Google's Self-Drive Cars

[Mokong]

 

would like to see them driving on a real road in real traffic, see how they perform then.... not sure I'd trust them, would prefer myself at the wheel.... or a hybrid option like you get in most sci-fi films, where a car can self-drive but you also have the option to drive manually

[EEVILMURRAY]

They best have Secure Foam.

[Cube]

would like to see them driving on a real road in real traffic, see how they perform then.... not sure I'd trust them, would prefer myself at the wheel.... or a hybrid option like you get in most sci-fi films, where a car can self-drive but you also have the option to drive manually

 

Google have been doing that for years now

 

 

They've driven 700,000 miles in self-driving mode, with two accidents in this mode where the car was rear-ended by another car when stopped at lights. Another one crashed when it was being driven manually.

 

They can even detect cyclist's signs now, so it knows when a cyclist is going to turn.

[Ashley]

I'd trust a machine behind the wheel more than I would most drivers!

[Goafer]

I just don't trust them and I doubt I'll ever own one.

 

I think they'd be ok for public transport, but not for the general public. It needs a manual override, since we've all experienced enough PC crashes to realise that computers have their "moments" (especially as they get older*). But most people will become far too distracted once the car takes over, so they will be in no position to take back control if something happens.

 

Which leads me to my next problem: Insurance. Who pays out if one has an accident? The driver wasn't in control of the car (especially so in the one without the steering wheel), so can they be blamed? Does that mean Google pays out, since it was their programming/hardware that caused the accident?

 

And what does happen when they get older? PCs have a lifespan of a few years. Do driverless cars need an upgrade every few years to keep their computers running properly? Do you have to upgrade the maps/firmware every few months to keep it up to date? Will the car start whilst it's being updated?

 

This is part of the reason why I think it would be good for localised areas, such as public transport where you can ensure they're regularly serviced and their routes updated, but not so much for a whole country where the roads are changing daily. Sat navs still can't get it right, why would a car be any different?

[Ashley]

I just don't trust them and I doubt I'll ever own one.

 

I think they'd be ok for public transport, but not for the general public. It needs a manual override, since we've all experienced enough PC crashes to realise that computers have their "moments" (especially as they get older*). But most people will become far too distracted once the car takes over, so they will be in no position to take back control if something happens.

 

Which leads me to my next problem: Insurance. Who pays out if one has an accident? The driver wasn't in control of the car (especially so in the one without the steering wheel), so can they be blamed? Does that mean Google pays out, since it was their programming/hardware that caused the accident?

 

And what does happen when they get older? PCs have a lifespan of a few years. Do driverless cars need an upgrade every few years to keep their computers running properly? Do you have to upgrade the maps/firmware every few months to keep it up to date? Will the car start whilst it's being updated?

 

This is part of the reason why I think it would be good for localised areas, such as public transport where you can ensure they're regularly serviced and their routes updated, but not so much for a whole country where the roads are changing daily. Sat navs still can't get it right, why would a car be any different?

 

I imagine some of this has been worked out (as they are in the process of becoming road legal in places, or at least the ones that still have a manual override are) but I don't know the answers. Probably out there (#XFiles) though if you wanted to look into it.

 

I don't think we can necessarily liken them to PCs as they way they'd work would be different. PCs can do thousands of things, most of which are controlled by the user. This will essentially run through a load of pre-defined states based on its surroundings. I don't know much, so I could very well be wrong, but I feel that these would be less mistake prone simply because there's less possibilities.

 

And satellite navigation is in itself a non-perfect technology, but as far as I recall these aren't using them so much as distance sensing (at least in terms of on-the-road use).

[Ike]

I think these will be a lot safer than a human driver. A human driver has a lot more things that could go wrong.

 

Pretty interested to see how far this project will go.

[Goafer]

I imagine some of this has been worked out (as they are in the process of becoming road legal in places, or at least the ones that still have a manual override are) but I don't know the answers. Probably out there (#XFiles) though if you wanted to look into it.

