Google self-driving car prototype ready to try road
Source: AFP
Google on Monday announced that the first completed prototype of its self-driving car is ready to be road tested.
"We're going to be spending the holidays zipping around our test track, and we hope to see you on the streets of Northern California in the new year," the Internet titan's autonomous car team said in a post at Google+ social network.
The prototype is a manifestation of plans that California-based Google revealed in May to build its own autonomous car minus typical features such as steering wheels.
"They won't have a steering wheel, accelerator pedal, or brake pedal... because they don't need them. Our software and sensors do all the work," Google's Chris Urmson said in a blog post in May.
Read more: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/google-self-driving-car-prototype-205623993.html#ArE4JXt
sakabatou
(42,174 posts)in case anything went wrong. So give me a steering wheel and pedals.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)are basically a passenger.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Bosonic
(3,746 posts)Or wear Oculus Rift and you choose your virtual journey.
Or snooze. etc etc.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)Don't have time to catch the game because of traffic.
Buy our new Google Mobile Entertainment station.
Stereo with surround sound, and if you really enjoy video
you can purchase the 60" big screen that replaces the windshield,
why would you need it.
Sit in the back seat and make out with your partner in completely
privacy on your commute home. Better than a limo because you
won't have to worry about the pervert driver trying to catch a peek.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)heading down towards the road, which would cause a human driver to slow down and proceed with extreme caution?
Would it be able to handle temporary traffic light installations when (for example) a road is restricted to one lane (which traffic going in opposite directions takes turns to use) due to emergency construction?
Will it recognize the various hand gestures that a traffic cop makes when directing traffic flow?
Is anyone else as skeptical as I am of this technology?
ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)animals, people etc. I would think a motion detection system program would have been designed by the team working on this. In other cases, maybe some sort of Onstar system where a remote operator can take control using cameras mounted on the vehicle to navigate through unplanned routes/situations. There are probably quite a few things to work out, but I think the technology is promising.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I understand your skepticism. The technology is in its infancy, and frankly, may never be broadly adopted. It might be a specialty tech. For example, it might provide independent mobility for blind people.
shraby
(21,946 posts)how reliable computers are.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)The line that carries me to and from the cube farm starts in... you guessed it... Mountain View.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)ohnoyoudidnt
(1,858 posts)modern taxi companies and entities like Uber might be in trouble.
longship
(40,416 posts)Or actually any of the paved two lanes either -- none other exist here.
I'd like to see it on Grass Lake Road, which the last time I drove it a couple of weeks ago was pot holed, flooded out in two places, with small trees across the road (compliments of beavers), and of course, it is one twisty, turning unpaved road through dense forest. I was on my way to a local (10 miles) pub which serves excellent food. When I left after my meal, I drove the alternate route, on only paved roads, but which adds miles to the drive. At least only paved until I turned onto my road.
These things would be worthless here.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)about 3 or 4 years ago, about this.
His wager was that by the time his child was old enough to drive, she would
not need a drivers license because of these autonomous cars.
I told him the first time I see one, I'm getting off the road.
Google keeps claiming that it has x number of hours on the road without an accident.
That they're safer then cars with drivers.
I would never believe that.
Does it know when a child darts out into the street?
How about emergency vehicles? Will it know to move to the curb when one
comes blaring by? Or will it enter an intersection because it can't "HEAR"
the sirens from around the corner?
Try navigating the fog!
What about driving at freeway speeds, can it "process" the millions of variables
at those speeds? What happens the first time it gets in an accident at freeway
speeds?
To scary to contemplate.
I still stand by my wager. There is no way I'd advocate for these vehicles.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)I'd rather share the road with autonomous cars than with some of the elderly drivers here in Florida.
I won't mention half the teens driving and texting at the same time.
Darb
(2,807 posts)driving is a pain in the ass. As for those of you worried, we should outlaw drivers and every car should be driverless.
truthisfreedom
(23,155 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)The ideal market would be inner city/urban core but how is this better then a bus or just walking? How does it handle jaywalkers and bicyclists??
