Google lobbies Nevada to allow driverless cars

[shrikant]

I think it's sign of our technologically advanced times that the commentary here is so level-headed.

I, for one, can't help having the mind boggled. Cars that drive themselves coming finally coming out of the domain of Knight Rider, and onto actual roads?! That's just frickin awesome! (or maybe I've just been watching this Louis CK clip too often - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk)

[iwwr]

One interesting aspect about driverless cars is that they can be used for traffic optimization.

http://trafficwaves.org/trafexp.html

tl;dr driving smoothly and leaving traffic gaps ahead can prevent traffic jams or slowdowns

Having just a small percentage of automated cars with traffic optimizing behavior may actually increase road capacity.

[masklinn]

> tl;dr driving smoothly and leaving traffic gaps ahead can prevent traffic jams or slowdowns

An other traffic optimization (which doubles down as a gas optimization) is "car trains": cars following one another very closely (much more closely than human drivers would handle)

[theBobMcCormick]

IMHO, the long term implications of driverless cars are far bigger than just traffic optimization. The article mentions ZipCar, and services like a robotic ZipCar or robotic taxis are what will really revolutionize transportation. Right now taxis are only convenient in certain high density areas (city centers, airports, convention centers, etc.). Try to call one from the suburbs and the not only is the wait long, but the fee is rather high also. But with a robo-taxi, it seems like it might be cost effective for the taxi company to leave some idle taxi's in shopping mall parking lots, etc. around the city, thereby making it possible to respond to a passenger request very quickly and (hopefully) inexpensively.

[webXL]

It might also increase the capacity of human productivity. I've always been amazed at the amount of collective concentration that keeps everyone in their lane and not hitting one another. Just imagine if you could channel that concentration into productive endeavors, such as answering emails, looking for a better job, or learning a new skill.

[Poiesis]

I am always impressed by this when I read it--not because of the cars but the motivation. Here's a company that is so desperate to increase its ad revenue that it's willing to build robot cars so that it has that many more eyeballs to serve up advertisements to.

[sien]

Here's a company that is smart enough to know that they could have a major part of a market though could explode. Google don't just have to sell ads. They have loads of very smart people. They could wind up being the major provide for driverless cars.

Sebastian Thrun works for Google now. He's one of the world's foremost experts in the field.

[theBobMcCormick]

This could also be part of Google looking for revenue sources beyond advertising. As other commenter have pointed out, if Google can make this work and smooth out the very non-trivial legislative and liability issues, there's an absolute fortune to be made licensing this technology to car companies. Think about it. If the technology works, and it's legal in your state, do you know anyone who wouldn't want a self-driving car?! It would revolutionize commuting. You could nap, read, watch TV on your phone or tablet, etc. instead of staring in boredom at the bumper ahead of you.

[VMG]

They probably build robot cars because they are an artificial intelligence company.

[rakkhi]

Why be so cynical? Here is a company that has found such a massive golden egg that at least for now it can hire really really smart people to work on cool projects that may end up changing the world.

[StavrosK]

I think they just like playing with stuff that is this cool. It's great that it aligns with their business model, but I don't think the thought process went "hey, let's build a driverless car so people can see look at ads more!"

[dodo53]

It's also a good recruitment tool having a couple of world-class people working on stuff that interests a lot of computer science types.

[rorrr]

No, they are building robot cars because

1) They can sell them (the market is enormous)

2) It's fun and interesting

3) Great for the overall company image (as innovators)

[Apocryphon]

Google's research into driverless cars really boosts their perception of "info hegemon having their hands in everything" and either "rock star company trying to save the world with bleeding edge technology" or "Orwellian nightmare come to life doling out Trojan horses so the masses fail to see the inevitable robot holocaust", depending on your personal bias.

That said, why is Google the only high-profile company looking into this? I've heard about the DARPA Grand Challenge, but that always seemed to be about hobbyists and university teams. I see there are quite a few groups interested in the concept, but it seems like only GM is the other company who bothered looking into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car#Key_players I suppose car companies are set in their ways and don't want to create a future that takes drivers out of the equation (though it's not as if people won't be flocking to buy driverless cars anyways), but why not any other tech companies?

[arjunnarayan]

The head of the Stanford DARPA Grand Challenge (Sebastian Thrun) left his tenured professorship at Stanford to work at Google.

The hobbyist/university teams are an excellent staging ground to get started; but any other company could have put in the investment that Google did. I would have loved to have seen a CMU/Red Whittaker/GM collaboration. It would have made for a poetic little "revive the rust belt with the robot car industry" story too. Given the response to the Detroit Superbowl Chrysler ad, looks like the public love that sort of story...

