least for now) think that was "spooky"—that any car anywhere around them could be being secretly driven by a robot.
Instead, the visual distinctness means that it's instantly clear that these are their own thing, in much the same way that golf carts, scooters, and backhoes are—despite all being wheeled vehicles that can be driven in car lanes—their own thing. Because they're recognizable, it makes it possible for you to build a separate autonomous response into your subliminal "driving event loop" for the class of "driverless car", the same way that you will react separately to seeing any of the above in your lane. Which is exactly what people want, in order to feel in control: the ability to notice and compensate for the driverless cars around them if they all encounter some pathological edge-case.
(Just as an example of what I'm talking about—and this is a completely untested hypothesis on my part—I bet that driverless cars come to a complete stop a lot more frequently, in surprising places, because their sensors tell them something is standing in front of the car—e.g. a pigeon. A regular driver knows a pigeon will just sit there minding its own business as the car approaches it, but fly away right before the impact would happen; a driverless car might not know that. Because of this, your driving algorithm for being behind a driverless car will likely have a component similar to driving behind a school bus: "this vehicle makes frequent sudden stops, and I need to be ready to stop too. I should be more car-lengths away from it than are strictly necessary.")
Moreover, I think Google wants their car to be recognizable as a driverless car. They don't want it to blend in, because people would (at least for now) think that was "spooky"—that any car anywhere around them could be being secretly driven by a robot.
Instead, the visual distinctness means that it's instantly clear that these are their own thing, in much the same way that golf carts, scooters, and backhoes are—despite all being wheeled vehicles that can be driven in car lanes—their own thing. Because they're recognizable, it makes it possible for you to build a separate autonomous response into your subliminal "driving event loop" for the class of "driverless car", the same way that you will react separately to seeing any of the above in your lane. Which is exactly what people want, in order to feel in control: the ability to notice and compensate for the driverless cars around them if they all encounter some pathological edge-case.
(Just as an example of what I'm talking about—and this is a completely untested hypothesis on my part—I bet that driverless cars come to a complete stop a lot more frequently, in surprising places, because their sensors tell them something is standing in front of the car—e.g. a pigeon. A regular driver knows a pigeon will just sit there minding its own business as the car approaches it, but fly away right before the impact would happen; a driverless car might not know that. Because of this, your driving algorithm for being behind a driverless car will likely have a component similar to driving behind a school bus: "this vehicle makes frequent sudden stops, and I need to be ready to stop too. I should be more car-lengths away from it than are strictly necessary.")
That sounds plausible to me. Apparently, even things like exhaust from another car in cold weather can interact with the laser in a way such that the car can mistake it for a large object directly in front of the vehicle.
Source: tech talk at my university by a self-driving car engineer.
Source: tech talk at my university by a self-driving car engineer.
Not pigeons right in front. But the driverless car often sees dangerous spots (like debris on the road, or an accident site) before any human can see. So they might stop or slow down earlier.
(I think I learned that in one of the tech talk videos about it.)
(I think I learned that in one of the tech talk videos about it.)
Well I guess we wont get these in Europe (due to rain) but there are lots of cars that look like that here already.
Plastic bags actually. A plastic bag looks pretty solid to most sensors and cars have been known stop suddenly when one flies in front of the car.
And they should stop, and err on the side of caution. An anecdotal digression, if you'll allow me: I'll never forget the time when a plastic bag was gently flitting across the highway a friend and I was traveling on, in that nonchalant manner plastic bags usually do, and how we, not giving it even a second thought, drove right through it... Except we couldn't, since it turned out there was actually a small picnic-type propane tank inside the bag, rolling on the asphalt, and our car's motor was totaled by the impact, though thankfully we didn't suffer any serious injuries.
This is why you never run over anything in a car. Ever.
No, they shouldn't. I'm glad you weren't hurt, but your freak accident aside, most plastic bags are just plastic bags and human drivers are not expecting vehicles to yield to them. (There is also a difference between a plastic bag moving on the ground and one flying around.) If we are erring on the side of caution we shouldn't be creating a more probable hazard to avoid a less probable one.
And if we remove humans entirely from the equation what we get is traffic that comes to a stop because none of the vehicles can avoid or get past the plastic bag which floats around more-or-less randomly.
And if we remove humans entirely from the equation what we get is traffic that comes to a stop because none of the vehicles can avoid or get past the plastic bag which floats around more-or-less randomly.
oh I sure hope it takes more than a pigeon, but I see your point
I hope it doesn't; consider the PR disaster that'll happen the first time a driverless car hits poor little Fluffy the cat. Nevermind that cars with drivers do that all the time.
Point of fact: Fluffy the Cat was only hit nine times. All the time indeed...
The appearance of the car is really important. If it looked too fun, like a Ferrari, some may think it's not safe. It reminds me of "helper" robots in movies about the future. They always have such unintimidating appearances. This car appears to be attempting the same thing and I'm ok with it.
I have to be honest - the last thing I think of when I look at it is "safe." Maybe that's just because I'm an American and feel the need to put as much iron between me and everyone else as I can.
It's cute, and non-threatening looking, and probably the right design for what it is, but people are still going to look at it and think "this is going to get destroyed if a real car hits it."
It's cute, and non-threatening looking, and probably the right design for what it is, but people are still going to look at it and think "this is going to get destroyed if a real car hits it."
There are (at least) two kinds of people Google needs to convince. First, people who will sit in a self-driving car; and that's already done. Second, people who share the road with a self-driving car. You are right `unthreatening' is the better word than the ambiguous `safe' here.
PS I think you are too American there. They don't drive tanks on the road in every country. But I see your concern.
PS I think you are too American there. They don't drive tanks on the road in every country. But I see your concern.
Fair enough.
In fact, now that you mention it, this is pretty much Baymax-the-Car. It just needs to puff up when it accidentally drives into a lake.
sure appearance can convince a person of a well designed product. But I prefer, a well designed product, especially when my life is on the line over appearence. Tesla may come out with a super shiny beautiful self-driving car, but I will probably go with a dorky Google car if it has X miles (where X is a large impressive number) under its belt.
This is also a prime opportunity to question the idea of traveling at 85 mph in 4,000 lb. metal boxes that get 13 mpg.
In my town, many parents put their newly-licensed teenage children behind the wheels of enormous SUVs in the name of safety, simultaneously reducing the safety of everyone around them. If tanks were street legal, we'd probably have 16 year old kids barreling down the road in them.
In my town, many parents put their newly-licensed teenage children behind the wheels of enormous SUVs in the name of safety, simultaneously reducing the safety of everyone around them. If tanks were street legal, we'd probably have 16 year old kids barreling down the road in them.
Aren't most tanks driven by teenagers already? Of course, they get very specialized training, but it still shows that teens can handle that responsibility under the right circumstances.
Actually, I don't really know: how old are the soldiers in a typical tank crew? I guess they might have a couple of years in the service before they get into a tank, so maybe they're early 20's rather than teens.
Actually, I don't really know: how old are the soldiers in a typical tank crew? I guess they might have a couple of years in the service before they get into a tank, so maybe they're early 20's rather than teens.
Actually theres been a lot of research that increasing speed limits have more benefits than not. Most accidents that happen on high ways resulting in fatalities are due to driving under the influence. A higher speed limit has been shown to decrease accidents, decrease ticket fines, and decrease fuel consumption.
Making it illegal to buy SUVs is moronic even if buying them is moronic in itself. Lots of things in life are dangerous, and we're going too damn far with needing to make anything with a potential of danger illegal. I'd much rather own a Range Rover which is far more comfortable, enjoyable to drive, accommodating, while reserving the capacity to take me to Yosemite a few times a year.
Making it illegal to buy SUVs is moronic even if buying them is moronic in itself. Lots of things in life are dangerous, and we're going too damn far with needing to make anything with a potential of danger illegal. I'd much rather own a Range Rover which is far more comfortable, enjoyable to drive, accommodating, while reserving the capacity to take me to Yosemite a few times a year.
> the first car on the roads will just be making in town trips and will be limited to 25mph
I think the rest of us are going to start loathing these timidly-driving things: "Oh f%#k! I'm stuck behind a self-driving car again, now I'll be late for my meeting."
I think the rest of us are going to start loathing these timidly-driving things: "Oh f%#k! I'm stuck behind a self-driving car again, now I'll be late for my meeting."
Uber have the right idea here; own the platform, not the infrastructure. Lets face it, a cars spends most of its life stationary, waiting for you to drive it. Not so the autonomous vehicle. Autonomous vehicles are freed from the shackles of parking so why not lease your car to Uber and have it earn money as a cab? The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.
You won't lease or own self driving cars. That makes no sense. You will just subscribe to a drive service if you drive a lot or just pay per ride and have one pick you up.
I easily see you scheduling regular events (leave for work at 8, for example) and your car will be out front waiting each day.
I easily see you scheduling regular events (leave for work at 8, for example) and your car will be out front waiting each day.
No way. In the city, yes. But in the somewhat wealthier suburbs many people will spring for the "self-driving" package. It might only be a ~$10k add on or less by my estimates.
Most people will want to be able get in the car without having to request and wait for a ride (most people already have this luxury).
Most people will want to be able get in the car without having to request and wait for a ride (most people already have this luxury).
Sure, at first. But then your daughter has the SUV and your husband has the sedan and you want to get groceries and your sons want to go to two different friends houses, so you end up using sepf-driving cars all the time anyway, and you realize it's actually quite nice not to have to worry about maintenance and cleaning and charging. And you realize you could save $300 a month. And oh, you can just order a 4-wheel-drive vehicle pre-loaded with kayaks for your camping trip? And... and... and.
We haven't imagine half of what cars-as-a-service will entail. Some people will always hold onto their vehicles, but in the end I don't think a hunk of plastic and metal will be able to compete with a fleet of special-purpose vehicles supported by a staff of thousands.
We haven't imagine half of what cars-as-a-service will entail. Some people will always hold onto their vehicles, but in the end I don't think a hunk of plastic and metal will be able to compete with a fleet of special-purpose vehicles supported by a staff of thousands.
