It's Google's no-wheel car. OMG... there aren't any BRAKES Google is building a driverless car that comes sans steering wheel, accelerator pedal or brake pedal, because - it claims - the vehicles don't need those controls. Mountain View said it is currently creating prototypes that will work "safely and autonomously without requiring human intervention". It is so confident about the …
"Thanks. Now, go downtown to the dealer and get yourself serviced. Be back here by 5:30pm."
I see your point, but its even better than that - virtually no servicing. An electric motor is basically an alternator ran in reverse, and you don't routinely service an alternator.
A major service of a normal car typically includes:
Brake fluid - you'll still need this doing.
Gearbox oil - you might need this depending on gearbox.
Coolant - you won't need this.
Engine oil - you won't need this.
Air filter - you won't need this.
Oil filter - you won't need this.
Fuel filter - you won't need this.
Diff oil - You won't need this as driverless cars will almost certainly be front "engined" front wheel drive - possibly 4 wheel drive if they later use 4 motors.
Cam belt - you won't need this.
You might need to top up washer fluid, but its possible later cars won't have windows, just screens onto which images are projected.
I guess you could still wash & wax it, but many driverless cars will simply be a white good, and will have fibreglass panelling that doesn't rust, so you could just leave it out in the rain. Later versions may have solar cells instead of bodywork so your car can recharge a little while you're at work.
Ah, yes. Someone else with a deep knowledge of the Modified Haynes Manual technique of automotive maintenance.
For those not familiar with the Modified Haynes Manual technique of automotive maintenance, it is based on a simplification of the instructions in the typical Haynes manual.
I cannot claim any originality for this, but it's worth posting again, just for the shitz and gigglez. Here goes:
Haynes Manuals - Simplified
Ah: Haynes Workshop manuals. There are many phrases and euphemisms which bear translation into everyday English. Here are just a few:
Haynes: Rotate anticlockwise.
Translation: Clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with hammer anticlockwise.
Haynes: This is a snug fit.
Translation: Clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with hammer.
Haynes: This is a tight fit.
Translation: Clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with a hammer.
Haynes: As described in Chapter 7...
Translation: That'll teach you not to read right through before you start. Now you are looking at scary photos of the inside of a gearbox.
Haynes: Prise off...
Translation: Hammer a screwdriver into...
Haynes: Undo...
Translation: Go buy a tin of WD40 (giant economy size).
Haynes: Retain tiny spring...
Translation: PINGGGG - "Jesus, where the hell did that go?"
Haynes: Press and rotate to remove bulb...
Translation: OK - that's the glass bit off, now fetch some good pliers to dig out the bayonet part (and maybe a plaster or two).
Haynes: Lightly slacken...
Translation: Start off lightly and build up till the veins on your forehead are throbbing then clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with hammer.
Haynes: Weekly checks..
Translation: If it isn't broken don't fix it.
Haynes: Routine maintenance...
Translation: If it isn't broken, it's about to be. We warned you!
Haynes: One spanner rating.
Translation: An infant could do this... so how did you manage to **** it up?
Haynes: Two spanner rating.
Translation: Now you may think that you can do this because two is a low, teensy weensy number... but you also thought the wiring diagram was a map of the Tokyo underground (in fact, that would have been more use to you).
Haynes: Three spanner rating.
Translation: Make sure you won't need your car for a couple of days.
Haynes: Four spanner rating.
Translation: You're not seriously considering this are you?
Haynes: Five spanner rating.
Translation: OK - but don't ever transport your loved ones in it again.
Haynes: If not, you can fabricate your own special tool like this...
Translation: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Haynes: Compress...
Translation: Squeeze with all your might, jump up and down on it, throw it at the garage wall, then find some molegrips and a hammer...
Haynes: Inspect...
Translation: Squint at really hard and pretend you know what you are looking at, then declare in a loud knowing voice to your wife, "Yep, it's as I thought, it's going to need a new one"
Haynes: Carefully...
Translation: You are about to suffer serious abrasions.
Haynes: Retaining nut...
Translation: Yes, that's it, that big spherical blob of rust.
Haynes: Get an assistant...
Translation: Prepare to humiliate yourself in front of someone you know.
Haynes: Difficult to reach ...
Translation: Assembled at the factory and never meant to be touched.
Haynes: Turning the engine will be easier with the spark plugs removed.
Translation: However, starting the engine afterwards will be much harder. Once that sinking pit of your stomach feeling has subsided, you can start to feel deeply ashamed as you gingerly refit the spark plugs.
