Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167063

by codegeek • 14 years ago

141 161 14 years ago

It'll be interesting to see whether and how much protectionist BS makes it into the final regulations. I'm all for very strict safety regulations on these vehicles. The first accident caused by one could set the industry back decades, Challenger-style, unless the vehicles are so demonstrably safer that legislators can resist the inevitable panic of their irrational constituents. But I hope any such regulations are driven by the actual need to make the vehicles safe, not by the desire on the part of existing stakeholders to make the vehicles' introduction as painful and difficult as possible.

ahallock• 14 years ago

Existing stakeholders will protect their turf and rely as you say on the 'panic of irrational constituents.' And it would be irrational given the amount of human error already occurring--people falling asleep at the wheel, texting, drunk driving, carelessness, etc. Also, the market will take care of this without State regulations--who would want to purchase a perceived unsafe vehicle?

khuey4• 14 years ago

A large part of the problem is that much of the total risk of driving is borne by people other than the car's occupants. People in other cars, pedestrians on the sidewalk, etc.

tobyjsullivan6• 14 years ago

The one inaccuracy you have here is stating the market will take care of it. It won't because the majority will know these cars are better and safer.

The 'irrational constituents' are always a disproportionately powerful minority. That's one difference between free market and politics.

Though, even a 'minority' (< 50%) of people considering these cars are safe enough to own would likely be enough to sustain the industry.

SilasX2• 14 years ago

Oh, I know! Challenger basically made private spaceship manufacturers and pilots have to hide their faces in public, so vilified were they!

jamesaguilar3• 14 years ago

I don't think there was much of a private space industry then. What I'm referring to is the shift in public perception and the delay that imposed on NASA.

wwwtyro• 14 years ago

> The first accident caused by one could set the industry back decades

Unless they deploy to multiple regions, maybe? I imagine some cultures will be much more forgiving of and reasonable about the occasional accident than American culture. If even a single city in the world successfully deployed autoautomobiles, the impact would be so swift, obvious, and desirable that most other societies would follow suit in spite of the loud, irrationally fearful minority.

I hope. :)

neurotech14• 14 years ago

The Challenger accident was a very public disaster for NASA. When McDonnell Douglas felt the effects of management complacency resulting in DC-10 crashes, the public perception that the jet was unsafe doomed the company. If a driver-less car has a "minor" accident due to a technical glitch, it wouldn't achieve the same level of notoriety. The Ford/Bridgestone defective tire incident is a classic example of management complacency causing accidents, but because it was a series of accidents without graphic video for the news story, it didn't achieve the same level of public awareness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controv...

Both Ford and Bridgestone companies were able to "compartmentalize" the fallout and stay in business.

jdleesmiller• 14 years ago

The 'unintended acceleration' recalls [1] provide a recent example of how things can very easily go the other way (though of course Toyota's still in business).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009–2010_Toyota_vehicle_recall...

nancyhua• 14 years ago

This is awesome and revolutionary. No more looking for parking spots- just send the car to the nearest garage or back home. Also the cars could coordinate to minimize traffic. So many possibilities!

ori_b• 14 years ago

Not for a while: "The regulations would allow vehicles to operate autonomously, but a licensed driver would still need to sit behind the wheel to serve as a backup operator in case of emergency."

Given the current state of the technology, this makes sense. And in the future, we may yet have fully driverless cars, instead of merely autonomous ones.

Edit: The way google has been testing these cars, AFAIK, is through a special "experimental vehicle" permit.

sparky2• 14 years ago

What do the regulations allow that's not allowed today? Google has already driven 300k+ miles autonomously, with a driver behind the wheel as a backup operator.

Also, what's the benefit to the owner/operator? Are you allowed to pay less attention to the road so you can be doing something else 99% of the time? Are you allowed to talk on the phone? If neither of these is true, then the legislation might put the cars' developers on more sure legal footing, but would appear to negate the primary utility of an autonomous vehicle.

MiguelHudnandez2• 14 years ago

Indeed -- They'll have to be on the road for years before they are allowed to operate without a person inside.

I have a few concerns about the short term ramifications.

1) The person behind the wheel can't do work, read, eat, or apply make-up if their primary responsibility is to second-guess the computer. So the most tantalizing benefit of being driven wherever you want is going to have to wait until some future day.