Many rich families own (at least) one car per family member. We are talking about luxurious add-ons which is why I bring this up.
In the short term, self-driving is going to be an optional activity, not an always-on activity. So for most drivers who have it, it will simply be a luxury. Certainly there will be services, but it may or may not be cost effective. We already have the option to schedule a car service every day at 8 am, yet most of us drive. Some of us have the option of busses and trains, which is more or less the same thing, but again, we opt to drive.
In the long term, your car isn't going to sit outside your office for 8 hours. It's going to pick up the kids, your take-out order from the Chinese place across town, and deliver your laundry to a laundry service. People aren't going to travel around in taxis that don't even have the benefit of a driver who tries to keep it clean. They're going to want their own space.
There are some caveats and exceptions, certainly. And self-driving vehicles and services may prompt more people to eschew car ownership, but the idea that people won't own or lease these things _in general_ is ridiculous.
In the long term, your car isn't going to sit outside your office for 8 hours. It's going to pick up the kids, your take-out order from the Chinese place across town, and deliver your laundry to a laundry service. People aren't going to travel around in taxis that don't even have the benefit of a driver who tries to keep it clean. They're going to want their own space.
There are some caveats and exceptions, certainly. And self-driving vehicles and services may prompt more people to eschew car ownership, but the idea that people won't own or lease these things _in general_ is ridiculous.
But everyone wants to drive to work at the same time so there is very little saving from central provision (and thats the main use, at present in the US). It makes the rental model much less attractive.
For commuters, may be that's all there is to it. If I want to go out on a trip with my little one, I'd rather have a bunch of her favorite things in the car (without me having to lug it around every time), and have the convenience of not having to drive, which also makes it much easier to keep her entertained. I'm hoping she'd grow up by the time these are generally available, but I'm sure there are others reasons to own one.
Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting?
Anyways, it makes no sense that everyone on my block owns their own lawnmower, and yet here we are.
Anyways, it makes no sense that everyone on my block owns their own lawnmower, and yet here we are.
Renting a property or object that you are the sole user of is typically more expensive than owning.
Renting a property or object that you are one of many users of is typically less expensive than owning. For instance, you don't imagine that renting one of those steam-carpet cleaners from the grocery store once every year or two is more expensive than owning one, right?
(Renting is more expensive than purely your share of the use -- that is, if the steam cleaner gets rented by 100 people in a year, you expect to pay more than 1% of the yearly total cost of ownership of the cleaner).
So the concept is that say you effectively use maybe 1/5th to 1/3rd of a car's capacity in a ride-for-hire situation, and so you pay say 25%-40% of the total cost of ownership, allowing a reasonable profit margin for the owner. (Or you use much less, but in that case you probably were never going to own a car).
Renting a property or object that you are one of many users of is typically less expensive than owning. For instance, you don't imagine that renting one of those steam-carpet cleaners from the grocery store once every year or two is more expensive than owning one, right?
(Renting is more expensive than purely your share of the use -- that is, if the steam cleaner gets rented by 100 people in a year, you expect to pay more than 1% of the yearly total cost of ownership of the cleaner).
So the concept is that say you effectively use maybe 1/5th to 1/3rd of a car's capacity in a ride-for-hire situation, and so you pay say 25%-40% of the total cost of ownership, allowing a reasonable profit margin for the owner. (Or you use much less, but in that case you probably were never going to own a car).
This doesn't seem quite right - if I own a car and use only 1/3rd of its capacity, I generally expect it to last 3x as long, so the unused capacity costs me nothing. Even your annual steam cleaner example will favor the purchaser over the renter, given enough time.
So the difference between renting and owning must come down to the cost of unused capacity, which means the fixed costs. Where those fixed costs are high, like a parking space in SF, you want to amortize them by maximizing utilization, which means sharing cars. But where those fixed costs are low, like parking in my driveway, unused capacity may be so cheap that owning costs less than renting, even if the car sits idle most of the time.
So the difference between renting and owning must come down to the cost of unused capacity, which means the fixed costs. Where those fixed costs are high, like a parking space in SF, you want to amortize them by maximizing utilization, which means sharing cars. But where those fixed costs are low, like parking in my driveway, unused capacity may be so cheap that owning costs less than renting, even if the car sits idle most of the time.
Cars degrade in value pretty strongly based on age, not just mileage. For example, a 2009 Toyota Camry with 5,000 miles on it, base 4-Door sedan, in excellent condition, shows a Kelley Blue Book price of about $13k (in my zip). It would've been about $18k new.
But your point is taken, a great deal of the equity burn on a car is mileage-related.
(Especially when you consider that if there are three users of a rented driverless car, it drives more than 3x the distance than would three separate owned vehicles for the users -- it must, after all, shuttle itself between users.)
But your point is taken, a great deal of the equity burn on a car is mileage-related.
(Especially when you consider that if there are three users of a rented driverless car, it drives more than 3x the distance than would three separate owned vehicles for the users -- it must, after all, shuttle itself between users.)
> Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting?
Depends how you account for all factors. Owning usually comes with some hassle and risk. Renting means you pay someone else to discharge those duties. Another factor is the cost of capital for you vs the company that would rent to you.
Having your own lawnmower probably has something to do with transaction costs. Ie it's a hassle to coordinate among people.
Depends how you account for all factors. Owning usually comes with some hassle and risk. Renting means you pay someone else to discharge those duties. Another factor is the cost of capital for you vs the company that would rent to you.
Having your own lawnmower probably has something to do with transaction costs. Ie it's a hassle to coordinate among people.
Assuming Google wants to get into the car business, all it has to do is add a button to google Maps/now. I don't think ther's anything special about the Uber platform, and Google already integrates journey planning through the Calendar and Google Now interfaces (eg telling you that you need to leave in 5 min to catch that train).
You're right on the car parking. I think the City of Chicago actually made a very shrewd decision to sell their street parking revenue to a private operator for a 75 year period in return for a fixed amount of cash up front (obviously I'm oversimplifying). It was excoriated as a terrible deal by most people, but none of them seem to have considered the probability that there just won't be the same sort of demand for parking in even 10 or 20 years.
You're right on the car parking. I think the City of Chicago actually made a very shrewd decision to sell their street parking revenue to a private operator for a 75 year period in return for a fixed amount of cash up front (obviously I'm oversimplifying). It was excoriated as a terrible deal by most people, but none of them seem to have considered the probability that there just won't be the same sort of demand for parking in even 10 or 20 years.
> The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.
Perhaps, this will be the case in the long term. However, until then perhaps we could implement some sort of price surging where rental costs of parking space skyrockets when demands get high. Uber is doing the hard work of making price surging palatable. Everyone else just needs to ride on their coat tails.
Perhaps, this will be the case in the long term. However, until then perhaps we could implement some sort of price surging where rental costs of parking space skyrockets when demands get high. Uber is doing the hard work of making price surging palatable. Everyone else just needs to ride on their coat tails.
but the jutification for surge pricing doesn't make sense with parking. The entire premise (that I have not seen data to verify, but the premise nonetheless) is that surge pricing increases the number of drivers on the road. Are we going to build more parking spaces for half a day?
"Price surging" would become a fancy word for price gouging.
"Price surging" would become a fancy word for price gouging.
Surge pricing also limits demand. And that's a good thing; it's better if there's an expensive spot available, than no cheap spots.
only better for rich people. Rent seeking does not follow free market principles (due to fixed supply), and so loses any form of moral highground in my opinion.
Surge pricing is not rent-seeking. If the surge pricing was not warranted by the situation, then it creates a trivial way for competitors to eat the business's lunch by offering the same service at a slightly lower price.
"Uber is surge pricing right now but Lyft is not, so I'll get my ride with Lyft"
Surge pricing is a legitimate function of a properly functioning market. When demand has skyrocketed, or supply is constrained, prices _should_ rise. This is the mechanism by which markets enable resources to be allocated efficiently. Whether someone is poor or rich, if they desire a thing more than other people do (for the sake of argument, other people of similar wealth), then they should have a mechanism by which to express that preference. That preference is the price they're willing to pay.
If the area is congested, and you _really_ want to go somewhere right now, then surge pricing gives you two ways to accomplish this. (1) To the extent that capacity is fixed, the ability to out-bid someone else means that you can take the capacity from someone else who doesn't desire it as much as you do. (2) The higher price incentivizes more supply. Uber drivers who see an exceptional surge price will make themselves available in order to take advantage of higher wages. A higher surge price is pure profit for the driver, if he can make himself available to drive right now versus some other time in the week
Lastly, no supply is fully constrained. If the price of parking in a city skyrockets, then this creates a strong incentive for parking businesses to find a way to make more parking available. This might mean buying existing buildings, demolishing them, and converting them into parking structures; or it might mean that in the routine course of building new structures, the high price of parking will make it economical to dig a few stories deeper and provide a few more levels' worth of parking. Price and incentives always influence the operation of the market.
"Uber is surge pricing right now but Lyft is not, so I'll get my ride with Lyft"
Surge pricing is a legitimate function of a properly functioning market. When demand has skyrocketed, or supply is constrained, prices _should_ rise. This is the mechanism by which markets enable resources to be allocated efficiently. Whether someone is poor or rich, if they desire a thing more than other people do (for the sake of argument, other people of similar wealth), then they should have a mechanism by which to express that preference. That preference is the price they're willing to pay.
If the area is congested, and you _really_ want to go somewhere right now, then surge pricing gives you two ways to accomplish this. (1) To the extent that capacity is fixed, the ability to out-bid someone else means that you can take the capacity from someone else who doesn't desire it as much as you do. (2) The higher price incentivizes more supply. Uber drivers who see an exceptional surge price will make themselves available in order to take advantage of higher wages. A higher surge price is pure profit for the driver, if he can make himself available to drive right now versus some other time in the week
Lastly, no supply is fully constrained. If the price of parking in a city skyrockets, then this creates a strong incentive for parking businesses to find a way to make more parking available. This might mean buying existing buildings, demolishing them, and converting them into parking structures; or it might mean that in the routine course of building new structures, the high price of parking will make it economical to dig a few stories deeper and provide a few more levels' worth of parking. Price and incentives always influence the operation of the market.
