Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

https://plus.google.com/+GoogleSelfDrivingCars/posts/9WBWP2E4GDu

by justhw • 12 years ago

229 194 12 years ago

plus.google.com

Unfortunately, these things just don't have a cool factor. Here's to hoping Tesla moves forward much more quickly (and regular car manufacturers as well.)

It's something Google probably just doesn't "get" - but a lot of people's identities are tied to their cars. It's why we have colors, shapes, brands, options.

This car may be "perfect" algorithmically, but it doesn't mean it stirs the soul.

tachyonbeam• 12 years ago

Tesla doesn't quite have the R&D for this yet. They have "autopilot", but it isn't quite as complete/competent. They might want to buy that technology from Google.

Either way, the point of Google's self-driving clown car isn't to look cool, it's to get people used to the idea of robotic cars driving around on the streets, successfully not killing people. It's largely PR. They're really doing everyone a favor.

BukhariH• 12 years ago

Google is not a car company. They don't want to compete with professional car designers.

What Google wants to do is create a car that is not aggressive in it's design because they want other road users to feel comfortable around a self driving car.

I think they learnt from their mistake with Glass, where it was far too alien/futuristic and hence a lot of people rejected it. Whilst this car isn't futuristic at all but rather cute.

closetnerd5• 12 years ago

It's boring. This car says you have no imagination, no spontaneity, you're extremely practical, possibly OCD, with a German sense of humor.

dougmany• 12 years ago

I disagree. I think we find identity in our car because we a pilot them in a similar way we pilot our bodies. As we get less involved in the control of the vehicle, we will care less about how it looks/feels. Taxi cabs are a good example of this.

closetnerd5• 12 years ago

I disagree. Most people driving around are not racing drivers so they're not "one with the car" so they don't treat it like there bodies. They're more likely to treat it as an accessory.

More over, I quite enjoy driving so I'm not interesting in relinquishing control of the vehicle.

twrkit• 12 years ago

In < 5 years, when someone opens up his or her Uber by Google app, they won't care about what the vehicle looks like on the outside (much like an Uber customer today!). All that matters is that it shows up promptly, and that it takes them to wherever they want to go safely, quickly, and comfortably. The focus will be on the interior - WiFi, power outlets, cup holders, leather seats - so that the passenger can pleasurably remain nose deep in his or her smartwatch / smartphone / tablet. The emotional attachment won't exist - it's just another service on demand. Not until the market becomes stratified will the luxuriousness of the autonomous vehicle come into play.

melling• 12 years ago

Yes, it's almost like they're designed to be a business solution where "cool" doesn't matter. You know, like to get you from the airport to long-term parking. Maybe a solution for an Uber/Lyft to enter smaller markets?

thrownaway24242• 12 years ago

Tesla doesn't have any technology to speak of. They sell a sled filled with thousands of flashlight batteries. The only thing Tesla has is their car looks cool.

So Google doesn't have cool, and Tesla doesn't have technology. Could be some synergy maybe.

jsolson• 12 years ago

Have you actually driven or in fact spent any time in a Tesla?

noobiemcfoob• 12 years ago

Single gear electric motor? Revolutionary battery technology? Nope; no technology here.

greeneggs2• 12 years ago

It's a taxi. Google doesn't need the design to appeal to individuals, because they aren't selling it to individuals. Instead, they want it to appeal to the cities that they want to partner with. For that purpose, the design is fine. I'd love to see a fleet of these driving around our streets here.

zanny6• 12 years ago

Autos will never be sold to consumers. At least the general public. Or at least average people will never buy one.

It is a tremendous, insane, unacceptable waste to have autos parked all day. The only way these things make sense is through subscription services where you can summon a car from a fleet whenever you want, so that you can maximize utilization.

ghaff4• 12 years ago

However, the reason for that is that the majority of people keep roughly the same hours. And the current system at least has the advantage that cars are generally near their owners rather than driving additional miles to get to centralized locations. Given various assumptions, utilization could certainly be increased--though we already have the ZipCar and taxi options--but I'm unconvinced that the pay-per-use economics are going to be as compelling as you think.

sparkzilla2• 12 years ago

This thing looks like a clown car. Perfect for those who think Glass is the height of fashion.