2) A vehicle that obeys the speed limit and makes a full stop at stop signs is going to infuriate some drivers. They should probably avoid matching the speed of adjacent cars when possible, to prevent blocking aggressive drivers that want to pass. These cars are probably going to avoid the fast lane.

3) I can see plenty of scenarios where an autonomous vehicle acts safely but still gets in an accident. Slowing to avoid a collision could result in being rear-ended, or a human driver might merge into the car because he failed to check his blind spot. So there will be accidents. I assume the cars will have to be rigged with video cameras and telemetry to prove that the car's programming was not at fault.

codegeek• 14 years ago

Imagine the possibilities.

hbbio• 14 years ago

Imagine your next Über driver.

rbellio2• 14 years ago

I'd love to see other cars in their testing group too. Don't get me wrong, I harbor no ill will towards Prius or their drivers, I just don't fit in them.

Public transit with these installed would be fabulous as well. You'd still need someone behind the wheel as backup, but it would be great to have a potentially tireless public transit system.

jamesaguilar3• 14 years ago

How big are you? The latest Prius is essentially a full-size sedan in terms of the front seat. What kind of car do you prefer?

It's hard to imagine that this tech won't be available for all classes of cars once it is sufficiently well tested.

rbellio2• 14 years ago

6'6" and built like an NFL lineman. Last time I got in one, I couldn't sit up straight, my knees were resting on the dash and I couldn't close the door. I'd prefer something in the full size category but would rather it was a van, SUV or truck so I didn't have to squat down so low to get in. I do a lot of outdoors stuff that takes me on some rough roads and I usually have need of hauling and some cargo space.

lunaru• 14 years ago

Industries that will be disrupted: - Taxi, shuttles, buses and limo services - Truck drivers, Delivery, Food delivery (auxilary: train and air transportation as well) - Insurance industry - Fleet management (time to write an app for managing 1000+ automated self-driving vehicles) - Policing. We won't need the CHP much in the future

And that's just from ~20 seconds off the top of my head. I'm glad lawmakers are allowing the future to happen and I hope this puts pressure on other states to join in.

citricsquid• 14 years ago

Please can you explain how each of those will be affected in a big way? I can't think of ways that most would be affected in a real tangible way. I use taxis because I don't own a car (edit: ignore this one, I wasn't thinking straight, hah), my deliveries (groceries, items from online) are manned because there is management of the delivery needed, not because someone needs to drive. I can see how the insurance industry will be affected in a large way though.

ChuckMcM5• 14 years ago

I believe he was implying that the humans would be impacted. Taxis that drive themselves don't get tickets, don't forget to turn on the meter, and don't need to be paid part of the fare. Basically any people moving services are made more economical by removing human labor, insurance risk, and traffic liability.

It remains to be seen if those savings can actually be realized of course.

rogerbinns3• 14 years ago

There is no need for the delivery to be manned. The vehicle can pull up, you enter a code and it provides the goods vending machine style. (Note Amazon already has these in several cities.)

ChuckMcM5• 14 years ago

Not to mention the huge revenue shortfall when parking meters and public parking lots are no longer used. You tell your car, orbit the building for a while I'll be about 40 minutes.

dag112• 14 years ago

That's a waste of gas. Parking will still be needed as much as ever.

The exception to this will be autonomous taxis, of course.

michielvoo• 14 years ago

I'd rather you park it, if you don't mind.

davidwparker• 14 years ago

Do you really think it'll cost less (in gas money) to orbit rather than to just park? Or do you have a Tesla? (http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/24/tesla-supercharger/) :)

olalonde4• 14 years ago

If we all start doing this we will end up with huge traffic problems. Luckily, the wasted car mileage and fuel consumption will probably make it an unattractive option. One thing you could do though is ask your car to drop you off and go find a parking.

rogerbinns3• 14 years ago

The car doesn't need to orbit. It can go off and park itself somewhere else, and come back as you are about to leave. Think of it as an automated valet.

This does mean we don't need the huge car parks around places of interest as everyone can be dropped off and picked up at the front door.

(And when the car is going to self park, it can use speeds and routes that avoid adding congestion to the people trying to get somewhere.)

jwb119• 14 years ago

> The regulations would allow vehicles to operate autonomously, but a licensed driver would still need to sit behind the wheel to serve as a backup operator in case of emergency.