Surge pricing in Uber's case is not rent-seeking if surge-pricing actually increases supply (i.e. more drivers on the road). My gut says it doesn't ( don't think that drivers get out on the road fast enough), but I don't have the data to prove that.
But in the case of parking spaces, I don't see how me being able to out-bid you for the last space makes me a more qualified candidate for that parking space. I'm paying a higher price for the same good, the number of spaces isn't going up, and the owner got richer without adding any value. Textbook definition of rent-seeking if I've ever seen one.
High parking tension means that people will try to make more parking, but is that the most effecient allocation of resources? What about alternative solutions, like mass transit? This is a digression, but you mentioned it with supply.
On a more pragmatic level I don't really think the ultra-rich have that much more of a right to a parking space downtown on a Saturday any more than I do, and a parking space is more or less a public good (and should be shared as such).
But in the case of parking spaces, I don't see how me being able to out-bid you for the last space makes me a more qualified candidate for that parking space. I'm paying a higher price for the same good, the number of spaces isn't going up, and the owner got richer without adding any value. Textbook definition of rent-seeking if I've ever seen one.
High parking tension means that people will try to make more parking, but is that the most effecient allocation of resources? What about alternative solutions, like mass transit? This is a digression, but you mentioned it with supply.
On a more pragmatic level I don't really think the ultra-rich have that much more of a right to a parking space downtown on a Saturday any more than I do, and a parking space is more or less a public good (and should be shared as such).
> Surge pricing in Uber's case is not rent-seeking if surge-pricing actually increases supply (i.e. more drivers on the road). My gut says it doesn't ( don't think that drivers get out on the road fast enough), but I don't have the data to prove that.
From what I understand, fear and hatred drive public policy more than objective data does. I doubt it is going to change any time soon.
From what I understand, fear and hatred drive public policy more than objective data does. I doubt it is going to change any time soon.
Thanks for the explanation!
SF and other cities already have variable, usage based parking fees[0]; I imagine these will only become more widespread.
[0] http://sfpark.org/
[0] http://sfpark.org/
That is already common in most places. Most parking structures I know have different rates for different arrival and stay lengths. A lot of street parking has free and paid times. Demand based parking has been around a long time.
Do they really have driverless cars or
just cars that run on essentially
electronic tracks very carefully
determined?
If someone moves the location of a traffic light, can a Google car still find the traffic light? Wbat if a bulb in the traffic light is burned out; is the car smart enough to negotiate the intersection with the failed light? What if a bucket of white paint fell on the road yesterday; is the Google car's image processing good enough to recognize this or to tell the difference between wet paint and dry?
Heck, when I drive, there is a lot for me to watch and analyze. A Google car can do that?
If someone moves the location of a traffic light, can a Google car still find the traffic light? Wbat if a bulb in the traffic light is burned out; is the car smart enough to negotiate the intersection with the failed light? What if a bucket of white paint fell on the road yesterday; is the Google car's image processing good enough to recognize this or to tell the difference between wet paint and dry?
Heck, when I drive, there is a lot for me to watch and analyze. A Google car can do that?
A Google car can do that?
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM
They have videos of their cars handling common cases. But what about the corner cases?
I've had a sign disappear on me over night which changed the roads rules at a tricky intersection.
There has been a lot of construction in my area so 2 lane roads had a lane closed off and a traffic controller managed traffic across a single lane.
I've even seen a road that you could drive into and out of, become a road that you can only drive into. There had been traffice controllers during road works managing a single lane all through construction and then the day that it was finished, one direction became a dead end.
I've had a sign disappear on me over night which changed the roads rules at a tricky intersection.
There has been a lot of construction in my area so 2 lane roads had a lane closed off and a traffic controller managed traffic across a single lane.
I've even seen a road that you could drive into and out of, become a road that you can only drive into. There had been traffice controllers during road works managing a single lane all through construction and then the day that it was finished, one direction became a dead end.
Did you even watch the video?
The google cars have no memory of what was "yesterday".
The google cars have no memory of what was "yesterday".
or if someone parks a flatbed with a ramp in the road with lines painted up. Will the Google car just drive onto the back of the truck? Would this be how you kidnap the cars and occupants?
I don't care how it looks, it if still cannot drive in bad weather, snow, and worse needs detailed up to date maps, its not truly autonomous driving, its like programmed driving with a few extras.
When the cars can come to you where ever you may be, broke down on the side of the road for example, and take you anywhere regardless of conditions then it can be heralded.
As it stands now its nothing more than the automated cars shown as high tech in Jurassic Park.
When the cars can come to you where ever you may be, broke down on the side of the road for example, and take you anywhere regardless of conditions then it can be heralded.
As it stands now its nothing more than the automated cars shown as high tech in Jurassic Park.
Perhaps because what you describe is not autonomous driving, but human driving. And it's been through a 100 year trial and found to kill over a million people worldwide each year, prevent the elderly and disabled from living full independent lives, and be a huge time and money sink that many humans have to accept.
Snow, heavy rain, being able to go everywhere with up-to-date maps -- these are problems which will find solutions in time. I have no doubt that up-to-date maps will be no problem, considering these vehicles constantly collect centimeter-accurate 3D maps of where they drive and upload them to Google.
And being able to pull over to the side of the road to pick someone up? A simple software feature. There's nothing preventing that NOW.
Don't get caught up in thinking that these things have to be perfect upon release to have a huge benefit.
Snow, heavy rain, being able to go everywhere with up-to-date maps -- these are problems which will find solutions in time. I have no doubt that up-to-date maps will be no problem, considering these vehicles constantly collect centimeter-accurate 3D maps of where they drive and upload them to Google.
And being able to pull over to the side of the road to pick someone up? A simple software feature. There's nothing preventing that NOW.
Don't get caught up in thinking that these things have to be perfect upon release to have a huge benefit.
This is silly. I bet you can't drive through a swamp in a jeep, because you haven't acquired the skill. But that doesn't mean the rest of your driving doesn't qualify as real driving.
Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that using an autonomous car as a cab would be illegal. Current permits are rather specific about having an manufacturer's employee behind the wheel at all times. I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't expect any state to lighten up the requirement of at least having someone behind a wheel for the foreseeable future. I think most patrons of Uber don't really want to be sitting behind the wheel.
"I think most patrons of Uber don't really want to be sitting behind the wheel." - if the vehicle was self driving, then absolutely.
I can imagine a scenario of 24/7 tech support VC'ing at the push of a help button or if Google notices the car has malfunctioned.
Getting the laws changed will take time. When presented as a n option will it be in demand? You bet!
I can imagine a scenario of 24/7 tech support VC'ing at the push of a help button or if Google notices the car has malfunctioned.
Getting the laws changed will take time. When presented as a n option will it be in demand? You bet!
This generation of cars doesn't have a "wheel" at all -- there is literally no steering wheel and no way for a human to operate it.
So legislation will clearly need to change before these are street legal.
So legislation will clearly need to change before these are street legal.
"It doesn't need a cool factor"
That was the death knell of Google Glass (at least in its current incarnation). Seems that Google hasn't learned much.
That was the death knell of Google Glass (at least in its current incarnation). Seems that Google hasn't learned much.
Google Glass is a camera on your face. The self driving car revolutionizes transportation internationally forever.
One makes you look like a hipster. The other is primed to save tens of thousands of lives a year if it gets rapidly adopted.
One weighs grams. The other can run you over and crush your skull.
Perception matters. This initial design is so insanely non-threatening it achieves its appearance goals. It does not need to sell units, it needs to sell the idea.
One makes you look like a hipster. The other is primed to save tens of thousands of lives a year if it gets rapidly adopted.
One weighs grams. The other can run you over and crush your skull.
Perception matters. This initial design is so insanely non-threatening it achieves its appearance goals. It does not need to sell units, it needs to sell the idea.
AFAIK, Google Glass was explicitly a prototype, meant to visually advertise itself as a prototype to anyone who looked at it—in the same way that, say, a breadboard or a caseless Arduino visually advertises itself as a prototype.
Seeing someone wearing Google Glasses was meant to put you in mind that they were testing something and you could help them test it, not that they were using a piece of everyday consumer electronics.
And this car is pretty much the same: it's meant to stand out (see my other comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8785463). So I wouldn't say they needed to learn anything.
As the technologies are accepted and commercialized by other parties, then they can make one that looks normal-ish.
Seeing someone wearing Google Glasses was meant to put you in mind that they were testing something and you could help them test it, not that they were using a piece of everyday consumer electronics.
And this car is pretty much the same: it's meant to stand out (see my other comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8785463). So I wouldn't say they needed to learn anything.
As the technologies are accepted and commercialized by other parties, then they can make one that looks normal-ish.
My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine.
My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational.
With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear, and be replaced with time sharing. At that point the connection between our view of ourselves, and the car we ride in disappears.
I'm not sure that completely excuses the lack of modern car aesthetic here, but it could go some way to explaining it.
My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational.
With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear, and be replaced with time sharing. At that point the connection between our view of ourselves, and the car we ride in disappears.
I'm not sure that completely excuses the lack of modern car aesthetic here, but it could go some way to explaining it.
Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.
I am somewhat anxious to see how this plays out financially and economically otherwise. Will these cars cost the same as a car that every person now buys for themselves with maybe a little higher cost of maintenance and operation (M&O)? Will there essentially be one manufacturer because one vehicle can support 10 people and we don't need millions of these things pumped out? And will the collapse of competition mean that there will be a monopoly (dare I say it, Über) that over-charges all of humanity after they have essentially captured the market in the exact way that an evil empire like Über would?
An even bigger question I have, will this kind of development essentially mean the doom for anonymous movements? We can all imagine that there will essentially be no way that you will be able to ride in one of these without identifying yourself and at some point manual vehicles will be banned; very likely in most of our lifetimes. At which point you, the guy who rides his bike or walks will be highly suspect if you are even able to at all, since you must be hiding something since you don't want to use the government tracker transporter.
