top | item 2688424

Nevada passes law authorizing driverless cars

400 points| iqster | 14 years ago |blogs.forbes.com | reply

202 comments

order
[+] alanh|14 years ago|reply
We expect people to be frightened of robotic cars for the same reason they are scared of dying in a plane crash: Some deep-seated fear of dying in a manner that isn’t our own fault. Thoughts:

1) Marketing/PR for autonomous vehicles needs to really drive home their safety, so when you hear “robot car,” you think “… saves lives.”

2) Is it hard to imagine the opposite fear in children born 10 years from now? Having seen mostly robotic cars in real life, and human-driven cars getting in accidents on TV and in movies, might the child of the future react with terror when the robotic chauffeur intones, “human driver detected, approaching from rear”?

[+] anti|14 years ago|reply
3) Loss of jobs. When we're heading to a future of robotic anything that will replace an entire profession, drivers in this case. What will be the economic effect of it?
[+] arkitaip|14 years ago|reply
Unfortunately Google is incredibly bad at sales and marketing so don't expect them to understand that their main challenge will be the public perception of driverless cars.
[+] melling|14 years ago|reply
I think you've got the reason people are afraid of flying wrong. People aren't afraid of dying in a bus crash, or on a train, even an automated one, like they are of flying.
[+] HoyaSaxa|14 years ago|reply
I think it is more about getting the media and not the public at large behind the safety and potential of autonomous vehicles. The reason people are so afraid of flying is because plane crashes are so hyped by the media outlets. If the media is behind it, then the people will follow. Also, it is about control. If Google allows a fallback feature where the driver can take control in the event of a malfunction like cruise control currently works, people will perceive autonomous cars to be safer because they CAN be in control.
[+] cachemoney|14 years ago|reply
People are afraid of planes because if the power goes out, you die. On the ground, if the power goes out on your driverless car, you cruise to a stop.
[+] haroldp|14 years ago|reply
Perhaps we could better aquatint people with what a meat grinder American roads are. About 40,000 people die every year in America in traffic accidents caused by humans. More than 10,000 of those deaths are caused by drunk drivers, and it seems like most those deaths would simply go away if they could auto-pilot their way home.
[+] mkr-hn|14 years ago|reply
I think driverless cars could be the future of public transportation. Instead of big trains and buses with limited reach, we would have thousands of public vehicles that take you where you need to go when you need to be there. It eliminates the big barriers to public transport--the lack of personal space, timing, and reach.

No car? Just hop on the municipal/county dispatch website, request a car, pay your fee, and wait for the nearest open vehicle to bring itself to you. It can even coexist peacefully with private transportation.

[+] DanielStraight|14 years ago|reply
How do you deal with the inherent inefficiency of having a separate vehicle for every passenger (or small group of passengers)?

Publicness is not the only benefit of public transportation. Trains and buses are incredibly efficient per passenger mile. They also take up a lot less space than cars, and last longer and cost less per passenger to manufacture. Making a car driverless doesn't solve these problems.

[+] uuilly|14 years ago|reply
Or you rent your car out to the grid rather than park it. Like air-bnb for cars.
[+] initself|14 years ago|reply
It's the future of "transportation", period. People will look back to the time when humans drove transportation and laugh.
[+] smhinsey|14 years ago|reply
I think it's only a matter of time (maybe 10-20 years, who knows) until one of the larger urban areas with huge traffic problems, such as Manhattan, London or Beijing mandates these sorts of systems in congested areas. It really seems like it could be the only viable solution to traffic problems in cities whose roads just can't handle the loads, and it seems like a logical next step after congestion pricing like London already does.
[+] cal5k|14 years ago|reply
I'll be honest, I'm waiting for commercially available vehicles so I can be the first to order a fleet of them and do just that :-)
[+] pavel_lishin|14 years ago|reply
Do a lot of people avoid public transport just because of the lack of personal space?
[+] erikpukinskis|14 years ago|reply
This already exists in Austin, TX and a few other cities around the world. http://www.car2go.com has Smart cars scattered around the city. You grab the nearest one (or book ahead with your smartphone), swipe your RFID card, drive as long as you'd like, and then leave it in any public parking spot.

