I was excited to see a non-paywall link, but isn't that entire site blogspam? It's called "iBloomBerg" which is surely a lame riff on the name "Bloomberg" but has nothing to do with Bloomberg. And it doesn't seem to have an "About Us" page. They also wrongly attribute the entire article to Bloomberg when it seems to be originated by the WSJ.
Just yesterday I saw a silver ragtop Sebring hitting a kid on a scooter in my apartment complex, and immediately backed out of the street and sped away. The kid was fine but the earlier we bring these cars into mainstream the more lives we will save.
30,000+ deaths annually in the U.S. alone is an awfully high price. Even marginal safety improvements would save many, many people. And that's not even counting the many more people who are mamed and left debilitated.
Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on average. A self-driving car is very complementary to services like Uber. If self-driving cars could be shared, increasing vehicle utilization past 5%, then we could repurpose vast swaths of unproductive urban land.
Once fewer people are owning cars, and instead paying a la carte, it also restructures the choice architecture of driving. Without a default option sitting in the driveway, I suspect that people may opt to walk, bike, or take transit with more regularity as well.
As a planner, I'm slightly more bullish on the potential of self-driving cars to remake transportation than my peers are. It was only a couple of years ago that I attended a demand management conference keynote in which the well-known (in planning circles) speaker was cracking jokes about how self-driving cars wouldn't change anything. I disagree--I just hope the future gets here soon.
I occasionally see people assuming this will get held up by legal hurdles, but you know who is super excited about driverless cars? America's most powerful lobbying group: AARP
This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans. It may be possible to program them that way, but what gives us faith that the profit-seeking entities who control them will allow them to be programmed that way? And that they will be required options?
What about the recent self-parking Volvo that didn't include a pedestrian avoidance system [1] and clobbered a pedestrian? It could have just as easily mauled that kid on his scooter in your apartment complex if the owner didn't pay for the "kid on a scooter avoidance system" and how would there by justice?
In the article there is this idea that Google will get auto makers to actually make cars that use Google technology - a bit like the 'Android' model in a way, co-opt everyone except 'Apple' and 'Microsoft'.
This contrasts with the Elon Musk attitude where the auto makers can be consigned to the dustbin of history - there isn't going to be some hideous GM/Chrysler/Ford effort 'powered by Tesla technologies' because at heart Elon Musk really does not want to do business with them.
As I understand it there are many companies working on the self driving car with all of Google's rivals going for an iterative approach, e.g. a car that can stay in lane, park, not go over the speed limit or hit the car in front. However, this is not 'driving', i.e. in a city with lots of pedestrians around. Only Google are going for the everything always automated being the product, the rivals are going for just the 'easy' bits with a view to adding the features later. The problem with this later approach is that people expect the car to do all of the driving, they get their phones and laptops out, hence, when they have to take the wheel they are not exactly prepared for it. So the Google approach is better.
If I was CEO of Hyundai (or any other manufacturer) I would just wait for Google to launch 'Android for cars' and go with that rather than do the Volvo/BMW/Mercedes iterative approach.
I wonder why they chose to use the word 'Chief' versus 'CEO' when the article uses CEO to describe the situation. At first I thought Sebastian Thrun would be the subject of this article...
Google really needs to be thinking further ahead. Since they're not interested in decreasing car-based transportation (imagine if they spent all that money on a first world train system), then with climate change and rising sea levels, I suggest they get into self-driving boats. And nanotech sunscreen.
[+] [-] edward|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psbp|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jzwinck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ClassyHacker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peatmoss|10 years ago|reply
Then, there's the economics of car ownership. Cars are the second most expensive capital asset most people have after their house. They sit idle, depreciating, taking up valuable land 95% of the time on average. A self-driving car is very complementary to services like Uber. If self-driving cars could be shared, increasing vehicle utilization past 5%, then we could repurpose vast swaths of unproductive urban land.
Once fewer people are owning cars, and instead paying a la carte, it also restructures the choice architecture of driving. Without a default option sitting in the driveway, I suspect that people may opt to walk, bike, or take transit with more regularity as well.
As a planner, I'm slightly more bullish on the potential of self-driving cars to remake transportation than my peers are. It was only a couple of years ago that I attended a demand management conference keynote in which the well-known (in planning circles) speaker was cracking jokes about how self-driving cars wouldn't change anything. I disagree--I just hope the future gets here soon.
[+] [-] afarrell|10 years ago|reply
http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-201...
[+] [-] t2015_08_25|10 years ago|reply
What about the recent self-parking Volvo that didn't include a pedestrian avoidance system [1] and clobbered a pedestrian? It could have just as easily mauled that kid on his scooter in your apartment complex if the owner didn't pay for the "kid on a scooter avoidance system" and how would there by justice?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8
[+] [-] theklub|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|10 years ago|reply
This contrasts with the Elon Musk attitude where the auto makers can be consigned to the dustbin of history - there isn't going to be some hideous GM/Chrysler/Ford effort 'powered by Tesla technologies' because at heart Elon Musk really does not want to do business with them.
As I understand it there are many companies working on the self driving car with all of Google's rivals going for an iterative approach, e.g. a car that can stay in lane, park, not go over the speed limit or hit the car in front. However, this is not 'driving', i.e. in a city with lots of pedestrians around. Only Google are going for the everything always automated being the product, the rivals are going for just the 'easy' bits with a view to adding the features later. The problem with this later approach is that people expect the car to do all of the driving, they get their phones and laptops out, hence, when they have to take the wheel they are not exactly prepared for it. So the Google approach is better.
If I was CEO of Hyundai (or any other manufacturer) I would just wait for Google to launch 'Android for cars' and go with that rather than do the Volvo/BMW/Mercedes iterative approach.
[+] [-] jfoster|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dpflan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattcornell|10 years ago|reply