I am somewhat anxious to see how this plays out financially and economically otherwise. Will these cars cost the same as a car that every person now buys for themselves with maybe a little higher cost of maintenance and operation (M&O)? Will there essentially be one manufacturer because one vehicle can support 10 people and we don't need millions of these things pumped out? And will the collapse of competition mean that there will be a monopoly (dare I say it, Über) that over-charges all of humanity after they have essentially captured the market in the exact way that an evil empire like Über would?
An even bigger question I have, will this kind of development essentially mean the doom for anonymous movements? We can all imagine that there will essentially be no way that you will be able to ride in one of these without identifying yourself and at some point manual vehicles will be banned; very likely in most of our lifetimes. At which point you, the guy who rides his bike or walks will be highly suspect if you are even able to at all, since you must be hiding something since you don't want to use the government tracker transporter.
All possessions are fundamentally irrational. I'm baffled why people would collect vinyl, buy overpriced designer clothing, pay for expensive tickets to sport, buy expensive kitchen implements - and on and on and on.
I like cars. I like driving. There are some cars I'd be happy to own, even if they didn't go. I spend money on buying, maintaining and driving cars because it's something I like doing.
This is no more or less irrational than any number of other discretionary spends. So you shouldn't be baffled anymore.
I like cars. I like driving. There are some cars I'd be happy to own, even if they didn't go. I spend money on buying, maintaining and driving cars because it's something I like doing.
This is no more or less irrational than any number of other discretionary spends. So you shouldn't be baffled anymore.
> I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it.
Yes, but if you have to have a car, and some people do (to commute to work, etc) then what a car costs is what you have to pay. It's not squandered money if there aren't any other options.
If you pay too little, chances are you end up with a lemon that will just die on you after a week, and then where are you?
Yes, but if you have to have a car, and some people do (to commute to work, etc) then what a car costs is what you have to pay. It's not squandered money if there aren't any other options.
If you pay too little, chances are you end up with a lemon that will just die on you after a week, and then where are you?
> Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.
It's a status symbol. If you don't understand them or why cars function as such...you probably don't understand people :)
It's a status symbol. If you don't understand them or why cars function as such...you probably don't understand people :)
[deleted]
[deleted]
The oatmeal wrote about it:
| Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable... By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car
| Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable... By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car
Is the 25mph limit a US thing? In the UK the normal minimum (aside from select residential zones where the neighbours complain) is 30mph. Many people would be very annoyed to sit behind a car doing 5 below the speed limit.
Many people in the US are very annoying to sit behind someone doing 5 above the speed limit in many places (and I don't mean just highways, where the speed limit is just an unlimited police funding scheme through being able to ticket anyone whenever you want).
I imagine they did 25mph because its slow enough to appease representatives in letting them put the car on the road. Nobody with the ability to actually make this happen is rational or knowledgeable about this, and will behave like psychotic monkeys when confronted with autos, so Google is using every trick in the book to make these look innocent, including Grandma grade speed limits.
I imagine they did 25mph because its slow enough to appease representatives in letting them put the car on the road. Nobody with the ability to actually make this happen is rational or knowledgeable about this, and will behave like psychotic monkeys when confronted with autos, so Google is using every trick in the book to make these look innocent, including Grandma grade speed limits.
35mph is the normal minimum in the US, outside of some neighborhoods where it gets as low as 20-25mph.
The 25mph speed is a hack around US auto regulations, which are far less strict if the vehicle's max speed is 25mph or less.
The 25mph speed is a hack around US auto regulations, which are far less strict if the vehicle's max speed is 25mph or less.
> 35mph is the normal minimum in the US
In California, the default speed limit in business or residential districts is 25 mph, this is also the default speed limit for school zones.
In California, the default speed limit in business or residential districts is 25 mph, this is also the default speed limit for school zones.
A lot of golf cart like vehicles operate at this speed. We had a few dozen at the university and all of the "street legal" ones had a limit stamped on them of 25mph.
25 miles per hour classifies it as a slow moving vehicle which is much less regulated. It also puts it in the same class as bicycles, golf carts, tractors, etc, which are all perfectly road legal.
It varies from state to state. In California, where the testing is taking place, it happens to be 25. In Texas, it's 30.
[deleted]
35mph is closer to the norm- I don't think a 25mph car would work (even in cities).
The speed limit on about 90% of New York City's roads is now 25 mph. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/things-to-know-...
> With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear
That's a bold statement. It might become more of a luxury, i.e. something you buy when you reach a certain income, rather than something you need to live. But disappear, no, it won't.
As anecdote, I can bring the experience of European life. In a lot of European towns and cities, you can live quite comfortably without a car, today -- after all, they were built for people and horses. Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.
In London, a lot of people simply use cabs to move around most of the time; but sure enough, if they have a decent income, they'll buy a car and park it somewhere, ready to be driven during their countryside weekends.
Already today, car ownership has very little to do with convenience; it's mostly about ownership and individualism, something that is completely opposite to the concept of sharing. My wife is absolutely horrified at the thought of sharing anything ("germs! ruined things!" etc etc), and that will not change because of Google or Uber.
That's a bold statement. It might become more of a luxury, i.e. something you buy when you reach a certain income, rather than something you need to live. But disappear, no, it won't.
As anecdote, I can bring the experience of European life. In a lot of European towns and cities, you can live quite comfortably without a car, today -- after all, they were built for people and horses. Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.
In London, a lot of people simply use cabs to move around most of the time; but sure enough, if they have a decent income, they'll buy a car and park it somewhere, ready to be driven during their countryside weekends.
Already today, car ownership has very little to do with convenience; it's mostly about ownership and individualism, something that is completely opposite to the concept of sharing. My wife is absolutely horrified at the thought of sharing anything ("germs! ruined things!" etc etc), and that will not change because of Google or Uber.
In London I know a fair few people that earn over £100,000. None of them own cars. Aside from the fact that the tube or a bike is generally far faster for A-B the drinking culture means that people really don't want to be stuck having to drive a car home.
> Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.
Do Europeans really by SUVs like that? I was under the impression a sports car like a Porsche (or even Ferrari) would be the grander status symbol?
Do Europeans really by SUVs like that? I was under the impression a sports car like a Porsche (or even Ferrari) would be the grander status symbol?
Don't underestimate the influence of US culture; SUVs are the new "estate Mercedes" over here.
Sports car are really quite gauche, the realm of sheiks, footballers and crass salesmen. Old Money, industrialists, politicians and affluent professionals will buy SUVs for the day-to-day.
Sports car are really quite gauche, the realm of sheiks, footballers and crass salesmen. Old Money, industrialists, politicians and affluent professionals will buy SUVs for the day-to-day.
I often wonder how much of it is a human trait. Transportation has many sides, it's a psycho-physiological wonder (push a pedal while sitting, and move faster than running), it's a moving private space, a technical and aesthetic source of pleasure, obviously a social status sign also. Were people as attached to their horses, boats ? was it a rite of passage or just a mundane thing ?
I don't want to own a self-driving car. I want the self-driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber. Press a button on my phone, the closest one shows up, drives me where I want to go, and then hangs out nearby for the next person or goes back to the closest designated parking location.
These self-driving cars will be cheaper than even UberX/Lyft/whatever, as there is no driver to have to pay. They can be smaller than a cab, taking up much less parking room (they can park too close for their doors to open, and they don't need to including seating for a driver), which can actually be a fairly significant cost in the city, where convenient parking spaces can sell for as much as a house does elsewhere.
These self-driving cars will be cheaper than even UberX/Lyft/whatever, as there is no driver to have to pay. They can be smaller than a cab, taking up much less parking room (they can park too close for their doors to open, and they don't need to including seating for a driver), which can actually be a fairly significant cost in the city, where convenient parking spaces can sell for as much as a house does elsewhere.
Good points but some people just enjoy the act of driving and take a lot of pride in customizing their cars to match their tastes. A fundamentally human trait that will of course adjust to changing technology, but won't go away as staunchly as you think.
so we'll use our "driver's cars" on scenic roads and racetracks. I don't think many people enjoy driving through heavy city traffic.
Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal got to have a ride in one and shared his thoughts here: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car
It actually looks like a car that would fit in well with the overall design motif of The Oatmeal.
He also owns a Model S.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s
Lots of people are point at this being Uber's future "auto-car". Here's an alternative idea:
- You can buy this car. It costs $100,000. But that's okay.
- When you aren't actively using it, you tell it to go "Uber mode" and pick up and drive people around as part of the "Uber Network of Cars"
- You split the fee with Uber/Lyft/whoever. They get 30%, you get 70%.
If the average ride pays you $7, over 5 years that's like 8 rides your car has to "sell" per day to be effectively "free" to you (except for financing, insurance, etc.).
- At the end of the workday, Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office and whisk you home.
- After dropping you off at home, your car goes back onto Uber mode and does night-time service (if you opt-in).
You could probably pay your car off much earlier than 5 years with more rides/higher average ride fare, after which your car is making you money. Clever people will use this extra to finance more cars to run small fleets and effectively live without working.
- You can buy this car. It costs $100,000. But that's okay.
- When you aren't actively using it, you tell it to go "Uber mode" and pick up and drive people around as part of the "Uber Network of Cars"
- You split the fee with Uber/Lyft/whoever. They get 30%, you get 70%.
If the average ride pays you $7, over 5 years that's like 8 rides your car has to "sell" per day to be effectively "free" to you (except for financing, insurance, etc.).
- At the end of the workday, Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office and whisk you home.
- After dropping you off at home, your car goes back onto Uber mode and does night-time service (if you opt-in).
You could probably pay your car off much earlier than 5 years with more rides/higher average ride fare, after which your car is making you money. Clever people will use this extra to finance more cars to run small fleets and effectively live without working.
Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office...
...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up.
You sigh as you clean up the mess, "At least it feels like I'm living in the future now..."
But, most likely, the cars will keep track of who is riding in them and you could hunt down whoever made the mess and make them clean it up. Or maybe it has cameras installed? Talk about an invasion of privacy! Plus it's not like they ever signed a waiver saying they WOULDN'T shit in the car.
You sigh as you clean up the mess, "At least it feels like I'm living in the future now..."