[jarin]

I anticipate a lot of luddite rage and probably a good number of accidents (and maybe even a few deaths), but we're not going to get to The Future by just wishing it so.

[killerswan]

Human drivers kill ~260,000 children a year. The bar for robots is low.

[jpr]

What makes you think machines would be even deadlier drivers than humans?

[nchlswu]

I wonder how they're getting over any stigma culture shock. In their own products, they're careful to reduce any "creep factor" by not using our information in ways that provide too much immediate feedback, like ads that are too highly targeted. Unlike ads, a "robot car" is a significant jump. In the public's eye, I think Google's driverless cars last year seemed like a sudden leap.

There are obviously safety measures that will be in place, but I want to know how robust they're going to be and how much PR they're gonna put into this.

[mousa]

I hope some smart people are trying to figure out how our economy is going to work when transportation is outsourced to robots. Obviously it'd be great but the idea that everyone needs a job is going to start unravelling.

[cma]

Its been that way for decades. Carpet used to be the most luxurious thing in the world; as soon at it got cheap, the old, undesirable hardwood became the preferred sign of wealth.

If robots start taking over a lot of the work, people will start wearing coats made out of solved captchas or something.

[yuhong]

I have thought of driverless buses for a while now. These may be even better than driverless cars because buses always follow a defined route.

[pyre]

I would be more inclined to try out automated light rail/subways first, seeing as they don't need to navigate traffic.

[bobo418]

B

[arthurgibson]

Sounds like Vegas would be a good starting point, no one remembers what happens there (zing). In all seriousness, Google is going to drop a ton of money into Nevada to make this happen and drive more people to Vegas again. I call this a stimulation package, hope it passes.

[ktsmith]

I don't think Vegas would be the starting point. Nevada is in the midst of massive unemployment numbers and a massive budget crises. There are a lot of people employed in Vegas as drivers of cabs, limos and other private services. Launching driverless car services in Vegas would likely meet with massive public resistance. I could see it as another tourist attraction for the strip I suppose but I wouldn't want to test autonomous vehicles there given the crappy traffic and idiotic/distracted drivers there.

I would probably start testing in the Carson City, Reno, Sparks area. You can get a flight from the bay to Reno that takes 45 minutes. If you need to take cars back and forth to Mountain View it is only a 3-4 hour drive. The capital is Carson City so if you need access to the legislature you have it. There's also very diverse geography and lots of public roads available for testing. If you need populated areas or unpopulated areas everything is here all while being a lot closer to Google than Las Vegas is.

[metageek]

I expect the initial trials will be on desert roads.

[spenrose]

“What if I could take out my phone and say, ‘Zipcar, come here,’ ” he asked an industry conference last year, “and a moment later the Zipcar came around the corner?”

So nice to see an organization with so much wealth and power spending it on important problems.

[zasz]

Driverless cars could:

1. Save lives by eliminating drunk, distracted, and sleepy drivers. 2. Greatly increase fuel efficiency. 3. Permit commutes where people can work, sleep, or watch movies, enabling greater freedom to live where they wish. This is more economically efficient by allowing more people to take jobs they otherwise would not have.

Yes, I'm very glad to see Google working on problems that save lives, save the environment, and make everyone happier. I'm glad you're glad too!

[andrewcanis]

This technology has the potential to save so many lives. Does anyone know how much these cars cost? I would expect the radar system and servers to be pretty expensive. Presumably the higher cost could be offset by lower insurance rates.

[webXL]

We already have cars that parallel park themselves. I just saw an SUV do it in a commercial last night. I think it was a Ford Exploder. We also have adaptive cruise control on a lot of cars. You combine those technologies, plus with something that keeps you in a lane, you got a car that can drive itself. Autopilot.

That "keeps you in your lane" technology is the last piece of the puzzle, and shouldn't be a tremendous legal hurdle if the other two pieces are already legal.

[nasmorn]

BMW is not going to like this, but it sounds good for Audi. At least based on their company slogans.

[ktsmith]

Audi/VW are actively investing in driverless car technology including the lab at Stanford.

[baconserker]

Does Nevada have stop lights?

[ktsmith]

Is that supposed to be a serious question? Of course Nevada has stoplights. There are nearly two million people in the Las Vegas area and around two hundred fifty thousand people in the Reno/Sparks area. Then there are LOTS of smaller towns with populations as low as twenty five up to fifty thousand. Sure there are huge amounts of unpopulated or sparsely populated areas but that's not much different than the central valley in California as an example.

[drivebyacct2]

The last bit at the end makes me think that Google must have laughed at the Kinect.

[xnerdr]

Who would be responsible if an accident happens?

[ugh]

Whoever is liable now when an accident happens because of a technical failure. My guess is that insurances will love driverless cars, so it's really not a big deal.