 

I can't see them existing without a manual override. It just leaves the manufacturers too open to legal action when something goes wrong (and something will at some point, even if it's rare). But I just don't trust people to be responsible with an automated car. I can see there being some warning in the paperwork telling people to keep their attention on the road in case they need to take over (to cover the manufacturers arse in the event of an accident), but how many people actually will? And even if they are paying attention, it still adds time to their reactions. There will be an extra step where they have to regain control of the car, be it by moving their hands/feet from what they were doing to the wheel/pedals or whatever.

 

I don't think we can necessarily liken them to PCs as they way they'd work would be different. PCs can do thousands of things, most of which are controlled by the user. This will essentially run through a load of pre-defined states based on its surroundings. I don't know much, so I could very well be wrong, but I feel that these would be less mistake prone simply because there's less possibilities.

 

I don't know much either really, but I imagine there is quite a lot of processing going on to navigate streets whilst taking in all the dynamic data. It probably won't wear out as quick as a PC (for the reasons you give), but it will wear out at some point. Mechanical wear and tear is a lot easier to diagnose than electrical/computer faults. Plus if something fails on a normal car, it's normally something that can be dealt with, but if the computer in a self driving car with no manual override has a funny turn, the potential for a serious accident is much higher.

 

A PC is also not mainly used in a constantly shaking metal box. Most of the cars I've driven have had some sort of electrical fault from where electrical contacts work themselves loose. Granted, I tend to drive 10-20 year old cars, but unless these cars have a predetermined lifespan, they'll be the same in a few decades.

 

And satellite navigation is in itself a non-perfect technology, but as far as I recall these aren't using them so much as distance sensing (at least in terms of on-the-road use).

 

I assume they use satnav for navigation. What would one without a manual override do if there was an undocumented road change or temporary roadworks? You can't drive it yourself, so will it be able to figure out where to go?

 

 

 

I have no major problem with the concept of driverless cars, but I think the reality is far too complicated, especially when you build in human laziness ("my car drives itself, I don't need to pay attention"). You just need to look at the countless morons who blindly follow satnavs to see that people just can't be trusted. God knows what they'd be like with a car that drives itself. They'd just let it blindly do whatever it wants, even if it's wrong/dangerous.

 

 

 

Short version: I can't see it existing without a manual override and I don't trust people to operate one with a manual override.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Goafer

[Ashley]

Having a quick look into the insurance side there's a few suggestions knocking around;

 

1) Due to increased safety (Google states 90% of accidents are due to human error, but I don't have anything to back that up myself) it won't be needed/less mandatory (like cycles)

2) Insurance will go from covering accidents, to covering costs of maintenance (kind of akin to Apple Care)

3) Google (and other new companies) themselves will offer driverless insurance while the old hats will turn a blind eye

 

One article did point out that motion sensors, driver assist tech etc exists anyway, and is having an effect now, so driverless cars aren't as 'far away' as we might think.

 

Apparently the states that have already legalised it have also said drivers are exempt from careless driving rules (ie they can text while behind the wheel).

 

In fairness, tech changes a lot in 10-20 years. I don't think you can compare your cars with something like this.

 

And I think the wheelless vehicles shown in the video are more to assist people to pop to the shop kind of thing, rather than proper road use. You know, until the travel tubes Futurama promised us happen.

 

(It's late, those thoughts might be incoherent)

[Goafer]

Having a quick look into the insurance side there's a few suggestions knocking around;

 

1) Due to increased safety (Google states 90% of accidents are due to human error, but I don't have anything to back that up myself) it won't be needed/less mandatory (like cycles)

2) Insurance will go from covering accidents, to covering costs of maintenance (kind of akin to Apple Care)

3) Google (and other new companies) themselves will offer driverless insurance while the old hats will turn a blind eye

 

The idea of not insuring a car is just ludicrous. Say an accident does happen and it's the fault of the driverless car (It's straight up naive to assume that one wont), who is going to foot the bill? The owner of the driverless car would have to pay for 2 cars, which just isn't feasable, so I imagine would leave the driver of the other car to claim on their insurance, even though it wasn't their fault. Or if both cars are driverless, that now leaves 2 people with no car and no way to claim a replacement.

 

Google providing it's own insurance is probably the best idea. It shows their confidence in their technology and it would ensure that they do everything to minimise accidents.