But, most likely, the cars will keep track of who is riding in them and you could hunt down whoever made the mess and make them clean it up. Or maybe it has cameras installed? Talk about an invasion of privacy! Plus it's not like they ever signed a waiver saying they WOULDN'T shit in the car.
> Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office... ...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up.
Well, self-cleaning cars don't take a whole lot of new technology. But, sure, that's one of the reasons that I think that self-driving taxis, while clearly one of the long-term applications, probably aren't the first use of self-driving cars. And, particularly, the personally-owned self-driving vehicle whose owner is the primary user but rents it out on the off hours use is, while it might be something people try early on in the self-driving vehicle era, likely to not be a big thing even after self-driving taxis are.
> Or maybe it has cameras installed?
Conveyances used by the public often do, yes. I would rather expect this.
Well, self-cleaning cars don't take a whole lot of new technology. But, sure, that's one of the reasons that I think that self-driving taxis, while clearly one of the long-term applications, probably aren't the first use of self-driving cars. And, particularly, the personally-owned self-driving vehicle whose owner is the primary user but rents it out on the off hours use is, while it might be something people try early on in the self-driving vehicle era, likely to not be a big thing even after self-driving taxis are.
> Or maybe it has cameras installed?
Conveyances used by the public often do, yes. I would rather expect this.
> You could probably pay your car off much earlier than 5 years with more rides/higher average ride fare, after which your car is making you money. Clever people will use this extra to finance more cars to run small fleets and effectively live without working.
If it's such a great money spinner, why won't companies do that? Why do you _want_ people to own cars?
If it's such a great money spinner, why won't companies do that? Why do you _want_ people to own cars?
Companies could if they wanted. But up-front capitol costs are high like that, it's easier to "crowd source" the investment and take your 30% off of other people's effort. All you have to do is provide a coordinated system they can sign into/outof.
[deleted]
Seems more likely that companies will own the fleets, and robo jitney won't be a thing.
The way Google seems to be approaching self-driving cars is the right one in my opinion. Self-driving cars will be on-demand, booked through something like Uber and will not be owned by the end-user.
I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my car, what would be the point? Vanity of course has to be considered but in the future, I see self-driving cars which we don't own will the the status quo in cities, and owning a manual operating a car will be either a novelty or something for people outside of major city hubs.
I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my car, what would be the point? Vanity of course has to be considered but in the future, I see self-driving cars which we don't own will the the status quo in cities, and owning a manual operating a car will be either a novelty or something for people outside of major city hubs.
My family doesn't own our cars because we like driving them. We own them for convenience! The prospect of ordering a car, waiting for it to arrive, futzing with car seats, transferring car toys, dealing with scarcity and surge pricing, etc. for every trip is very unappealing. And renting is usually more expensive than owning anyways!
In the near term, I'm looking forwards to hybrid assistive technologies. We took a vacation that required seven hours of highway driving. Toyota's freeway mode ("Automated Highway Driving Assist"), which controls speed and steering, would have made a big difference.
In the near term, I'm looking forwards to hybrid assistive technologies. We took a vacation that required seven hours of highway driving. Toyota's freeway mode ("Automated Highway Driving Assist"), which controls speed and steering, would have made a big difference.
I think that virtually nobody who is certain that self-driving cars will be short-term rentals (ie, the Uber model) has children. It's a HUGE blind spot that the of course mostly very young, mostly childless tech commentariat has.
The value of car ownership as a way to have large amounts of your property available at whatever location you are presently at without you constantly engaging in a bunch of loading and unloading work is not to be underestimated.
(There are plenty of other ways that long-term rental or ownership of driverless cars makes sense, too. How prevalent a ride-for-hire model will be is going to depend on lots of details about the technology; it's not a given.)
The value of car ownership as a way to have large amounts of your property available at whatever location you are presently at without you constantly engaging in a bunch of loading and unloading work is not to be underestimated.
(There are plenty of other ways that long-term rental or ownership of driverless cars makes sense, too. How prevalent a ride-for-hire model will be is going to depend on lots of details about the technology; it's not a given.)
When you start going up the ladder in the tech community, you'll see that people are older and have children.
The reason that kids aren't discussed in this scenario is that they don't present any complications, technically or business-wise. If you've got that much stuff to carry with them, then swap the cache you're using the car for with a big bag. Then move the big bag in and out of the car as needed. If that's too much hassle, then you're out of luck. You've got too much value in the vehicle when it's not operating (for storage).
The reason that kids aren't discussed in this scenario is that they don't present any complications, technically or business-wise. If you've got that much stuff to carry with them, then swap the cache you're using the car for with a big bag. Then move the big bag in and out of the car as needed. If that's too much hassle, then you're out of luck. You've got too much value in the vehicle when it's not operating (for storage).
I think you've just proved the previous poster's point here: child seats alone most certainly present "complications". They have to be fitted precisely to your child, they're a pain in the ass to install, and they have to be installed carefully, or they're worse than useless in an accident. For a typical parent use case like taking your kid to daycare and back, installing and fitting a seat twice a day in any sort of rental car is a complete non-starter.
Couldn't you order a car replete with everything you needed? There are lot's of parents on the roads, presumably there's a fair degree of overlap regarding what they'd want in the car?
No, of course not. It's not generic cartons of "insert kid item here," it's your stuff. It's your kid's clothes, it's your stroller, it's your sporting goods, it's all the elements of a life that isn't the mid-20's techie lifestyle, where all your important material goods are your various computing devices at home and your smartphone.
I suppose that you could try to have the cars come with baby seats (though there are like a million variations of baby seats depending on the age of your child, so that's going to be a headache) and things like kleenex/wipes/snacks/drinks (though replenishing those is going to be a huge logistical issue and there are some legit sanitary concerns). But lots of the stuff people tote around is individual, valuable property.
This is what I'm saying about the blind spot of the tech commentariat. Next time you walk past a family unloading their car, glance at their trunk. It's twice the size of your car's trunk, and it's filled with stuff all the time.
I suppose that you could try to have the cars come with baby seats (though there are like a million variations of baby seats depending on the age of your child, so that's going to be a headache) and things like kleenex/wipes/snacks/drinks (though replenishing those is going to be a huge logistical issue and there are some legit sanitary concerns). But lots of the stuff people tote around is individual, valuable property.
This is what I'm saying about the blind spot of the tech commentariat. Next time you walk past a family unloading their car, glance at their trunk. It's twice the size of your car's trunk, and it's filled with stuff all the time.
They'll likely start expensive, and mainly be viable for short-term rental services, which are mainly used by people living in cities, etc. Then, as prices drop, some people will start to own them for convenience, but I expect car ownership to drop. Maybe people will only own one car to cover the situations you described, and rent when they need more than one.
As a young person living in a city, I'm looking forward to getting rid of my car, and not having to worry about maintenance, etc. I expect it to be competitive with the cost of owning your own car.
As a young person living in a city, I'm looking forward to getting rid of my car, and not having to worry about maintenance, etc. I expect it to be competitive with the cost of owning your own car.
I think I more or less expect car ownership to drop at least a little as well. That said, let me present the other case:
Car ownership is very prevalent right now. A driverless car that you can own is higher value than a traditional car you can own. Particularly, the owned driverless car:
1. Can be operated by a passenger who is not legal or safe to drive a traditional car, for reasons including but not limited to: sleepy, under the influence of alcohol, disabled, or (importantly) TOO YOUNG.
2. Can be used as a mobile depot for goods even in situations where a traditional car is impractical for such purposes (such as when parking is too much of a pain in the ass).
3. Can be more efficiently shared among a family, doing things like dropping a working family-member off at their job and then coming back home to serve the non-working family-member.
So while there may be young urban people who choose not to buy a car and instead rent it per-ride, they will be more than counterbalanced by the following rises in car ownership:
* Wealthy families who had one or two traditional cars and choose to buy two or three driverless cars, with the extra car devoted to driving the kids around when the parents don't want to.
* Cost-constrained couples who have the need for effectively two cars but only the money for one who previously chose to apply that money to public transit, but now buy a driverless car and share it.
* Wealthy urban dwellers who previously don't really like public transit/don't find it that convenient but previously coped with it because cars were so inconvenient now buy a driverless car that has increased utility in their city (because they don't need to park it/can use it when going out drinking/don't need to pay attention while in-transit). They don't go with the Uber option because they aren't cost-constrained and they like the privacy, reliability, and prestige of owning.
Car ownership is very prevalent right now. A driverless car that you can own is higher value than a traditional car you can own. Particularly, the owned driverless car:
1. Can be operated by a passenger who is not legal or safe to drive a traditional car, for reasons including but not limited to: sleepy, under the influence of alcohol, disabled, or (importantly) TOO YOUNG.
2. Can be used as a mobile depot for goods even in situations where a traditional car is impractical for such purposes (such as when parking is too much of a pain in the ass).
3. Can be more efficiently shared among a family, doing things like dropping a working family-member off at their job and then coming back home to serve the non-working family-member.
So while there may be young urban people who choose not to buy a car and instead rent it per-ride, they will be more than counterbalanced by the following rises in car ownership:
* Wealthy families who had one or two traditional cars and choose to buy two or three driverless cars, with the extra car devoted to driving the kids around when the parents don't want to.
* Cost-constrained couples who have the need for effectively two cars but only the money for one who previously chose to apply that money to public transit, but now buy a driverless car and share it.
* Wealthy urban dwellers who previously don't really like public transit/don't find it that convenient but previously coped with it because cars were so inconvenient now buy a driverless car that has increased utility in their city (because they don't need to park it/can use it when going out drinking/don't need to pay attention while in-transit). They don't go with the Uber option because they aren't cost-constrained and they like the privacy, reliability, and prestige of owning.
> I think that virtually nobody who is certain that self-driving cars will be short-term rentals (ie, the Uber model) has children. It's a HUGE blind spot that the of course mostly very young, mostly childless tech commentariat has.
Why? Can't be less convenient than trains or planes. People take those all the time with kids. (My parents used to.)
Why? Can't be less convenient than trains or planes. People take those all the time with kids. (My parents used to.)