Haynes: Refitting is the reverse sequence to removal.
Translation: Yeah, right. But you swear in different places.
Haynes: Prise away plastic locating pegs...
Translation: Snap off...
Haynes: Using a suitable drift...
Translation: Clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with hammer.
Haynes: Everyday toolkit
Translation: RAC Card & Mobile Phone (but don't forget your molegrips and hammer!)
Haynes: Apply moderate heat...
Translation: Unless you have a blast furnace, don't bother. Alternatively, clamp with molegrips then beat repeatedly with hammer.
Haynes: Index
Translation: List of all the things in the book, bar what you need to do.
This post has been deleted by its author
When some a$$hole hack the vehicles control system (and it will happen) what chance do I stand?
I would imagine that the only part of the car that it would even talk to the outside world without a hard connection would be the navigation system, and the only realistic thing you could do with that would be to mess up the maps. Even that would be difficult because it likely talks directly to Google Maps. All in all it would be a lot like trying to remotely hack a Garmin. Why would anyone with the resources to do it bother when it's so much easier to sabotage the thing while you're in the office?
Of greater concern, to me anyway, is that if the navigation system works like they navigation app for Android and you stop for a restroom break in an area without cellular service you're in trouble. That happened to me once on a long road trip. I suddenly couldn't pull the maps for my navigation app and, as evidence of how dependent I am on my technology, it never occurred to me to stop and buy a map. It was the one time I've ever been lost on a road trip. (Full disclosure: my wife would say it's just the only time I've ever admitted to being lost.)
This post has been deleted by its author
You have such faith in security after all that has happened
It's not 'faith in security'. It's more like 'faith that there's nothing there to be hacked.' I'd trust it for the same reason I don't bother pointing security cameras at blank walls: there's no door for people to come in through.
In all likelihood the navigation system will be controlled by a system that feeds data to the robotics controller, which would have no reason to talk to the outside world. Nor is there any reason for the nav system to accept input other than maps and GPS data. Even if you did somehow feed it different data, what's it going to do with it? It'd be like trying to hack a computer not hooked up to the internet by hacking into a Garmin that happens to be plugged into it.
Of course I could be wrong. Google could have done something stupid like put an SSH server in the thing with access to wifi, or they could have set up the nav system and the robotics on the same ARM chip without properly sandboxing the system, but I don't think they're that idiotic.
EEeek! Google maps!
Your determined route has you making a turn on a bridge to get to the road underneath it because the map thinks it's an interchange. Just hope the proximity sensors have jurisdiction over the nav system or else it could be a bumpy ride.
I would imagine that the only part of the car that it would even talk to the outside world without a hard connection would be the navigation system...
Why? Because car manufacturers in general, and Google in particular, have such a great track record in putting security concerns first? Even "dumb" cars have been hacked - El Reg has covered car hacking in a number of articles (e.g. 1 and 2). As far as what will connect using wireless... if it is more convenient to use wireless, there will be too much market pressure to resist.
To TopOnePercent's point, I think the only major components that will need to be serviced on a regular basis will be the tires. I suspect we will see tax breaks (in the US) for electric vehicles go away and for taxes on them to exceed those for gas burners as jurisdictions seek to recoup lost revenue no longer generated by the gas tax. Even so, I still want my built-in electric chauffeur.
Unless your idea of a car has a binary switch controlling the brakes, then no.
More like a kill switch
More like a "Google is not liable if you hit something" switch. That switch means Google can plausibly say "The occupant had the ability to prevent the collision, so that is where you should be looking for money." I suspect people are still going to need to pass basic sight tests before being allowed to use these - that blind man on the video isn't going to get his automotive freedom.
"So... a brake then."
More like a "this is so we can pretend our system isn't safety critical" switch.
I'd really be find it a bit more reassuring if there were a few gnarly old been-there-done-that-got-the-t-shirt engineering types in their video, in place of some of the bright eyed young messianic ones.
"87% of statistics you read in a comments section are entirely made up"
-Abraham Lincoln
(it's actually 90%) but technically it is 100% as mechanical failure or a tree falling down are a direct result of a poor decision by a human to either skip maintenance/use cheap components or to drive in weather where they should really have stayed at home.
"because we all know no regularly maintained machinery has EVER failed for any reason whatsoever,"
That's true, but that's also not what was said. I said that the reason is ALWAYS human error, and over the years of investigating component failures in detail for the airline industry I have not found a single case where human error wasn't a factor in the failure.