 

One article did point out that motion sensors, driver assist tech etc exists anyway, and is having an effect now, so driverless cars aren't as 'far away' as we might think.

 

But they still currently have to pay attention to the road. Take away all control from people and they'll stop paying attention, which to me seems dangerous.

 

Apparently the states that have already legalised it have also said drivers are exempt from careless driving rules (ie they can text while behind the wheel).

 

This just cements my opinion that people will just let the car get on with it.

 

In fairness, tech changes a lot in 10-20 years. I don't think you can compare your cars with something like this.

 

Oh it happens on modern cars too. (the model that Google are using for testing no less)

 

All the time.

 

Plus lets face it, current technology doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Sure, it's usually trivial things (in the grand scheme of things) like the RROD etc, but when it comes to barrelling down a motorway at 70mph, one failure is too many.

 

And I think the wheelless vehicles shown in the video are more to assist people to pop to the shop kind of thing, rather than proper road use.

 

I assumed they were just tech demos and the final ones would have hand controls.

 

 

It's ambitious and I'll be impressed if they pull it off, but I think it's too ambitious. The reliance on the technology being perfect, human intervention when it goes wrong and the massive amounts of legislation/change to the way things currently work. It's all just too much IMO.

 

Plus, very few people can afford brand new cars (and I can't see this one being cheap), so most people are limited to second hand cars. Will anyone really be interested in a driverless car that uses 10 year old technology? Who's to say in 10 years the technology is still working correctly or relevant?

 

I honestly think it will be a momentary novelty, then we'll just go back to the way things currently work.

 

They can even detect cyclist's signs now, so it knows when a cyclist is going to turn.

 

On a side note, I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist signal.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Goafer

[Debug Mode]

How cheap is it going to be? Can I get it for free if it talks like KITT and is fuelled by the confessions of my deepest secrets, which it will use to advertise self help programmes for me, funding itself by the generated revenues as I slowly give into his suggestions that I should really seek professional help before I end up asking it to drive itself to a destination that Google Maps has incorrectly mapped, that I have scoured months for with the application on my Google Android device, in the hopes in will inadvertently drive me off a cliff, putting an end to this miserable fucking existence where my only freedom from our robotic overlords is to voluntarily shit my undergarments, which even then will end up cleaning itself thanks to the UNATCO developed nanomachines interwoven within them?

 

Sounds like a great idea for public transport

[Ashley]

The idea of not insuring a car is just ludicrous. Say an accident does happen and it's the fault of the driverless car (It's straight up naive to assume that one wont), who is going to foot the bill? The owner of the driverless car would have to pay for 2 cars, which just isn't feasable, so I imagine would leave the driver of the other car to claim on their insurance, even though it wasn't their fault. Or if both cars are driverless, that now leaves 2 people with no car and no way to claim a replacement.

 

Google providing it's own insurance is probably the best idea. It shows their confidence in their technology and it would ensure that they do everything to minimise accidents.

 

 

 

But they still currently have to pay attention to the road. Take away all control from people and they'll stop paying attention, which to me seems dangerous.

 

 

 

This just cements my opinion that people will just let the car get on with it.

 

 

 

Oh it happens on modern cars too. (the model that Google are using for testing no less)

 

All the time.

 

Plus lets face it, current technology doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Sure, it's usually trivial things (in the grand scheme of things) like the RROD etc, but when it comes to barrelling down a motorway at 70mph, one failure is too many.

 

 

 

I assumed they were just tech demos and the final ones would have hand controls.

 

 

It's ambitious and I'll be impressed if they pull it off, but I think it's too ambitious. The reliance on the technology being perfect, human intervention when it goes wrong and the massive amounts of legislation/change to the way things currently work. It's all just too much IMO.

 

Plus, very few people can afford brand new cars (and I can't see this one being cheap), so most people are limited to second hand cars. Will anyone really be interested in a driverless car that uses 10 year old technology? Who's to say in 10 years the technology is still working correctly or relevant?

 

I honestly think it will be a momentary novelty, then we'll just go back to the way things currently work.

 

 

 

On a side note, I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist signal.

 

Fair enough about the modern cars.

 

What I was getting at with the assisted driving stuff was more "it's not some far away fantasy" than anything else. We could see more of these on the road in ten years time.