That alone limits the potential "disruptiveness" quite a bit.

khuey4• 14 years ago

For now. That will change eventually.

tobyjsullivan6• 14 years ago

I'm very annoyed by this requirement. It doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny as being necessary yet completely hinders most opportunities for true disruptiveness.

jlgreco• 14 years ago

What kind of license do they need? Would a regularly licensed teenager now be able to "drive" taxis and other commercial vehicles?

veemjeem• 14 years ago

Law makers are uncertain about the technology right now. When they're the ones sitting behind the wheel in one of these cars, reading a book while it drives, then we'll probably see new legislation removing the necessity of the driver.

SilasX2• 14 years ago

It reminds me of the "Red Flag" laws, passed in the early days of the automobile, that basically made cars useless, so you'd have to defeat their very purpose in order to obey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws

nandemo• 14 years ago

That's true, but it's probably a temporary measure (a decade or so?). And even with a backup driver, automated cars have the potential of vastly decreasing traffic jams.

cabalmoose• 14 years ago

The auto industry itself; a family will far more easily be able to get by on a single car: "Take Little Joey and Little Suzie to work, drop dad off at the office, go pick mom up at home, then at 3:30, pick the kids up at school, drop Suzie off at soccer practice, and have dad home in time for dinner at 6."

For that matter, shared, scheduled cars on a neighbourhood scale would be pretty great.

brc• 14 years ago

I've made this point many times on driverless car threads. The auto industry sells cars on the basis of miles driven, not number of families. As the passenger miles will increase with driverless cars, the car makers have absolutely nothing to be concerned about, and much to be delighted about driverless cars.

olalonde4• 14 years ago

It's fun to speculate on what will happen when driverless cars become mainstream. Essentially, the question boils down to: "What would happen if every car owner in the world suddenly had a 24/7 personal driver?"

- 7 year old kids can now own and "drive" a car.

- Need a lift? Ask your dad/friend to send his car to pick you up.

- Forgot your laptop at home? Send your car back and ask your flatmate to put your laptop in the car.

- Leaving New York for some vacations in Miami? Take the plane and pick up your car whenever it arrives.

- Want to take a nap? Pull down the windows and windshield curtains.

- Traveling abroad for a few weeks and don't know what to do with your car? Set it to taxi mode and profit.

tobyjsullivan6• 14 years ago

Assuming 6315 waking hours per year and 540 hours a year spent in a car, I would say a 9% increase in productivity for the average American.

Numbers from:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=392456

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/PatrickLi.shtml

DannoHung2• 14 years ago

> - Leaving New York for some vacations in Miami? Take the plane and pick up your car whenever it arrives.

Alternatively, in say 20 years or so, going to Miami which would take 21 hours (at 65-70 mph), could probably be done on an overnight sleeper-car (at probably something more like 120-130mph).

Even a cross country trip would only take a day or so at such a rate, and with a few strategically placed stops, you could have a nice week long cross country trip at a fraction of the normal cost.

Here's a few negative thoughts though:

These driverless cars might significantly increase road usage and wear since driving becomes less of a burden.

Suburban sprawl could grow out of control since it's no longer necessary to either have public transit options or be attentive to have a long commute.

Some people might even choose to buy automated RVs instead of homes, decreasing a sense of community and investment in place.

daenz• 14 years ago

> Traveling abroad for a few weeks and don't know what to do with your car? Set it to taxi mode and profit.

CarBnB

recursive2• 14 years ago

> Leaving New York for some vacations in Miami? Take the plane and pick up your car whenever it arrives

my car? Like I own the car? Why would you own a car? Who takes care of the maintenance?

Just kidding. But seriously, if self-driving cars were a thing, I can think of very few reasons why any normal people would own cars.

mahyarm3• 14 years ago

I think eventually, car ownership will go down significantly, since companies managing fleets of electric cars can do it far more efficiently than private ownership of long range cars. Uber is faster than walking to the car you parked half a mile away. There's always 'free parking' for your large house party in the city. You can also create small cargo only cars for small deliveries like that laptop situation. It's far more efficient from an energy/vehicle cost/liability stand point. Amazon prime 'local' might just replace stores from a pure efficiency standpoint. The number of total cars neccesary will decrease and the large amount of real estate devoted to cars will decrease significantly. Car maintenance costs will decrease with predictable schedules, and economies of scale that come with fleets.