The same is true of cars, most cars have the majority of components ignored for the whole of their life, when was the last time you maintained your engine block, or suspension, or the little bolt that holds your hand break on? the answer will be never.
And the weather is a fairly predictable phenomenon nowadays just turn on the weather channel to see if it is safe to drive.
I'd guess at least 95% of crashes are due to the human element
I'd guess it's more like 99%. Maybe even 99.5% or 99.9%. Mechanical failures that result in collisions are fairly rare. Collisions caused by humans not watching where they're going or running stop signs or driving drunk or being just plain stupid, however, are extremely common. As long as all the systems in these cars remain in good working order I wouldn't expect them to ever be in a wreck unless it involved a second, human operated vehical. The problem is that if one of the systems isn't in good working order you'll probably not find out until it hits something.
This post has been deleted by its author
Ewwww...
How long before the first couple get pulled over by the police for making use of all that free time in the car...
Are these supposed to be be replacements for taxis? If 50 or 60 different people could conceivably have been sat in the same seat as you, unsupervised, that day I'd want someone to clean up all the urine, poop, blood, semen, snot, whisky bottles and big mac wrappers at regular intervals.
Are these supposed to be be replacements for taxis? If 50 or 60 different people could conceivably have been sat in the same seat as you, unsupervised, that day I'd want someone to clean up all the urine, poop, blood, semen, snot, whisky bottles and big mac wrappers at regular intervals.
If you think that's bad, try using the Tube!
There was some study done a good few years back on Tube seats which were sent to a lab for analysis. The results made exceptionally grim reading.
> Or for young people who are too stupid and irresponsible to drive safely
Young people often drive too fast but for causing accidents, you need look no further that the person who think doing 34mph in a 60mph zone is safer and more sensible, without considering drivers actually using the road responsibly arriving behind them from a corner only to find the equivalent of a jogger in the way. Throw in a somewhat fast and loose interpretation of the use of indicators and you have a hazard that will crawl serenely through the chaos they have caused, shaking their heads at all those dangerous drivers and their accidents that you see just everywhere these days.
I've never understood why old people drive so slow. It's bizarre when you think about it - they haven't got a lot of time left. Me, I'd have my foot down. What's the worst that can happen? Death? Hey, I'm going to do that pretty soon anyway, right?
" the person who think doing 34mph in a 60mph zone is safer and more sensible, without considering drivers actually using the road responsibly arriving behind them from a corner only to find the equivalent of a jogger in the way."
You know that there might legitimately well be a jogger there? Or a horse, a cyclist, a deer or a tractor? Hell, I've come round a corner late at night on a country road to find a broken down traction engine in the road lit only with an oil lamp.
Your attitude is more dangerous than someone travelling at 34MPH.
You must be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. That's the most basic road safety rule of them all, pretty much.
> Your attitude is more dangerous than someone travelling at 34MPH.
Given that you should always drive to your ability to stop, statistics do clearly show that more accidents are caused by drivers traveling moderately less that the prevailing traffic than those traveling faster.
It's why advanced drivers are encouraged to "go with the flow".
So much aggravation and danger is caused by speed differential rather than speed per se.
@Terry Barnes
"Your attitude is more dangerous than someone travelling at 34MPH."
I disagree. One should also consider the vanishing point *behind* as well as in front and adjust speed accordingly.
"You must be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. That's the most basic road safety rule of them all, pretty much."
That doesn't work. Consider a brick wall round a tight bend. We'd all hit it if we used your rule. Now put some oil down, none of us would even reach the wall, let alone hit it.
Common sense is the key factor. It allows us to adjust the rules in real-time to suit the circumstances. Doing 34mph in a 60mph zone is not common sense.
Obviously we're talking about a left-hander here. Position your car correctly on entering the bend & you'll be able to drop your speed to under 34mph before Mr 34mph has even realised there is a problem. You also have two straight line braking vectors for a complete stop.
> Position your car correctly on entering the bend & you'll be able to drop your speed to under 34mph before Mr 34mph has even realised there is a problem. You also have two straight line braking vectors for a complete stop.
As you point out, there's quite a complex set of advanced skills required to operate a current generation vehicle safely.
This seems like a good argument for self drive vehicles, which would provide a transport solution to users who don't have either the time, inclination or ability to acquire this skill set.