I have a hard time believing this is a serious comment. Obviously plane travel is in no way comparable to travel intended to replace the family car -- they're wildly different modes of transportation with different destinations, plane travel is vastly less frequent, and its many annoyances are dealt with because it is the only reasonably expedited way to travel the distances it covers.
Depending on what you mean by "train" travel, that is perhaps more comparable (ie, local subway is in some ways a substitutable good for local car travel). In short, though: families are considerably less likely to find local rail travel useful than are single people. Yes, of course you can find people who use it by choice or necessity. But when you have to tote a baby carrier and diaper bag, or your kid's soccer gear, or just keep track of a gaggle of children in a crowded train, it's just much less convenient.
Depending on what you mean by "train" travel, that is perhaps more comparable (ie, local subway is in some ways a substitutable good for local car travel). In short, though: families are considerably less likely to find local rail travel useful than are single people. Yes, of course you can find people who use it by choice or necessity. But when you have to tote a baby carrier and diaper bag, or your kid's soccer gear, or just keep track of a gaggle of children in a crowded train, it's just much less convenient.
From a technology perspective as well, autonomous operations on designated sections of highways seems much more practical and nearer-term than visions of robo-Uber. I suspect a lot of the enthusiasm comes from urbanites who only marginally need a car today. And the capability gap between today's assistive technologies or even truly autonomous highway operations and being able to just virtually hail a robotic cab in a city seems as if it's a lot bigger than a lot of people appreciate. I suspect this has been the source of much of the tension between the auto makers and Google. I'm all for having a vision of what's ultimately probably possible but there would seem to be pretty compelling interim steps that seem much more achievable in interesting time horizons. They're probably not very interesting is you just drive around cities or congested suburbia but they look pretty appealing if you do any amount of longer distance driving.
I think a robo-Uber is more likely. Mostly because the designated highway sections would require concerted public actions and overcoming a lot of NIMBYs.
Robo-Uber requires to solve technical problems (and some regulation). Designated lanes are more of a social problem. (We could have had automatic driving on designated roads for decades; just make the cars run on rails, too.)
Robo-Uber requires to solve technical problems (and some regulation). Designated lanes are more of a social problem. (We could have had automatic driving on designated roads for decades; just make the cars run on rails, too.)
>Mostly because the designated highway sections would require concerted public actions and overcoming a lot of NIMBYs.
But it's much closer to being technically feasible than the general case.
That said, I don't really disagree with your point which is one reason why it's further out than a lot of enthusiasts would like to think. The likely scenario is that (initially) high-end luxury cars will get features that could allow them to operate autonomously on designated sections of highway. The problem, as you point out, is that it would take concerted public action to change laws and designate those sections (perhaps requiring some sort of radio beacons to enforce the designation). That's a fair bit of public action, and probably at least some money, to let "rich" people fiddle with their phones while tooling down 280 or wherever. I'm not sure it's something I, as a politician, would be anxious to champion.
I suppose there could be commercial benefits as well--trucking and so forth--but given that you still need to pay a human to sit in the vehicle, it's unclear that highway-only self-driving would given businesses much of an economic win.
But it's much closer to being technically feasible than the general case.
That said, I don't really disagree with your point which is one reason why it's further out than a lot of enthusiasts would like to think. The likely scenario is that (initially) high-end luxury cars will get features that could allow them to operate autonomously on designated sections of highway. The problem, as you point out, is that it would take concerted public action to change laws and designate those sections (perhaps requiring some sort of radio beacons to enforce the designation). That's a fair bit of public action, and probably at least some money, to let "rich" people fiddle with their phones while tooling down 280 or wherever. I'm not sure it's something I, as a politician, would be anxious to champion.
I suppose there could be commercial benefits as well--trucking and so forth--but given that you still need to pay a human to sit in the vehicle, it's unclear that highway-only self-driving would given businesses much of an economic win.
On the other hand highways are much simpler and could be completely self-driven with today's technology, probably much more safely than a human driver. This takes people out of high-stakes boring driving where the vast majority of fatalities take place and give them an easier, safer commute.
I can't react to debris in the road, a pothole, or a deer crossing the road in 1 ms like an automated driver can and at 80 MPH that's where it really matters. A 25 MPH collision is basically just a matter of money, as with today's cars there's almost no mortal danger. Hitting a deer at highway speeds is a life-threatening problem.
You can make a flatbed-type powered sled that people drive their cars onto and it drives you from exit A to exit B. It can enclose and lock the wheels of your car for safety. This can even be electric or hybrid to reduce costs with a long, flat Tesla-like battery under the flatbed. If I could drive my car onto a system like this and take a nap for 5 hours on the highway I would do this in a heartbeat because I have confidence that today's technology can drive a restricted access road better than I can in good conditions.
I can't react to debris in the road, a pothole, or a deer crossing the road in 1 ms like an automated driver can and at 80 MPH that's where it really matters. A 25 MPH collision is basically just a matter of money, as with today's cars there's almost no mortal danger. Hitting a deer at highway speeds is a life-threatening problem.
You can make a flatbed-type powered sled that people drive their cars onto and it drives you from exit A to exit B. It can enclose and lock the wheels of your car for safety. This can even be electric or hybrid to reduce costs with a long, flat Tesla-like battery under the flatbed. If I could drive my car onto a system like this and take a nap for 5 hours on the highway I would do this in a heartbeat because I have confidence that today's technology can drive a restricted access road better than I can in good conditions.
I don't think you need to assume switching driving modes to a flatbed which would introduce bottlenecks and reduce flexibility compared to individually autonomous vehicles.
>I can't react to debris in the road, a pothole, or a deer crossing the road in 1 ms like an automated driver can and at 80 MPH that's where it really matters.
The laws of physics still apply but, yes, in general a computer could do a better job--at least on average--than a person. (Although I suspect there will be some things a computer is very good at and a few where it tends to make errors that a human might avoid.)
I agree with your basic point though that autonomous driving on significant sections of highway is by itself a big win even though it doesn't fundamentally change how most people own and drive cars.
>I can't react to debris in the road, a pothole, or a deer crossing the road in 1 ms like an automated driver can and at 80 MPH that's where it really matters.
The laws of physics still apply but, yes, in general a computer could do a better job--at least on average--than a person. (Although I suspect there will be some things a computer is very good at and a few where it tends to make errors that a human might avoid.)
I agree with your basic point though that autonomous driving on significant sections of highway is by itself a big win even though it doesn't fundamentally change how most people own and drive cars.
I'd heard that the actual reliable sensors that can see through rain and such are like $50k+ so are not affordable in private cars, but a service that uses it all the time could. I wouldn't want to fall asleep with today's consumer-grade hardware, but you're right that even an autopilot that has to be supervised still has most of the safety benefits.
There could be a market for owning self-driving cars outside of major cities. Not everyone has access to a cab-like service now so unless that changes adding some sort of autopilot to regular cars would be useful.
I like being a passenger in a nice car more than in a crap car, so owning a nice self driving car would be a bit like having your own chauffeur and time to do other things while enjoying your car.
[deleted]
The vision should be to replace as many drivered cars as possible with driverless and network the vehicles. I see a future without a need for stop lights.
I want a self-driving car to free me up to do other things on my hour commute twice a day. Even if it were more cost-effective to rent (which I suspect it would not be given how much I would need to rent), I can think of 2 reasons I'd rather own:
- Don't have to worry about availability. Turns out there are a lot of people in my region who go to work in the morning and go home in the evening.
- When you spend that much time in your vehicle, it becomes and extension of your personal/living space. I don't want to spend 10 hours a week in a public box that may have a mess or an odor from the person before me.
- Don't have to worry about availability. Turns out there are a lot of people in my region who go to work in the morning and go home in the evening.
- When you spend that much time in your vehicle, it becomes and extension of your personal/living space. I don't want to spend 10 hours a week in a public box that may have a mess or an odor from the person before me.
High-end sports cars are fun to drive, but wouldn't it be nice to turn on autopilot from time to time? Like if you're stuck in traffic, or you need to do a bit of work, or you get tired during a long trip.
Some might also prefer ownership so that their car is always available with no delay, or so that they know their car will be perfectly clean and odorless.
I think you're right that on-demand will eventually make sense for a majority of people, though.
Some might also prefer ownership so that their car is always available with no delay, or so that they know their car will be perfectly clean and odorless.
I think you're right that on-demand will eventually make sense for a majority of people, though.
> Self-driving cars will be on-demand
Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car.
Sometimes you need a car now to goto the shops, drop your kids at doctor etc. without having to wait 10-30 minutes for a car to arrive from the other side of town.
Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car.
Sometimes you need a car now to goto the shops, drop your kids at doctor etc. without having to wait 10-30 minutes for a car to arrive from the other side of town.
Waiting time for a cab where I live takes less than a minute on average (in fact, I'd say the median is around 20s). In a driverless world, it's possible that the cab market where you live will be a lot more efficient/cheaper and the assumption that waiting for a cab takes 10-30 min won't hold anymore.
That's just an availability problem. One of the likely effects of self driving cars is that taxi density will increase by quite a lot, which should decrease pickup latency.
> Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car.
Cheap enough cabs with a minimum of latency, do.
Cheap enough cabs with a minimum of latency, do.
But the truth is that assisted driving is already a much larger market that self-driving cars. Many manufacturers already have lane assist, braking assist, self parking and other features. This type of creeping automation is much more likely to take over than coming at it from the other end. I would say both markets will get going and converge over a decade or more.
Given that as far as I know, roads must be extensively mapped in advance of a self-driving car going on them, there is a nice bonus of doing self-driving cars exclusively through Uber at first. Uber can know the exact route the passenger wants to take in advance, and only send cars to passengers whose routes are already mapped. Furthermore, they can choose to only send them out when the conditions are good (no snow, etc. assuming conditions are still a problem when these go into fuller production). A nice way to roll the cars out incrementally without some of the problems they might otherwise have...
Good point! People are working on the extensive pre-map requirement, though.
One of the aspects of this that I've been getting concerned about is the invasion of privacy that they will pose, especially if it's one or a handful of companies owning an operating the autonomous vehicles.