DigitalJack• 14 years ago

7 year old kids can now own a guided missile.

7 year old kids can be kidnapped in hacked vehicles.

Statewide gridlock due to DDOS.

Just looking at the flip side.

hnriot2• 14 years ago

"Traveling abroad for a few weeks and don't know what to do with your car? Set it to taxi mode and profit."

- come back to a completely trashed car that you just paid $50k for.

hnriot2• 14 years ago

I seriously doubt this will disrupt any of those industries, except possibly shuttle buses that cover very restricted routes. It will be years before these get past the handful of people that will likely rush out to buy one (Woz, for example, if they put the tech into either a Prius or Hummer)

The technology pundits are ignoring the human factor, giving up control, trusting your kid's lives to a computer, the same technology that crashes on the desktop, and on our smartphones. What happens when the first car has a BOSD and the backup human driver isn't paying any attention and the accident happens within seconds of the crash? These things will likely kill a bunch of people and will go the same way that the C-5 or the Segway did.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but until we have HA computers that exist outside of a datacenter, I doubt a proof-of-concept by Google will go anywhere in this or the next decade, let alone disrupt anything. The idealism and flying cars optimism is well placed and I'd love to see it happen, but the future nearly always takes much longer to happen than people predict...

waterlesscloud4• 14 years ago

If they actually work in real-world conditions and if they can be made to be reasonable in cost, I can see the conversion happening in a very short time frame. A few years.

But given the conditionals of my first sentence, the conversion may not start in earnest for a decade or more.

kooshball• 14 years ago

>trusting your kid's lives to a computer, the same technology that crashes on the desktop, and on our smartphones

This is all math here. If a computer is statistically better at driving than a human you can ask the same question as "Would you give up control to decrease the chance of an accident? Or would you risk your kid's life just to feel in control?"

>What happens when the first car has a BOSD and the backup human driver isn't paying any attention and the accident happens within seconds of the crash?

People will probably die. The the same thing that happens when a human crash a car which is already happening everyday.

dannyr• 14 years ago

"I doubt a proof-of-concept by Google ..."

You know they actually have a physical car? That car was able to drive itself from Mountain View to Tahoe.

As of August 2012, it has logged 300,000 miles.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/google...

mseebach24• 14 years ago

> but until we have HA computers that exist outside of a datacenter

We do, in many places - your car is one such place. Another is every single hospital in the civilized world. You know, there's a continuum of world between HA datacenters and your smartphone.

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

> The technology pundits are ignoring the human factor, giving up control, trusting your kid's lives to a computer

This already happens every time you hit the brakes in a modern vehicle.

dawernik• 14 years ago

Challenges it will face: - insurance regulation, moral dilemmas (decision to make when confronted with living hazards), drinking and riding, more time for advertising, and a rash of start-ups pitches that mash up concepts like Uber & Kozmo because they can.

Still seems worth it.

bicknergseng2• 14 years ago

While it won't go away, the auto insurance agency will certainly change. I wonder if liability will shift from driver (passenger?) to manufacturer/Google.

I for one can't wait until we see car fatalities drop to the hundreds per year if not 0.

mayneack2• 14 years ago

Anything related to a gas station. No need to go with the car to fill up.

fffggg• 14 years ago

Here's one for you: City real estate dips in price. Suburb real estate rises, especially at the fringe of the suburbs. A self-driving car with a LTE wireless hotspot would make a previously absurd commute manageable.

Heck, you could sleep during your drive in to work.

olalonde4• 14 years ago

Does anyone else find it amazing that we have driverless cars but yet, most subways and trains still require drivers/operators?

dag112• 14 years ago

Unlike cars, trains can't stop on a dime if there's an obstruction on tracks. Nor can they swerve to avoid it.

sparky2• 14 years ago

Is this an argument that a human driver is required? To me, it sounds like if there's nothing you can do, the computer's job is much easier, not harder.

busted• 14 years ago

Unlike humans, computers never get tired from working long hours, can see around corners using various sensors and process the information fast, and can act immediately on instructions from a remote operator.

silvestrov• 14 years ago

The metro in Copenhagen is driverless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

DanBC• 14 years ago

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains)

Docklands light railway, in London, is driverless.

tobyjsullivan6• 14 years ago

The SkyTrain in Vancouver has been driverless since it was built in 1986. I don't think any such LTR systems have had drivers since then.

saint-loup• 14 years ago

List of driverless trains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_trains#Compl...