Even for those who decide to drive their own vehicles, the adoption of a vehicle sensor network would lead to smarter, safer cars - for example, informing the driver an obstacle / slow vehicle around a blind corner.
"As you point out, there's quite a complex set of advanced skills required to operate a current generation vehicle safely."
Driving well is not really a skill so much as an attitude. MANY people I know who have the attitude of "get from a to b" are crap drivers. It's not that they don't have the time or ability, but simply don't care. Not caring about driving is a major cause of danger on roads (not caring about sensible speed, not caring about indicating, not caring about other road users, etc).
There should be an attitude test before being given a license. If you're not that keen on driving, don't!
My recent comment above still stands - because of that kill switch, the nominal driver (which actually raises some issues - how will that be determined when there is more than one occupant?) will have to be capable of operating it safely. Drunk, poor eyesight, shagging on the way home, reading a book, watching a movie etc, will still put the liability firmly on you in the event of collision that you could have avoided through the use of that switch. Let's face it, Google are not going to make themselves responsible for every accident (and there will be some) that occurs in these things - someone is still going to need to be insured to operate it.
"Google knows where you want to go, of course. Email your mum "see you for dinner at 7" and the car will honk outside the door at 6.30 to tell you it's time to leave."
And because Google knows more about us than even we do ourselves, it'll take you to your birth-mum, even though you never knew you were adopted in the first place.
Round our way, the addresses shown on google maps are some distance from the actual places of that name [eg the label when you click on my house gives the name of a house some 100 yards away.
Also, most of the locations shown in local industrial estates are several roads adrift.
I wondered how, in the video, they would tell it to drive back into the van it was delivered in!
Financially liable for damages - the insurer, as it already is. When these things start hitting the streets I predict insurers will cover their arses by wanting to charge sky-high premiums, and I guess Google will set up some sort of compensation fund the insurers can draw on so that private customers* are not turned off by too-high insurance.
I also predict that within a few years the insurance companies will start to notice that the self-driving cars are getting involved in less crashes than the meatbag-driven ones, and hike their premiums on meatbag-driven cars to promote self-driving ones.
Criminally Liable - In the case of people being run overdue to software fuck-ups or component failure on the G-cars, I'm sure that any victim would sue Google since they have the biggest pockets. That's why Google are going to so much testing effort - it's been 3-4 years I think since they've had these cars running already.
*could be individuals or cab companies etc
"When these things start hitting the streets I predict insurers will cover their arses by wanting to charge sky-high premiums"
They'll set their premiums based on a statistical analysis of the risk. If they crash less frequently than cars with human drivers, the premiums will be lower. It would be in the interest of insurance companies to steer people towards automation if it lowers accident rates.
Mainstream insurance companies are stupidly over-cautious when the vehicle in question is an unknown quantity. They charge the highest possible rate until they have their own accident statistics to work with.
Specialists tend to accumulate those statistics much faster and can therefore calculate risk much more accurately. That's why vehicles such as kit cars are horrendously expensive to insure with mainstream companies, but dirt cheap with kit car specialists.
Don't expect the big boys to be first with realistic premiums for this type of car.
In certain reg forums, anything criticizing Google is quickly downvoted.
Google already admitted on Radio 4 they will be using the car for surveillance. I would be as likely to buy a car made by Google as a pair of shoes made by Ford, or a hair cut from Samsung, or an OS from Microsoft
"Google already admitted on Radio 4 they will be using the car for surveillance."
Really? Care to provide a citation for that or did you just make that up? I've not heard anywhere that Google are going to use the car for Surveillance.
I know in one interview they said that the car would record journeys taken but no more than that.
...whereas in most Reg forums, you can find many many of the head-in-the-sand crowd who think that Google are the only ones who know anything about you, and therefore are evil as compared to <insert favourite company here>
"We started with the most important thing [to us]: safety tracking. They have sensors that remove blind spots constantly transmit their location via GPS, and they can detect objects nearby stores out to a distance of more than two football fields in all directions, which [when combined with the head-up displays] is especially helpful on busy streets with lots of intersections. for displaying advertising, along with profiling where you go."
> If you're stuck in a queue then you're stuck.
That's a risk assessment. The Roadcraft rule states "always make sure you can stop on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear". That includes when you've been struck from behind...
In a car, you'll frequently - but not always - end up with nowhere to go. You might see the car barreling up behind oyu, but have no way to get out of the situation.
Motorcycles are a different matter - you do plan the escape route between stationary traffic, even if you decide not to filter through it initially. Being hit from behind like that is frequently fatal, so you've really got nothing to lose...