 

And I always signal while cycling! But that's anecdotal I know.

 

 

We can all agree though, cars are a terrible blight on society. Right?

[Charlie]

I think this is an absolutely fantastic leap forward. These would be perfect for a fleet of city centre taxis or on-call car service (whatever it would be called). If each journey could be made affordable then you could book one to take you out to the shops and then have another pick you up when you're done.

 

In 100, maybe even 50, years time people will look back at manually driving cars and won't be able to believe that we put ourselves in that much danger every single day.

[Agent Gibbs]

as for Googles statement of 90% of accidents being driver behaviour/failure.. i could look through all of the accident statistics for Leeds and get an exact percentage (but i don't have time) but generally 90% is certainly close to what it is!

charities and even the department for transport will have you believe the biggest cause of accidents is speed and its simply not true and not back up by its own stats, unless they provide leading information......speed doesn't kill, lack of control/over confidence in abilities leads to loss of control/failure to judge etc leads a speeding vehicle to enter an accident.

 

simply put unless its mechanical failure* all accidents are driver failure, either as a failure to pay attention or an over confidence in their own abilities, so a driver less car would certainly (whilst the computer was working and driving) stop those!

 

90% less accidents is a bold an achievable claim, there are thousands upon thousands of injury accidents a year in this country, if introducing these reduces these even by half, the cost/benefit/risks are out weigh any idiots who manual drive or don't over ride the computer if its cocked up! i'd rather a thousand of those accidents than tens of thousands of normal accidents where drivers are "in control"

 

 

*Technically speaking there is more than two accident types on the road, but all boil down to idiocy/bureaucracy and/or pedestiran accidents (which arguably these cars should avoid)...for example on a road i'm working on, i have 1 Jeremy Clarkson accident - Three wheel vehicle attempts to turn the corner and topples over, and about 3 unstable passengers on buses falling over as it stops, people falling on buses should be a separate accident statistic and not lumped together with genuine accidents...............come to think of it that might end up being the number one accident in these smart cars, people falling around inside them as they stop, as they've been moving around the vehicle

[Shorty]

I can't see these working over here. On the US' grid systems? Sure. On British roads with sweeping side lanes, mini roundabouts, double mini roundabouts, 3-5 lane roundabouts? How the heck are they going to look right and know, during rush hour, when they've got time to get out without slowing the other person down? How are they going to look left and know that the movement there is ok, because it's expected and shouldn't affect you (but could)?

 

Swindon's "Magic Roundabout":

 

Roundabout at the Arc de triomphe, Paris

(actually, if we could replace all cars with self-driving cars, that would actually solve the problem there :p)

 

What about temporary traffic lights or rolling roadworks?

 

I love the idea. My commute feels like a big waste of time, imagine if I could be working in the car or just reading/relaxing. But I don't think we're going to see these on this side of the pond for a very long time, if ever.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Shorty

[EEVILMURRAY]

This is part of the reason why I think it would be good for localised areas, such as public transport where you can ensure they're regularly serviced and their routes updated, but not so much for a whole country where the roads are changing daily. Sat navs still can't get it right, why would a car be any different?

We're having a tram system put in our local area and in some parts of town the road layout changes every week or so as they finish one part of the track/new road and then switch to the other side. There's no way an automated car could keep up with such dramatic changes methinks.

 

I concur, it needs some form of manual override portion.

[Goafer]

I think this is an absolutely fantastic leap forward. These would be perfect for a fleet of city centre taxis or on-call car service (whatever it would be called). If each journey could be made affordable then you could book one to take you out to the shops and then have another pick you up when you're done.

 

In 100, maybe even 50, years time people will look back at manually driving cars and won't be able to believe that we put ourselves in that much danger every single day.

 

The idea of a driverless taxi service is quite a good, but it would leave a lot of cabbies and bus drivers jobless. I personally wouldn't mind, but it does have consequences.

 

And I don't think we'll ever see the end of traditionally controlled cars. There will always be car enthusiasts who enjoy driving. Old cars are also a nightmare to legislate against, due to so many people relying on them and being unable to upgrade due to the expense of new cars.