Although these are short-range, urban trains.

cjensen• 14 years ago

BART was meant to be fully automated. The "Fremont Flyer", which ended up in the parking lot, put an end to those plans.

jrockway• 14 years ago

It's a union thing. In NYC, the L service is completely automated, but the union won't let trains run without two crew members. It was apparently hard enough to get the union to allow the G line (the least popular line that only runs half-size trains every 20 minutes) to run one-person operation on the weekends!

(Though if you don't need drivers, why do you care about the union? I guess the problem is that it will take maybe 50 years to convert the other lines to automatic operation. And you still need someone on the train to answer rider questions and handle medical/police issues.)

guimarin• 14 years ago

I predict that we will have to legislate Driverless as the default state of all vehicles within the coming decade. why? because at greater than 10% penetration of automated vehicles, those people still in 'manual' mode will become more and more reckless.

scarmig• 14 years ago

What would be potential startups in this space? Besides the obvious "fleet of driverless cars that drive people places."

It will be revolutionary, and Google is only going to get a plurality of the profit that comes from it.

zrail• 14 years ago

Curbside delivery. Build a truck that has a bunch of different little cubbies. Load it up and send it around. App on the customer's phone beeps when the truck arrives and gives them a locker number and an unlock code.

InclinedPlane• 14 years ago

"Parkless" cars. You own it, it drops you off and picks you up at work, and spends the rest of the time at your house.

Personal local delivery. Your car drives to a lot next to a grocery/department/whatever store. A grocery clerk walks to your car, presses a button on a smartphone app, and loads up your car with your online purchases then your car drives itself home.

Same as above except your car/truck is rented out for overnight local deliveries / short-distance freight hauling while you sleep.

Use of sensor streams from driverless cars for surveillance, mapping, etc.

Installing high-speed municipal wireless data or cellular infrastructure on fleets of roving cars without the necessity of securing right-of-way for fixed structures or ground data lines (e.g. using microwave or open air laser comms for high-bandwidth links to aerial drone stations which then eventually link down to base stations or just form a completely wireless mesh across an entire country/continent).

sukuriant2• 14 years ago

So, as times change ... where will I be allowed to go to drive, myself..? For people that enjoy driving; because, as has already been suggested by this thread, these autonomous cars will probably be very boring on the road.

I suppose race-track memberships and racetracks will become more common --- or perhaps they'll be like a horseman's club - a hobby for select members.

Maybe the USA could even get a Nürburgring ... or one per region.

khuey4• 14 years ago

Sure. We still allow people to fly planes, don't we?

I expect that once a drivers license is not a requirement to exist in much of the US that the standards for being allowed to drive will be tightened significantly though.

__jochen__• 14 years ago

I welcome our robot overlords. I do wonder, however, who's going to do quality assurance on these cars. The first startup launching MVP driverless cars with a horrible accident record will set back the industry for years.

nuclear_eclipse• 14 years ago

I think that's the whole point of setting out requirements that autonomous vehicles must meet before going into production/sale. Just the same as current car manufacturers have to meet certain safety requirements, in the future manufacturers may have to prove some level of reliability, robustness, and exception handling.

tobyjsullivan6• 14 years ago

You just know this will lead to Google Street View getting updated a little more often as the cars get to navigate themselves around constantly.

Oh right, except for this: "The regulations would allow vehicles to operate autonomously, but a licensed driver would still need to sit behind the wheel to serve as a backup operator in case of emergency."

kibwen• 14 years ago

"In 2009, Google obtained 3,500 miles of Street View images from driverless cars with minor human intervention.[citation needed]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

kelliesmithe• 14 years ago

Wow. Technology is really changing the world now. What's next? Flying automated cars? I cant wait for the next invention! The government/inventors should better make these driverless cars very functional and safe to use since we all know that computers cannot think right away unlike human when it comes to urgent incident situations. http://sommer-solen.dk/cctv-have-en-afskraekken...

ck2• 14 years ago

Out of curiosity, what happens when someone spray paints the cameras on a car?

Because the car will stop if someone jumps in front of it right?

So it's a sitting target for a gang to vandalize it.

erikpukinskis• 14 years ago

How is that different than slashing someone's tires?