Vic.
This post has been deleted by its author
I read an article talking about the legal aspects of owning a self driving car, ie who's at fault if it hits someone etc. There is a whole load of laws already in place for something very similar - a horse, of course!
Basically a horse and a self driving car are very similar in that they have some degree of intelligence, and people are expected to treat them in a certain way due to common sense. Jumping out in front of a horse and you take the risk of getting hurt as the owner is only partially in control. Stand behind one and you may get kicked, and if the horse is out of control you are expected to try and avoid it accordingly. Will be interesting to see when the first court cases come in, apparently lawyers are already drawing parallels between the two and rubbing their hands.
Have you seen the way some irresponsible drivers treat horses on the road though?
It's not the intelligent self driving car I'm worried about, it's the irresponsible human drivers on the road that I worry about. There are already people that display a ridiculous level of hostility to people that use Google Glass, I dread to think how they would react to the Google Car.
There are already people that display a ridiculous level of hostility to people that use Google Glass, I dread to think how they would react to the Google Car.
I wouldn't assume reactions would necessarily be the same. I think Glass is idiotic (I've never seen anyone wearing them, and I'm probably too polite to be openly hostile to such a person, but I wouldn't be inclined to be friendly), but I can see hiring one of these autonomous cars as an alternative to a taxi.
I wouldn't own one myself - anywhere I could use it from my home is also in walking distance, and I'd rather walk. But if I'm visiting some city, it could be a possibility, alongside taxis and public transportation (and, of course, walking, which is usually my first choice).
The really interesting case will be the first time a horse and a JohnnCab collide.
Horses are allowed on the road for 2 main reasons.
#1 - they used the roads before cars existed
#2 - they use the roads in very limited numbers
Its highly unlikely, in my view, that JohnnyCabs will be accorded the same legal rights as a horse, as unlike a horse, they can be fitted with manual overrides, and proper cars pre-date them.
What is more likely is that the occupants will bear legal liability due to the manual override button ("But your honour, I was up to my nuts in Chlamydia at the time and neither of us saw the old lady step out" is unlikely to be a defence), with the vehicle owners insurer bearing fiscal liability, followed by google bearing both if a defect can be proven.
When we switch to driverless cars we will need to give up the illusion of control that an accelerator or brake appear to give us. As we will become accustomed not to trying to control the car then we will quickly lose our already limited ability to act sensibly in an emergency. I drive infrequently and will freely admit that partly as a result I'm not a very good driver: town traffic quickly pushes me to my cognitive limits.
Yes, there are still lots of problems to iron out but I suspect the lack of manual controls aren't one of them. How robust is the software? Can it be manipulated easily? How much redundancy is built in so that the car still works if some sensors fail or are impeded?
I passed my test when I was 19... never could afford to insure a car in London though, I've probably used my licence to buy alcohol more times than I'll ever need to use it in relation to driving, and now they want to take the driver away? By the time I can actually afford to own a car, I won't be allowed to drive it anyway. What was the point in those lessons, can I get a rebate?
And if Google drives my car, can they pay the insurance too?
No, I bet the insurance will go UP. You watch.
I can see it now. 7.30am your car arrives from its pod, picks you up and drives you to work collecting maybe one other person doing that same exact route.
At 9.30 the cars forms a centipede like train of to head off to central points, ready for mass action.
A car at your hose/work place within 2 minutes of a whistle? The blocker in all of this is, even now, is the switch from oil to electricity. The grid system is simply not ready.
How about this ... As any personal vehicle actually spends most of its time stationary would it make more sense to have the passenger compartment and inteligent chassis as dockable elements? That way 'drivers' still retain their personal space, fluffy dice & boiled sweet mashed into carpet etc and the traction unit can go off by itself to carry somebody else, get serviced, go for fuel or a join a nearby pool of units on charge.
There are already some London boroughs with a speed limit of 20mph on almost all their roads. And in practice, average speed in much of the city is less than that. Based on my trek across town yesterday, from the M3/M25 junction to Hackney, I don't think I managed even ten miles per hour. But I did discover exciting new parts of Acton. Which was nice.
Nope. They will use the "average speed increases as congestion decreases" argument. And "SPEED KILLS. Think of the children..."
This makes perfect sense on paper, however I still maintain that my travel time has significantly increased since all these traffic management measures were put into place. Visiting my parents used to take 2.5 hours there and 2.5 back. It now takes 4 there and 2.5 back. Guess which route has all the traffic calming?