 

In fact, they're such a nightmare to legislate against that the government have virtually stopped trying. Cars built before 1960 (IIRC) no longer require tax or an MOT to be considered road legal.

[Charlie]

The idea of a driverless taxi service is quite a good, but it would leave a lot of cabbies and bus drivers jobless. I personally wouldn't mind, but it does have consequences.

 

And I don't think we'll ever see the end of traditionally controlled cars. There will always be car enthusiasts who enjoy driving. Old cars are also a nightmare to legislate against, due to so many people relying on them and being unable to upgrade due to the expense of new cars.

 

In fact, they're such a nightmare to legislate against that the government have virtually stopped trying. Cars built before 1960 (IIRC) no longer require tax or an MOT to be considered road legal.

 

It will be a slow process. It won't be as if there'll be a legal cut off date where you have to have a self-driving car. The first step will be that all new cars have to drive themselves, over 10-15 years the vast majority of cars on the road will be self-driving.

[Agent Gibbs]

@ Goafer; going off on a tangent to clarify the tax bit you mentioned (not sure on MOT's think most still need that) but all cars before 1973 are tax exempt, it was orignally intended to be all cars over 25 years, so more cars would eventually become tax exempt (less of them, becoming a classic, encouraging enthusiasts to preserve older cars) but the Labour government stopped that and made it so only cars before the end of 1973 are tax exempt

 

I know that shit because my dad is a landrover enthusiast and wanted a new one, found some lovely cheap 1974 classic landrovers, cheap as...because they still have Tax, yet vehicles registered months before are twice the price and no tax

 

silly system after a certain time they should be tax exempt, maybe after 30 years of age? i mean its not as if people will keep a car 30 years just for free tax, its only for classic car enthusiasts and it should be encouraged to keep classic cars alive and not scrapped after say 10/20 years

Edited May 29, 2014 by Agent Gibbs

[The Bard]

The problem is that when a machine's vehicle, indication or sign recognition software (as well as everything else in the car that's digitised) malfunctions, nobody is going to know unless there are detectors in place for every possible contingency. A slight error in a high risk situation will be enough to cause a major disaster.

 

In contrast, when a human has dementia, it's both obvious to the person in question, and everyone she interacts with. So until Google programs an all encompassing artificial intelligence that has tendrils in every aspect of the hardware it's operating, I don't think I'd trust this thing to perform all the functions a human being can perform so intuitively.

[EEVILMURRAY]

The idea of a driverless taxi service is quite a good, but it would leave a lot of cabbies and bus drivers jobless. I personally wouldn't mind, but it does have consequences.

We've all seen how they react when they don't get paid.

 

[Goafer]

@ Goafer; going off on a tangent to clarify the tax bit you mentioned (not sure on MOT's think most still need that) but all cars before 1973 are tax exempt, it was orignally intended to be all cars over 25 years, so more cars would eventually become tax exempt (less of them, becoming a classic, encouraging enthusiasts to preserve older cars) but the Labour government stopped that and made it so only cars before the end of 1973 are tax exempt

 

I know that shit because my dad is a landrover enthusiast and wanted a new one, found some lovely cheap 1974 classic landrovers, cheap as...because they still have Tax, yet vehicles registered months before are twice the price and no tax

 

silly system after a certain time they should be tax exempt, maybe after 30 years of age? i mean its not as if people will keep a car 30 years just for free tax, its only for classic car enthusiasts and it should be encouraged to keep classic cars alive and not scrapped after say 10/20 years

 

They have actually started the rolling tax exemption again, with all cars that reach 40 now getting tax exemption. 18 more years to go for mine!

 

And it's cars built before 1960 for MOT exemption, which I personally think is a bit silly since a car that old is more likely to need a regular safety inspection. Although if it keeps more awesome old cars on the road, then I shan't be voicing my concerns too loudly.

[Agent Gibbs]

oh cool! its good to know that! i'll tell my Dad

the MOT thing is very odd, you'd think they'd need some form of roadworth test, sure i can understand that some cars won't have indicators and seatbelts that would fail an MOT so obviously making one have one would be stupid but no test as you say is off

Edited May 29, 2014 by Agent Gibbs