It's true that if you carry a cell phone you already carry a personal tracking device and offer this information up freely to your cellular provider, but I'm interested in reducing instead of increasing the amount of information I'm leaking in that way.
What kind of information will these cars track? They'll have to track who rides in them for accountability purposes, which I already find troubling. Your average cabby isn't going to be compiling a profile about you based on where you catch rides to. Who has access to the information such as who rides in which cars? Is this available via an open API? I'm already peeved at companies like FitBit which hold my data ransom, is this going to be another of those situations?
There's a lot of privacy questions that I feel aren't being adequately addressed, but I still look forward to the possibilities this will bring. The privacy questions are answerable and any problems should be correctable.
It's true that if you carry a cell phone you already carry a personal tracking device and offer this information up freely to your cellular provider, but I'm interested in reducing instead of increasing the amount of information I'm leaking in that way.
What kind of information will these cars track? They'll have to track who rides in them for accountability purposes, which I already find troubling. Your average cabby isn't going to be compiling a profile about you based on where you catch rides to. Who has access to the information such as who rides in which cars? Is this available via an open API? I'm already peeved at companies like FitBit which hold my data ransom, is this going to be another of those situations?
There's a lot of privacy questions that I feel aren't being adequately addressed, but I still look forward to the possibilities this will bring. The privacy questions are answerable and any problems should be correctable.
To those that get hung up on the design: remember that this car is limited to 25 mph for regulatory reasons. Having a design that is closer to a bumper car than a model S seems fitting with that in mind.
> To those that get hung up on the design: remember that this car is limited to 25 mph for regulatory reasons.
Which might explain exactly why it looks very similar to many NEVs [0] or Motorized Quadricycles [1], which tend to have similar constraints.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorised_quadricycle
Which might explain exactly why it looks very similar to many NEVs [0] or Motorized Quadricycles [1], which tend to have similar constraints.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorised_quadricycle
A lot of people are bashing its appearance. I think it looks cute. So, to each his own on the regard. But seriously guys, this is happening a lot sooner than I thought and I really could not be any more excited to have these on the road.
Reminds me of the Cozy Coupe [1] I had as a child. Perhaps that's not by accident. The fear is that these machines will be unsafe, either to their passengers or to other cards on the road. Making it cute my reduce the perceived threat level.
[1]: http://www.littletikes.com/content/ebiz/shop/invt/612060/612...
[1]: http://www.littletikes.com/content/ebiz/shop/invt/612060/612...
They've got to make more progress on the sensors. They still have that overpriced Velodyne HDL-64E scanner (about $100K) on top of the prototype. The new vehicle has a slightly smaller device on top, probably the HDL-32E. Google doesn't seem to be making progress on flash LIDAR or millimeter microwave radar, which are going to be needed for reasonable-cost production vehicles.
CMU/Cadillac have a self-driving car. They have a number of long videos taken with a back-seat camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXhvQeArwWM
It's good enough that it's been driven around downtown Washington. It doesn't seem to sense turn signals or infer much intent from other-driver behavior. The driver has his hand on the auto/manual switch at all times; clearly there's not much confidence in this thing yet.
CMU/Cadillac have a self-driving car. They have a number of long videos taken with a back-seat camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXhvQeArwWM
It's good enough that it's been driven around downtown Washington. It doesn't seem to sense turn signals or infer much intent from other-driver behavior. The driver has his hand on the auto/manual switch at all times; clearly there's not much confidence in this thing yet.
Google has had much more PR about it's revolutionary tech and that has a LOT going for it. When tesla comes out with their self driving car, if it looks 100x better than this prototype, I still might pick Google. Better aesthetics with comparable functionality will win the majority of time in my book (think Android devices vs Apple devices), however when it comes times to putting my life on the line, I will go with something I feel is safer 100% of the time regardless of how it looks. And like always, Google will dominate with it's superior functionality (backed by their PR over the last couple of years) over any tesla any day.
"Much more PR" than what? The only ads for self-driving cards I've seen are Ford's ads for its automatic parallel parking.
And far from "dominating," Google is a small player in any market for physical goods in which it competes. They're much more likely to license their technology to other manufacturers than sell it directly to consumers.
And far from "dominating," Google is a small player in any market for physical goods in which it competes. They're much more likely to license their technology to other manufacturers than sell it directly to consumers.
> "Much more PR" than what? The only ads for self-driving cards I've seen are Ford's ads for its automatic parallel parking.
Ads are not the only form of PR. (They are actually some of the weakest.)
Ads are not the only form of PR. (They are actually some of the weakest.)
http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/t...
Where can I take you sir?
Where can I take you sir?
The question is when will self driving cars go beyond that Johnny Cab. Remember, Arnie had to rip the driver off in order to escape human pursuers.
I thought this was quite a good commentary on it: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car
I wonder if these things could be used in potentially 'easier' niches like long-haul trucking: you'd create a loading/unloading port near the freeway, and send the truck to another port across the country.
Naturally, I don't know anything about trucking, and you'd want to be really sure something so big and bulky is safe, but the idea would be, rather than "do everything a car does all at once" to do something relatively simple.
Naturally, I don't know anything about trucking, and you'd want to be really sure something so big and bulky is safe, but the idea would be, rather than "do everything a car does all at once" to do something relatively simple.
From an economic standpoint, I would be interested to see how many OTC parts this system. That is, does it need a $1000 lidar or would it get a similar performance with a cheap $100 sensor?
From a technical point of view, 25mph is very limiting IMO. You probably do not need a very sophisticated controller to navigate at 25. If you reach speeds of 60-70MPH with varying road curvatures, the controller design gets trickier.
I disagree. City driving at 25 mph is a lot more complicated and needs a lot more computing power than highway driving at 60-70 mph. City driving involves: handling the "dead zone" of intersection (square of pavement with no marking), poorly marked roads, pedestrians/cyclists/cars getting in your way, complex turn lanes, etc. By comparison highway driving is a piece of cake: clearly marked lanes, no sharp turns, no intersections, clear entry/exit ramps, all vehicles moving in the same direction, no pedestrians.
On city roads, if your car gets confused it can just stop, even without pulling over. This will annoy a lot of people but nobody will die.
On a highway, you can't safely just stop. And there are still difficult driving situations. For example, construction zones often have poorly marked lanes (or multiple, contradictory lane markings), construction workers to watch out for, and nowhere to pull over. Exit and entry ramps may be clear, but merging at speed and in traffic is a difficult and unsafe problem. And any failure at highway speeds is far more dangerous than at 25mph.
On a highway, you can't safely just stop. And there are still difficult driving situations. For example, construction zones often have poorly marked lanes (or multiple, contradictory lane markings), construction workers to watch out for, and nowhere to pull over. Exit and entry ramps may be clear, but merging at speed and in traffic is a difficult and unsafe problem. And any failure at highway speeds is far more dangerous than at 25mph.
What you say is true - city driving is complicated with too many decisions to make, but it does not need a very optimized controller to control the car through those scenarios. Changing a lane at 15-25MPH is far more easier than on a turning highway with merging traffic at 55-60MPH. At that speed the controller would not only need to safely execute the maneuver but also stabilize the vehicle in the event it needs to come to a halt or take an evasive action.
Moreover if there is say some uncertainty in the sensor readings at 25mph, that is multiplied by many factors at higher speeds and becomes very significant. Control at higher speeds has more stability issues and can deal with less uncertainty and than at lower speeds.
Moreover if there is say some uncertainty in the sensor readings at 25mph, that is multiplied by many factors at higher speeds and becomes very significant. Control at higher speeds has more stability issues and can deal with less uncertainty and than at lower speeds.
The 25 m/h speed limit is a regulatory hack. The converted normal cars already drive on the freeway (with human back-up drivers in them).
Cute, adorable, non-threatening... could have been achieved and still looked.. better, methinks.
I don't have a firm enough understanding of how the LIDAR and laser's work in these vehicles, but it occurs to me that it might be possible for a malicious actor to confuse the cars and cause accidents. That's concerning.
This is true now with our current optical recognition devices. Try shining a laser in your eyes while you drive.
Don't bother with the laser, just drive down the street and pass a car with HID headlights that aren't pointed directly towards the ground. At least in that situation your response will be to slow down (and hopefully the people behind you will see your brake lights).
But if someone can manipulate a LIDAR signal to confuse the car into thinking the road ahead is clear when it is not, well then the attack becomes much different.
But if someone can manipulate a LIDAR signal to confuse the car into thinking the road ahead is clear when it is not, well then the attack becomes much different.
Those LIDARs are a spinning array of lasers measuring time of flight for each laser as it spins. Each of ~64 lasers forms one scan line all around itself, and by taking all the scan lines together, they form a rough picture of the 3D structure of the surroundings. You can filter out aberrant inputs in software.
Interesting, thanks!
Nobody who has used Adwords believes Google will ever make a self driving car.
It's a lot easier to work on a greenfield project than to change an existing, extremely heavily used project.
And, different group.
I see their modified self-driving Lexus SUVs driving around Mountain View all the time.
And, different group.
I see their modified self-driving Lexus SUVs driving around Mountain View all the time.
What is the purpose of Google here, to develop a platform that car manufacturers want to integrate or producing driverless cars under Google brand?
i guess it has a strong appeal to the hardcore android crowd. people that get excited about utility, but have no sense at all for style. not a bad thing, mind you, but it is already obvious that it will take a company that gets style, like Tesla and yes, Apple, to make this appealing to people on the other side of the spectrum. people who cannot unsee ugliness, assymetry and disproportion.
personnally i just hope roads stay open for motorcycles in the future. self-driven transportation can be massive fun.
personnally i just hope roads stay open for motorcycles in the future. self-driven transportation can be massive fun.
What's with the side-view mirrors?
What, exactly, are the mirrors for?
FTFA: "Our safety drivers will continue to oversee the vehicle for a while longer, using temporary manual controls as needed while we continue to test and learn."
So, they need all the driver-used mirrors, etc., that any manually-operated vehicle has (plus, the applicable safety regulations probably still require them, since, while provisions allowing self-driving cars to operate exist in some jurisdictions, I don't think that exceptions to the usual equipment requirements, particularly the federal ones, for them actually exist yet.)