Looks a bit like a Henkel Kabine Though I think it has 3 wheels.
But there were some 4 wheel bubble cars.
The British version of the Isetta was built with only one rear wheel instead of the narrow-tracked pair of wheels in the normal Isetta design in order to take advantage of the three-wheel vehicle laws in the United Kingdom.
i.e. 3 wheels (still?) counted as a Motorcycle + Sidecar for road tax and driving licence.
I think my Dad had the 3 wheel Isetta for a short while.
The Googlemobile looks like a micro car.
I think comparing to a Sinclair C5 is very unfair. Most like this 1984 effort?
49cc petrol
I tell you what worries me about this... The young age of the engineers. I know I sound ageist and all that, but do you think they followed some kind of approved design process for:
a) the overall system
b) the hardware (fault tolerance etc)
c) the software (fault tolerance etc)
I'd love to see the code and apply it to a ISO-61508 review. I mean, seriously, if you are designing a train that can semi-autonomously pilot itself, then you'd have to design it to SIL 2 standards at a minimum (I believe). An under-sea pipeline, SIL3. A nuclear reactor, SIL4. What reassurance do we have that any proper design process was followed such the system can be certified with a certain level of safety?
If the guys in the video were in their 40's and 50's and were all ex transport industry (rail, flight avionics etc) then okay, you'd know that those guys were well versed in their subject and had very probably followed a certifiable design process.
I don't get that feeling from these guys.
"If the guys in the video were in their 40's and 50's and were all ex transport industry (rail, flight avionics etc) then okay, you'd know that those guys were well versed in their subject and had very probably followed a certifiable design process."
You don't think Google might have the money and means to employ appropriate experts? The amount of time and money they've spent on this leads me to believe that they probably did use the brightest and best people with the right skills and experience. I'd imagine the US government was quite keen on that being the case too before letting them loose on the streets.
1) A visual way of knowing that a car is in auto mode, so while on the M1 we don't get alarmed at the sight of a driver slumped against the side window, snoring his face off in the middle lane.
2) A means by which a car can be forced into automatic mode by a vote of the people in the cars in its immediate vicinity.
Just imagine when a tosspot almost wipes out the whole road with idiotic risk taking. The people who are under threat just identify the car and if enough votes are received, the car switches into auto and everyone can relax!
A means by which a car can be forced into automatic mode by a vote of the people in the cars in its immediate vicinity.
Cue angry dude with a baseball bat stepping out of his car coming over to politely enquire about why on earth would you apparently want to scan the identifying QR code on the back of his vehicle with your cell phone.
I've seen a few play chicken with cars on council estates in my time.
Doing it against a human at the wheel though, always has the risk that he'll not stop, either deliberately or by inattention. The computer doesn't have this problem. Which I do appreciate is part of the argument FOR this system.
You'll be there. In your giant, plastic goldfish bowl. Pressing GO. The car will lurch a few inches forward, then stop. You'll repeat this while the kid stands there giving you the finger.
You get out.
He legs it.
You stand looking like an idiot.
You clearly have led a very fortunate life. I have lived in areas where kids would do this routinely, especially if they didn't recognise the car. One area I had to go for work purposes had a gang of adults who would do it - your option was to stop and be verbally abused/have the car damaged/get into a fight you were unlikely to win, or risk hitting the pair in the road (pre-mobile phone, so no easy way to call for help). The ability to do a reverse-flick was the only way to avoid problems, and usually got a round of applause if done well ...
It would appear The Goog and being very subtle in their program.
1) deliberately choose a small, practical, slow vehichle to refine the software/hardware.
2) Since they are small, using them in companies and theme parks will probably be first.
3) Every single journey they complete is more data...
There is a circular argument regarding the safety of these vehicles, when modern cars driving by humans are colliding in all sorts of unfortunate way.
A potential benefit of these vehicles will be that the liability becomes included in the vehicle, and the drivers insurance is only applicable when the driver is in control.
One of the reasons the CA law is written the way it is, is because this is the intermediate form of the car. It will start with live driver, and eventually 99% of the most common use cases will be captures.
This could be a massive boost for society, in providing the disabled a means of transport.
Just watch the Corps/Gov screw it up for profit.
P.
This post has been deleted by its author
What we need is to stop calling these "cars". The future is clearly driverless cars -- we all want all the benefits of personal, door-to-door transport, without the hassle and danger (and inefficiency) of human drivers.
