Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-brings-in-chief-for-self-driving-cars-1442199840

72 46 11 years ago

edward• 11 years ago

Same story without paywall: http://www.ibloomberg.net/google-brings-in-chief-for-self-dr...

jzwinck• 11 years ago

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.

mcintyre1994• 11 years ago

They don't actually attribute the article to Bloomberg the publisher, it's the display name and links to the page[0] for one of their 'authors' who has apparently written over 100,000 articles in the last 2 months. :)

[0] http://www.ibloomberg.net/author/thanhcong/

psbp• 11 years ago

A Google redirect also works: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

melling2• 11 years ago

Why is there so much discussion about paywalls on HN? Can someone create a FAQ? The first several comments so far are essentially about the paywall. It's all noise. We need to increase the signal.

ClassyHacker• 11 years ago

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.

peatmoss4• 11 years ago

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.

fillskills2• 11 years ago

And dont forget the > 15% space occupied on average in cities by parking. If utilization of cars increase with Uber/self-driving etc, we could see a lot of space cleared up too

ams6110• 11 years ago

I think you underestimate how much people (at least 30 and older, but a good number under 30 also) like owning their own cars and driving them.

There is definitely some tunnel vision here. Not everyone lives in densely populated urban areas where owning a car is already almost not worth the cost and hassle.

I can't see myself ever owning or time-sharing a self-driving car.

tomtang0514• 11 years ago

As someone who came from other country, I'm shocked in how easy it is to get a driver license in US. I know a lot of people getting a driver license with less than 20 hours behind the wheel. FYI, I got a US driver license in Illinois, which is considered relatively hard compare to other states. And some traffic rules are just ridiculous. I can't believe there're still states out there allow hand hold devices when driving, even text and drive.

pcurve• 11 years ago

I agree 30,000+ deaths is a high price.

A NTHSA study states it has direct economic cost of $277 billion / year. Indirect cost of another $600 billion+.

Put it another way, car crashes is also a big business.

It's big business for hospitals, insurance, body shops, and lawyers.

As for the economics of car ownership, if almost everybody had to own a car or two, then people's average salaries would simply rise. If nobody owned a car, then salaries would job. The savings don't go into pockets of employees.

afarrell• 11 years ago

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

http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-technology/info-201...

t2015_08_253• 11 years ago

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?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8nnhUCtcO8

Nicholas_C2• 11 years ago

This implies that self-driving cars will be programmed with a morality superior to that of evil humans.

No, he implied that computers are faster acting and probably wouldn't have hit the kid in the first place.

theklub• 11 years ago

Yeh computers never have problems.

dpflan• 11 years ago

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...

Theodores• 11 years ago

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.

jfoster• 11 years ago

Why not take both approaches? Volvo, BMW and Mercedes will presumably be welcomed by Google if they opt to use the Google technology in the future.

mattcornell• 11 years ago

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.

Google Brings in Chief for Self-Driving Cars

Related Stories