So, they need all the driver-used mirrors, etc., that any manually-operated vehicle has (plus, the applicable safety regulations probably still require them, since, while provisions allowing self-driving cars to operate exist in some jurisdictions, I don't think that exceptions to the usual equipment requirements, particularly the federal ones, for them actually exist yet.)
Edit: Google staff and fanbois have far too much time to downvote, but less time to articulate why it seems!
I tried to use Google's driverless car, but everytime I asked it to search for rival services, it kept driving me to their search and adsales offices. Was a bit weird. Like they told the car to prefer their services first! My eurotrash friends promised to investigate though, so that's nice.
I tried to use Google's driverless car, but everytime I asked it to search for rival services, it kept driving me to their search and adsales offices. Was a bit weird. Like they told the car to prefer their services first! My eurotrash friends promised to investigate though, so that's nice.
Part of the aggressive downvoting comes from people who have actually lost loved ones or lost money and time in road accidents and really really want this technology to get somewhere. If I had downvote powers I would have downvoted you too.
Unfortunately, these things just don't have a cool factor. Here's to hoping Tesla moves forward much more quickly (and regular car manufacturers as well.)
It's something Google probably just doesn't "get" - but a lot of people's identities are tied to their cars. It's why we have colors, shapes, brands, options.
This car may be "perfect" algorithmically, but it doesn't mean it stirs the soul.
It's something Google probably just doesn't "get" - but a lot of people's identities are tied to their cars. It's why we have colors, shapes, brands, options.
This car may be "perfect" algorithmically, but it doesn't mean it stirs the soul.
Google is not a car company. They don't want to compete with professional car designers.
What Google wants to do is create a car that is not aggressive in it's design because they want other road users to feel comfortable around a self driving car.
I think they learnt from their mistake with Glass, where it was far too alien/futuristic and hence a lot of people rejected it. Whilst this car isn't futuristic at all but rather cute.
What Google wants to do is create a car that is not aggressive in it's design because they want other road users to feel comfortable around a self driving car.
I think they learnt from their mistake with Glass, where it was far too alien/futuristic and hence a lot of people rejected it. Whilst this car isn't futuristic at all but rather cute.
It's boring. This car says you have no imagination, no spontaneity, you're extremely practical, possibly OCD, with a German sense of humor.
In < 5 years, when someone opens up his or her Uber by Google app, they won't care about what the vehicle looks like on the outside (much like an Uber customer today!). All that matters is that it shows up promptly, and that it takes them to wherever they want to go safely, quickly, and comfortably. The focus will be on the interior - WiFi, power outlets, cup holders, leather seats - so that the passenger can pleasurably remain nose deep in his or her smartwatch / smartphone / tablet. The emotional attachment won't exist - it's just another service on demand. Not until the market becomes stratified will the luxuriousness of the autonomous vehicle come into play.
I disagree. I think we find identity in our car because we a pilot them in a similar way we pilot our bodies. As we get less involved in the control of the vehicle, we will care less about how it looks/feels. Taxi cabs are a good example of this.
I disagree. Most people driving around are not racing drivers so they're not "one with the car" so they don't treat it like there bodies. They're more likely to treat it as an accessory.
More over, I quite enjoy driving so I'm not interesting in relinquishing control of the vehicle.
More over, I quite enjoy driving so I'm not interesting in relinquishing control of the vehicle.
Tesla doesn't quite have the R&D for this yet. They have "autopilot", but it isn't quite as complete/competent. They might want to buy that technology from Google.
Either way, the point of Google's self-driving clown car isn't to look cool, it's to get people used to the idea of robotic cars driving around on the streets, successfully not killing people. It's largely PR. They're really doing everyone a favor.
Either way, the point of Google's self-driving clown car isn't to look cool, it's to get people used to the idea of robotic cars driving around on the streets, successfully not killing people. It's largely PR. They're really doing everyone a favor.
It's a taxi. Google doesn't need the design to appeal to individuals, because they aren't selling it to individuals. Instead, they want it to appeal to the cities that they want to partner with. For that purpose, the design is fine. I'd love to see a fleet of these driving around our streets here.
Yes, it's almost like they're designed to be a business solution where "cool" doesn't matter. You know, like to get you from the airport to long-term parking. Maybe a solution for an Uber/Lyft to enter smaller markets?
Autos will never be sold to consumers. At least the general public. Or at least average people will never buy one.
It is a tremendous, insane, unacceptable waste to have autos parked all day. The only way these things make sense is through subscription services where you can summon a car from a fleet whenever you want, so that you can maximize utilization.
It is a tremendous, insane, unacceptable waste to have autos parked all day. The only way these things make sense is through subscription services where you can summon a car from a fleet whenever you want, so that you can maximize utilization.
However, the reason for that is that the majority of people keep roughly the same hours. And the current system at least has the advantage that cars are generally near their owners rather than driving additional miles to get to centralized locations. Given various assumptions, utilization could certainly be increased--though we already have the ZipCar and taxi options--but I'm unconvinced that the pay-per-use economics are going to be as compelling as you think.
Except it is a self managing fleet. Autos would not just stay in central locations, they will use current parking infrastructure to distribute themselves. People will have drive ways for a hundred years even if everyone gets rid of the cars - and you'll get 5% off your subscription to let them park autos in your drive way.
And the majority is just maximal utilization. Even then, it is drastically less than the total number of vehicles in the system, and the reuse of those vehicles every other hour of the day besides peak hour is only a utilization gain.
It will be much cheaper to subscribe to an auto service than own one. In the best case one auto could possibly represent the vehicle usage of a dozen or more people if their driving times align properly. And the worst case is that it is still two or three times the utilization.
And the majority is just maximal utilization. Even then, it is drastically less than the total number of vehicles in the system, and the reuse of those vehicles every other hour of the day besides peak hour is only a utilization gain.
It will be much cheaper to subscribe to an auto service than own one. In the best case one auto could possibly represent the vehicle usage of a dozen or more people if their driving times align properly. And the worst case is that it is still two or three times the utilization.
If prices sink low enough during off-peak hours (and surge high enough during peak), people will alter their behaviour.
Eg I'd be happy to send a car on an autonomous grocery run during the day.
Eg I'd be happy to send a car on an autonomous grocery run during the day.
Tesla doesn't have any technology to speak of. They sell a sled filled with thousands of flashlight batteries. The only thing Tesla has is their car looks cool.
So Google doesn't have cool, and Tesla doesn't have technology. Could be some synergy maybe.
So Google doesn't have cool, and Tesla doesn't have technology. Could be some synergy maybe.
Single gear electric motor? Revolutionary battery technology? Nope; no technology here.
don't worry guys, its only a matter of time until Uber adds another service called UberGrandma/pa and starts targeting senior citizens with this car.
(Google Ventures has a stake in Uber)
This thing looks like a clown car. Perfect for those who think Glass is the height of fashion.
I suspect that may be deliberate, so that safety worries are minimized. You look at this car and think, I'd probably be the one to survive in a head-to-head collision with my SUV.
The first driverless cars need to appear as least threatening as possible.
The first driverless cars need to appear as least threatening as possible.
There is a real problem of monotony with such an over concerned need for safety and practicality. I mean, I really don't want to live in a society where everyone has chosen to drive cars like this to the markets. Yes it looks cute in a picture, but boring as hell to live in.
You really think this will survive a crash with an SUV? It looks very flimsy.
Indeed. Looks "cute", but cute doesn't sell with cars..
Well, I don't think they'll be selling this thing, especially not directly to consumers. This is a research prototype for using on the real road. They're announcing that they now have a complete car in that it meets whatever criteria the law sets for using a car on the public roads. Some time after that, they'll figure out how to market and monetize the technology. I'd be surprised if Google themselves ever got into the car business.
Surprise, I don't care what the car looks like if I'm paying per trip to get me from A to B.
Do you complain about the fashion sense of the BART?
Do you complain about the fashion sense of the BART?
Aluminium Grey is the new Black.
> Indeed. Looks "cute", but cute doesn't sell with cars..
I don't really see Google looking to sell these to consumers. What I see Google doing is some combination of:
1) Selling services to consumers which self-driving cars help deliver (Google Now cards currently give you approximate time to likely destinations -- maybe in the future they also include the time including how long it will take a Google Car to get to you to pick you up and take you.)
2) Using them for Google's own use -- driverless Street View cars, for instance.
3) Demonstrating a technology platform that car companies that do want to sell to consumers can purchase -- and put underneath their own styling.
I don't really see Google looking to sell these to consumers. What I see Google doing is some combination of:
1) Selling services to consumers which self-driving cars help deliver (Google Now cards currently give you approximate time to likely destinations -- maybe in the future they also include the time including how long it will take a Google Car to get to you to pick you up and take you.)
2) Using them for Google's own use -- driverless Street View cars, for instance.
3) Demonstrating a technology platform that car companies that do want to sell to consumers can purchase -- and put underneath their own styling.
I really doubt they would sell this car to public. And having a cute self-driving test vehicle is better for the way people think about it than a dangerously looking sport car with spoilers and basses.
Edit: after seeing the discussion on 25mph and the disarming cuteness, then it makes much more sense.
I too don't care about what the car looks like, but then again I don't own one, partly because I don't care about them as much
I too don't care about what the car looks like, but then again I don't own one, partly because I don't care about them as much
It looks crap.
Google, please don't release that.
(OR: Google, I will pay more not to ride in that.)
Google, please don't release that.
(OR: Google, I will pay more not to ride in that.)
Thank you.
Given Google's stake in Uber the car will be part of a fleet that can be summoned by a mobile app, not some product you go out and buy. Because there will be no dealerships and individual owners, they don't care about attracting buyers for the vehicle - it doesn't need a cool factor. What it needs is to be non-threatening and safe so you will feel comfortable getting in one and going for a ride.
Additionally, the first car on the roads will just be making in town trips and will be limited to 25mph - no highways or major arterials. This means it makes more sense for the car to be compact, light, and similar to a Smart Car, than a Camry or SUB.