But, to be successful, the industry has to stop calling them "cars". We all have to stop thinking about them as cars -- they are just more sophisticated versions of the people movers at airports.
People don't want someone telling them "you can't drive your car any more". And legislators need to make different laws for these new things -- you can't ask a person to take any responsibility if they have no controls, nor if they are not actively involved second-by-second -- anyone would lose concentration after a few minutes.
Keep cars as what they are now and give these new, driverless things a new name -- for example "pod". Eventually people will stop bothering with cars, governments will make cars less and less attractive (pods won't need personal insurance, only pods will be able to use motorways, go into central London, use bus lanes, ...).
Oh, and we need to get someone to take over from Google. I am looking forward to not having to drive, but I will pay extra not to need to tell any commercial company where I am going.
I most certainly don't want "... all the benefits of personal, door-to-door transport, without the hassle and danger (and inefficiency) of human drivers"! I'd prefer to stick with the ridiculously low chance of an incident that causes death or injury to me or someone else in order to have some freedom and ability to exercise some control over my world. Driving is the most complex and dangerous (despite the tiny risk in most Western countries) thing most people do these days, and life will be diminished by removing it.
That said, I would like the option of having a vehicle with enough room for me to get comfortable (so lots of leg-room) which will get me to a destination 400 miles away cheaply, quickly and using the fewest number of changes, whilst still being able to get some work done. Aircraft, trains and coaches fail on several of those requirements, so a self-driving car might fit the bill - though I still maintain that driving without due care and attention would prevent me working whilst being the nominal controller of the vehicle.
@imanidiot: THAT is why they need to change the word. Of course you don't want to give up your car. I am not sure I do either. But there are so many benefits to society that governments will make it MUCH more favourable for you to use your "pod" for more and more things (commuting, going on holiday, ...) that eventually you will find you haven't driven your real car for three months. At that point you might decide you don't need your car any more.
But to get that point, they need to first sell you a "pod" as a supplement to your car, not as a replacement. Maybe first of all for commuting, where a 25MPH speed limit is fine because most of the commute is spent in traffic jams, and so you aren't worried about safety because the speeds are low, and it is great to be able to drink a cup of coffee and look at the sports pages on the way into work.
I have a car with very basic electronics. Throttle is done by cable (With some electronics for idle valve control and fuel injection. IE not entirely safety critical), brakes don't have esp, just ABS (Which is mostly mechanical in nature), hydraulic power steering (no computer involved), etc. And I'd think twice about buying a modern car that DID have all those mcguffins.
And I fly regularly, albeit with the cables and pushrods kinds of planes. Even on a plane, the basic handling of the plane might be done by the computers, but the actual flying, the decision making, the collision avoidance, the navigation, etc is handled by humans in the more critical phases of flight. I can trust a computer to that point. But once you start mixing in other traffic and pedestrians, I wouldn't trust a computer to drive me around. Let alone fly me around.
(And no, there isn't a single airplane control system out there that could handle 8 planes in close proximity trying to land on the same uncontrolled airfield. A human CAN do that however.)
I don't think humans will have much of a say in where these 'cars' go or what they get up to. One imagines that more often than not ones iGoggle_Fridge-o-matic will instruct the household Drivo-pod thingy (or one of the household fleet of thingies), to nip off down to the Morrisburys Drive-Through-Store and top up with groceries all be-twixt themselves, in a sort of Meals-on-wheels mode. Then, to complete the transaction, one will be pestered by a mobile 'Payment Authorisation Required' alert message, (right in the middle of a thoroughly engrossing planning meeting on migrating umpteen beellion systems to Windows 19), before your tea can begin it's journey home. So long as the fridge-o-matic instructions can be over-ridden by my need to get home from the office, then I suppose it's the way of the future.
But I fancy I might be a bit of a maverick and occasionally take the old motor-car for a spin running on home-brewed ethanol, or sunnink.
"No, I'm sorry sir, but it's quite clear sir, from the Global Live Record of Everything Everywhere, that you weren't texting / browsing enough sir, whilst the car was driving sir. You can accept an on-the-spot fine of 200 Kredits or attend a Global Consum-a-Tron re-education course, which is it to be sir?"
Not because they sit still for too long; a different type of DVT is ailing employees of the UK commercial transport industry, Barcelona Metcalfe reports.