In more suburban and rural areas, you need higher top speed, but that complicates the inputs (the main reason the top speed in the US is 70mph is that is what the roads are design for. The reason roads are designed for 70 mph is because at higher speeds the time needed for a driver to adjust to ordinary problems of driving is less then the time between when a driver sees the normal problem and the vehicle reaching the point of the problem i.e. you "see" the accident after it has happened. Thus interstates are designed to minimize anything other then other cars on the road thus are the safest roads for they minimize anything that is not "Normal" for driving).
Please note, I use the term "ordinary problems" I mean like a car going slower then you are NOT something more, like a car crossing the yellow line into your lane, or a car coming to a complete stop.
Computer driven vehicles have been used on various interstates for years, I read about them in the 1990s. Interstates are the roads with the best accident records for they restrict what is on them, right down to fences to keep animals off the interstates. The problem is with other roads, such as suburban roads with NO sidewalks. People tend to forget that it is still legal for pedestrians to walk on such roads.
Remember the law, if there is a conflict between Pedestrians and Vehicles it is the Vehicles that must be banned. People have a constitutional right to "Freedom of Movement" but the courts have said that is the Freedom to walk not drive. Unless some sort of FREE transportation is provided, you can NOT ban Pedestrians on any road that had been open to pedestrians. Thus Interstates can ban Pedestrians for they are built for exclusive use of vehicles and have NEVER been opened to Pedestrians for day to day travel but if the Interstate was built on top of another road that had been opened to the public the Highway Department MUST provide an alternative means for Pedestrians.
Thus the interactions of these vehicles with pedestrians on roads without sidewalks is what I would like to see. Worse, Pedestrians walking on the left (as is required in all States) and stepping onto the road bed where they think it is safe, and stepping off the pavement when they think that is what is needed to be done to be safe AND adjustments for areas when such side stepping is impossible thus pedestrians must stay on the pavement even as the car approaches.
My point is this vehicle, right now, has so many restrictions as to speed as to be excluded from use on the safest roads, the Interstates, AND I have not seen how it handles pedestrians walking down the middle of the road. How can you increase the speed AND how it handles slower users of the road are the big questions on the usability of such a vehicle. This article does not address either issue,
I have read other articles about this Google project and it seems to be driven more by ego then "economic need". i.e. Google thinks it can do this, thus is doing this. On the other hand, the actual "Demand" or "Need" (as those terms are used in Marketing) is questionable. These vehicles, if they do work in urban environments (can interact with pedestrians) would solve a problem with modern automobiles, where to park them (such vehicles are parked elsewhere and sent to a rider when it is called for, thus no parking issue). On the other hand, can it do this in a way that is profitable? i.e take people from their homes to where they shop or work? If it can handle large numbers of pedestrians and everything is within the urban core or older suburbs this is doable with this design, but it is NOT doable if the roads are more "Suburban" in nature, i.e. speeds in excess of 25 mph (Which includes a lot of older, pre WWII suburbs AND some post WWII suburbs).
In Rural Areas, Google will have to address the 25 mph limit.
I suspect these problem are insurmountable. Dealing with a lot of Pedestrians, many who are jaywalking, may be to much for the system. i.e. refuses to move for there is no clear path do to pedestrians. This is a major problems in most urban areas (In Pittsburgh for example, Pedestrians are given the cross signal, at the same time turns are permitted in the same intersections, the cars are to wait for the Pedestrians to cross, or push through the Pedestrians, how would a google car handle that situation?).
In Rural Areas how do you handle someone walking TOWARDS the Vehicle in the left lane (as he or she is legally obligated to do) and there is no room on the other side of the road to move to for another vehicle is coming to you in the right lane (As vehicles must by law do)?
I suspect this is designed for modern suburbs with few or no pedestrians but speeds below 25 mphs for they are NOT to be used on Interstates. These are the same suburbs where parking is rarely a problem thus the main advantage of using such a system does not exist (i.e. No lack of parking). Thus it is solution to a problem that does not exist (or the famous observation, a solution looking for a problem to solve). It is technology driven, not driven by any need that it can do better i.e. is it better then a bus in an urban area with heavy pedestrian traffic? Is it better then a car in a rural area with no parking shortage? The more I look at this, it becomes more and more a solution looking for a problem to solve and that may be why it will survive for the next 20-30 years before people finally discover the alternatives are a better solution to the problems this can address (i.e. people movers on their own right of way, elevated to be above pedestrians, while stopping on ever corner, providing fast enough movement in urban areas for most people).