Where do you live, Rio de Janeiro? I don't think there's a city in the U.S. where "random disabling car vandalization for fun by gangs" is actually a thing.

welp3• 14 years ago

Whether or not you believe in the climate crisis or global warming, I strongly recommend all proponents of driverless cars to read The Energy Glut[1] in order to get a good idea of one potential scenario of how America will end up if every man and his dog can use a car to get anywhere. If anything, the studies which are referenced in the book are rather hard to ignore.

As a quick example of the sort of thinking in this book: more cars on the road means that there will be fewer people willing to risk being outdoors anywhere near a road (i.e. most residential areas in this day and age), resulting in higher levels of obesity. As more people become obese, fewer people are willing to walk or cycle ever-decreasing distances, so they get a car -- increasing the number of cars on the road. After that, we enter a rather vicious circle. The average weight of the world population will increase rather quickly, and we will end up like the people in Wall-E. I'd rather ride my bike, but thanks for the offer.

[1] http://zedbooks.co.uk/paperback/the-energy-glut

Lost_BiomedE• 14 years ago

If the cars were safer and more aware of pedestrians, like what we have seen from google car demos, I would be much more confident crossing the street, etc.

welp3• 14 years ago

That depends, I would be more than happy if they were limited to 20mph. If they were limited to something more like 40mph, I would just make kids stay the hell away from roads: http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

That said, I would be interested in seeing how driverless cars perform at stopping in the case of sudden and unexpected obstacles compared to human drivers?

MordinSolus• 14 years ago

Then let them be obese. It is not my responsibility to make sure other people don't get fat. We shouldn't stifle innovation (if that's what you're getting at) because we're scared that people will get.. even more fat.

And isn't obesity more about diet than it is exercise anyway?

welp3• 14 years ago

Hah, that's a fair approach. From what I can understand, obesity is more about the lack of opportunities to exercise rather than the amount of calories eaten (see http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/01/17/maps-show-striking-corr... for an example, although obviously correlation != causation). It seemed to be the case that as the number of cars on the road increased, calorie intake actually went down.

arthurrr• 14 years ago

I don't see this being disruptive at all. I think they will be adopted in industrial applications, such as self driving dump trucks on mine sites, where humans are not riding in the vehicle, and where there will be significant cost savings.

There is also the human factor. People aren't going to give up their livelihood quietly, and people won't be willing to trust their life to a computer.

Also, who's going to control these vehicles, government? Does that mean that the government has the power to redirect a car to anywhere they please, depending on the passenger, who has been identified by facial recognition?

Trains/trams/buses are proven, already exist, and are a much better solution for public transport.

mayneack2• 14 years ago

Does the driver have to be awake? Sleeping and driving can become the new texting and driving.

enraged_camel• 14 years ago

Isn't it a requirement for "driverless" cars to still have someone who can take over control of the car during emergencies? I mean, the Google cars that were driving had someone sitting in the passenger seat, I thought.

I don't think we'll see truly robotic cars anytime soon.

squonk• 14 years ago

I keep imagining the technology used with recreational vehicles. Spend a day as a tourist in Chicago. Hop in the RV and go to sleep. Wake up in Memphis. Visit Elvis, enjoy waffles & fried chicken, then hit the hay and wake up the next day in Orlando. No down time.

nradov2• 14 years ago

This is the big reason why high-speed rail in CA is a terrible idea and destined to become an expensive white elephant. Driverless cars will start to become available just about the time that the rail line is complete, after the inevitable lawsuits, engineering problems, and construction delays. Why would I buy a train ticket to LA and then deal with getting from the train station to my final destination when my car can drive me directly door to door?

lr--rw-rwx• 14 years ago

Ok, driverless cars are cool, because they have this robot touch which is appealing to computer scientists. Furthermore, we will get there eventually, as they will drive saver and (without a driver) will decrease the costs for transport and logistics industries.

But does it affect the average human? It just strikes me how many anecdotes I read in connection with selfdriving cars ala' "calling the car to pick me up from work".

Assuming that most HN users are from the US I can just conclude that public transport is really bad and people do not use their bike there. E.g. most people here (Europe) just do not need the service of a car in their daily life. So in the end it's a logic step, but I do not think that it makes sense to actually buy a self-driving car for yourself.

Driverless Cars Get Green Light in California

Related Stories