Edit: Minus the driverless bit obviously. :)

[+] rednum|14 years ago|reply
I wonder if human-driven car will become minority of vehicles in next 30 years. If the technology will be affordable and good enough, this seems like a probable scenario. Also it could be possible that driverless cars will reduce traffic jams by introducing some better routing algorithms.
[+] truebosko|14 years ago|reply
Big trains and buses still move a lot more people than one small car. If everyone hopped into their driverless car, we'd be back to where we are now -- gridlock :)
[+] kmfrk|14 years ago|reply
... And it's going to be around three years, until everyone takes them for granted and bitch about every minor niggle. :)
[+] JCB_K|14 years ago|reply
And instead of 50-100 people on 1 vehicle, it's 1. Not really eco-friendly, and not cheap either.
[+] IsaacL|14 years ago|reply
These are also known as "taxis".
[+] kellishaver|14 years ago|reply
As an individual who is legally blind and cannot drive, I very much welcome the day when this technology becomes wide-spread and affordable.

It is extremely annoying to be in your mid 30's and have to rely on/inconvenience someone else to drive you around.

So whether it were getting my own vehicle or seeing vast improvements made to less-than ideal public transportation systems, either would be great.

[+] esoteriq|14 years ago|reply
I was thinking that driverless cars would be a boon for people who cannot drive (for whatever reason -- visual or otherwise).

I do wonder, however, if laws will require driverless cars to have a person who is able to drive. (For legal or liability reasons in case of an equipment failure.) I do hope that doesn't happen, but it's possible.

[+] darrennix|14 years ago|reply
I believe one of the most overlooked benefits of driverless cars is that it makes small-engine, low acceleration (high efficiency) cars acceptable for the American market. Most Americans are currently unwilling to drive a 1 liter engine car because of its no fun to drive, but if you are lounging in the back seat you won't care.
[+] jessriedel|14 years ago|reply
As an American who is exactly as you describe, I agree. This may be a way to sell the idea to skeptical people of certain political persuasions, but the other benefits of driverless cars (greatly reduced numbers of death and injury, huge amounts of human time freed) will dwarf the gas efficiency improvement.
[+] stevenp|14 years ago|reply
This means there's going to be a market for in-car bar equipment! Someone is going to make millions on DC-powered blenders and cup holders that can safely accomodate cocktail shakers. :)
[+] rmason|14 years ago|reply
My state of Michigan is known as the birthplace of the automobile. We had the first stretch of paved road in the world as well as the first stoplight.

But we've abdicated our leadership in the automotive industry by turning our back on this development. Michigan rightly should have been the first state to legalize this technology.

It seems as if the auto technology breakthroughs are coming from Silicon Valley. Bob Lutz said the Chevy Volt was developed in response to the Tesla's embarassing us. Now its Google's turn to embarass and challenge Detroit's engineers.

[+] nitrogen|14 years ago|reply
We had the first stretch of paved road in the world

What qualifications are you adding that exclude stone-paved streets in ancient South America, Europe, and the Middle East?

[+] rdouble|14 years ago|reply
I'm surprised by the comments that imply we'll solve traffic congestion and be snoozing safely in the passenger seat as our robot cars zip us to work in 10-20 years. I live in a technical world where a team of geniuses can barely keep a system up that exchanges 140 character messages.
[+] cal5k|14 years ago|reply
This is great news! Nevada is pretty consistently willing to be the reference case on a lot of forward-thinking ideas.
[+] phlux|14 years ago|reply
Prostitution, Gambling, 24-hour alcohol sales, Driverless cars, rentable fully automatic weapons!

Come to Nevada, we are the FUTURE!

EDIT: I was not actually bemoaning any of these, uh, services. I lived in Nevada for a few years and aside from the fact that I was traumatized against it by the game Fallout - actually like Nevada. It is one of those states that actually fantastic to live in if you have enough money/your own business.