One of the UK's last long distance lorry drivers – what the rest of the world knows as a trucker – today was Billy's final day driving for well-known haulage firm, Addie Stoberts. Made famous – or, a bit pop'lar, as Billy prefers - by the long running TV documentary series about the company; Billy is one of the lucky ones - Stoberts have re-employed him, in their PR department.
Not so lucky are many of the estimated one million UK truckers replaced by Driverless Vehicle Technology (DVT) since 2019, when Volvo offered the first DVT unit for sale. By 2022 more than half of all new trucks ordered in the UK included DVT. In the EU and US, the sale of manually driven tractor cabs was effectively banned in 2027 and - for commercial use - non-DVT units will be banned from public roads completely, by December 31 2031.
Billy is philosophical about it all, “When you think of the investment in these things. Well … You can't blame the hauliers for switching over, can you?” he says
“Although these things don't come cheap; I could work a maximum seven hour day. These run twenty-four seven, Christmas Day included. Return on investment” he grins, “They're teaching me a thing or two, working inside”.
Of course, as iconic as the trucking industry undoubtedly was; it's the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the total number of human jobs lost to DVT, since its introduction by Google in California in 2015. A study last year by the US Truckers Federation found that over six million trucking related jobs had been “lost” – since 2020 – to what the report called the “unrelenting automation of the industry”.
Back over here in the UK, from taxi ranks to industrial estates; it is rare to see a cargo or passenger-paying vehicle without DVT. The UK government claims over 75% of people displaced from work by DVT have found jobs in other sectors. However, when pressed on the point, the Minister was unable to provide any numbers for total jobs lost to DVT since its introduction.
I reminded Billy of the early days of DVT, when a person was still required at the wheel.
Billy sniffed, “Babysitting? To be honest that paid about a third of what they paid you, when you actually had to drive them” he told me, “And it was boring. Dull as anything. You were asleep most of the time”
But, with his new job in PR, Billy can reel off plus points to his robotic replacement, “What is it now; two accidents in five years?” he tells me, “That's ludicrous. And that's not just accidents caused by the DVT system; that's any accident in the UK involving a DVT system! I read a study, about the number of deaths prevented. Silly numbers. Beggared belief, if I'm honest.”
I was the final interviewer in a full day of interviews for Billy; he was as courteous and friendly to me as I am sure he was to the first in line. Was it a sad day, I asked him?
“Yeah, I'm sad. But things change - We can't stop the world and get off now, can we? Not really, anyway”
He walked off towards the lump of bland, grey office buildings; head office of an organisation which claims 28% of the UK heavy-haulage industry, and significant percentages of the European biofuel and recycling transportation markets. DVT – and the large capital investment it requires - has been good for the Stobert brand; at the expense of small fleet and owner operator businesses.
Billy was holding open the door to the offices, watching his Rosie, as it was driven away; the final Stoberts truck to be retrofitted with DVT.
“Do you think they'll make a TV series about those things?” he called across. I shrugged; what other response could I give him?
He laughed, “It'll never sign as many autographs as me”.
A hacked googlecar with two inflatable occupants and the rest filled with [insert your favorite home-brewed explosive] is an obvious hazard in the making and one that terrifies me more than shoebombers or y-front martyrs ever did.
And politicians are worried about guns made from weed-whacker wire.
I congratulate the Chocolate Factory in inventing the world's slowest cruise missile.
I've gotten into arguments about this with my family, but...
I do not want a vehicle with any sort of automatic controls that I can't override. And I don't mean "spend sixteen seconds holding down a button" as Top Gear showed us that once when they helped consult on the car scenes in a movie. I mean that if I push a control, everything goes full manual, and it [i]makes that known[/i], loudly and visually. Visually loudly, preferably.
I'm skeptical about:
A) safety in general
B) safety around bikes/pedestrians/animals/debris/potholes/curbs in particular
C) That I want a car that can DEFINITELY be used to track my movements
D) Can be commandeered by hackers/Google/authorities under as-yet-undefined circumstances
E) Who accepts liability in case of an accident
F) That you can get off the road properly in case of a medical or other emergency (could even be a sudden bathroom break)
G) That you can pull over on an opportunistic basis.
The front design comes with a human-like face with a thousand yard stare and a gritted-teeth grin.
Nah, I'm waiting for Terry Gilliam to let a hand descend on it and start clicking the mouse buttons, fiddling the scroll wheel, then move it around to point it at departure and destination locations, causing havoc and destruction in inner cities, knocking down viaducts and overpasses, and plowing through the countryside.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