I plan to retire back to the Nevada side of Tahoe. Lets see how well those driverless cars handle snow.

[+] wccrawford|14 years ago|reply
I really didn't expect this to happen within 10 years. I'm amazed that this happened so fast.
[+] watchandwait|14 years ago|reply
This is an example of the beauty of American federalism. The states can push forward with innovation, as appropriate to their local needs.
[+] amalcon|14 years ago|reply
Well, the technology has been nearly there for over a decade. The problems are all legal. The obvious part was that automated cars are illegal to begin with. Less obviously, the liability situation is unclear: who would be willing to accept liability for the driverless car? The company that makes it would be at a huge risk at the mass market stage, because there would be many cars. Therefore, they would be unwilling. The passenger has no control over the car, so they would likewise be unwilling. The state could do it, but this is unlikely. The accident victim could be stuck with it, but this is unacceptable.

So, who takes the liability?

[+] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
I did. You know why? Because there's no way Google would announce a technology that they think would be used 10 years from now.

I knew it right away that if they announced it now, then they're doing it to get public support and then convince politicians to allow them as soon as possible.

They also wouldn't have announced it if it didn't already work pretty well.They wouldn't have announced it if it still needed 10 more years of work.

[+] tejaswiy|14 years ago|reply
"The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."
[+] phlux|14 years ago|reply
Money. Google has oodles of it - governments only exist to gain money (and power) -- so it was pretty obvious (to me) that this would happen quickly.
[+] bh42222|14 years ago|reply
YES!

Here is why this is great. As the industrial revolution was just starting up, many places in Europe banned this or that new labor saving invention - to preserve jobs. But not all, many others allowed the new machinery, this quickly forced all other to either also allow it or fall behind economically.

Back to Nevada, Google will now start moving cars there. I can't be the only who wants to sleep during the commute to work, people in Nevada will start doing that. At least some old people will use this, and then more and more as they see how great it works and grants them greater independence. Parents could start using it for their teenagers. It will save lives. How long before someone in Nevada starts an all driver-less taxi service?

This marks the beginning of an honest to goodness technological revolution, how often do you see that happening in one lifetime? And it's staring in Nevada.

[+] JoeAltmaier|14 years ago|reply
So next: car alarm clock! So you don't end up sleeping half the day away in your work parking lot.
[+] callahad|14 years ago|reply
Can anyone comment on the state of autonomous vehicles with regard to their ability to operate in mixed, human traffic? I would think that human drivers would be dangerously erratic and thus extraordinarily difficult to account for.

And what do you do, as a passenger, when your driverless car induces road rage in a human driver?

[+] monkeypizza|14 years ago|reply
from an open letter to the French Parliament in 1845:

"We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us."

"We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat."

from "A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting."

source: [http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html]

[+] ciphergoth|14 years ago|reply
NB to the casual reader: the above was always intended as satire.
[+] chacha102|14 years ago|reply
I'm guessing that it will be really important to allow cops to disable autonomous cars, or at least force them to pull over and stop.

I'm really interested in how they will handle that issue.

[+] roundsquare|14 years ago|reply
Interesting that the limited the law to highways (edit: the law limited the use of autonomous vehicles to highways) (section 2, paragraph 1). I suppose it makes sense since highway driving is more predictable but its also higher speed and thus accidents are more dangerous. Also, this limitation would require the presence of a human driver to get the car to the highway.
[+] Hawramani|14 years ago|reply
[Survey question] What are Google's options for monetizing driverless cars?
[+] hollerith|14 years ago|reply
It would be more difficult for an innovation like driverless cars to get a start in a country like France where almost any change in the laws requires the involvement of the national government. (In the U.S., most legal cases, including the laws of the road and most serious crimes like robbery, rape and murder, are handled by the individual 50 states.)
[+] icey|14 years ago|reply
I can't wait to be able to buy one of these.
[+] allenp|14 years ago|reply
This could make road trips a lot more fun.
[+] zaidf|14 years ago|reply
Anyone else think this thread may be linked to 10-20 years from now when this thing begins to take off?