zzleeper2• 12 years ago

Indeed. Looks "cute", but cute doesn't sell with cars..

krasin• 12 years ago

I really doubt they would sell this car to public. And having a cute self-driving test vehicle is better for the way people think about it than a dangerously looking sport car with spoilers and basses.

coldpie• 12 years ago

Well, I don't think they'll be selling this thing, especially not directly to consumers. This is a research prototype for using on the real road. They're announcing that they now have a complete car in that it meets whatever criteria the law sets for using a car on the public roads. Some time after that, they'll figure out how to market and monetize the technology. I'd be surprised if Google themselves ever got into the car business.

toomuchtodo• 12 years ago

Surprise, I don't care what the car looks like if I'm paying per trip to get me from A to B.

Do you complain about the fashion sense of the BART?

zzleeper2• 12 years ago

Edit: after seeing the discussion on 25mph and the disarming cuteness, then it makes much more sense.

I too don't care about what the car looks like, but then again I don't own one, partly because I don't care about them as much

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

Indeed. Looks "cute", but cute doesn't sell with cars..

I don't really see Google looking to sell these to consumers. What I see Google doing is some combination of:

1) Selling services to consumers which self-driving cars help deliver (Google Now cards currently give you approximate time to likely destinations -- maybe in the future they also include the time including how long it will take a Google Car to get to you to pick you up and take you.)

2) Using them for Google's own use -- driverless Street View cars, for instance.

3) Demonstrating a technology platform that car companies that do want to sell to consumers can purchase -- and put underneath their own styling.

berberous• 12 years ago

I suspect that may be deliberate, so that safety worries are minimized. You look at this car and think, I'd probably be the one to survive in a head-to-head collision with my SUV.

The first driverless cars need to appear as least threatening as possible.

closetnerd5• 12 years ago

There is a real problem of monotony with such an over concerned need for safety and practicality. I mean, I really don't want to live in a society where everyone has chosen to drive cars like this to the markets. Yes it looks cute in a picture, but boring as hell to live in.

sparkzilla2• 12 years ago

You really think this will survive a crash with an SUV? It looks very flimsy.

soyiuz• 12 years ago

http://assets.blog.hemmings.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/t...

Where can I take you sir?

JetSpiegel2• 12 years ago

The question is when will self driving cars go beyond that Johnny Cab. Remember, Arnie had to rip the driver off in order to escape human pursuers.

soupcancooloff• 12 years ago

don't worry guys, its only a matter of time until Uber adds another service called UberGrandma/pa and starts targeting senior citizens with this car. (Google Ventures has a stake in Uber)

nichodges• 12 years ago

My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine.

My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational.

With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear, and be replaced with time sharing. At that point the connection between our view of ourselves, and the car we ride in disappears.

I'm not sure that completely excuses the lack of modern car aesthetic here, but it could go some way to explaining it.

agumonkey• 12 years ago

I often wonder how much of it is a human trait. Transportation has many sides, it's a psycho-physiological wonder (push a pedal while sitting, and move faster than running), it's a moving private space, a technical and aesthetic source of pleasure, obviously a social status sign also. Were people as attached to their horses, boats ? was it a rite of passage or just a mundane thing ?

jmeekr• 12 years ago

Good points but some people just enjoy the act of driving and take a lot of pride in customizing their cars to match their tastes. A fundamentally human trait that will of course adjust to changing technology, but won't go away as staunchly as you think.

cuu508• 12 years ago

so we'll use our "driver's cars" on scenic roads and racetracks. I don't think many people enjoy driving through heavy city traffic.

kansface2• 12 years ago

The oatmeal wrote about it:

| Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable... By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

joshvm• 12 years ago

Is the 25mph limit a US thing? In the UK the normal minimum (aside from select residential zones where the neighbours complain) is 30mph. Many people would be very annoyed to sit behind a car doing 5 below the speed limit.

wahsd• 12 years ago

Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.

I am somewhat anxious to see how this plays out financially and economically otherwise. Will these cars cost the same as a car that every person now buys for themselves with maybe a little higher cost of maintenance and operation (M&O)? Will there essentially be one manufacturer because one vehicle can support 10 people and we don't need millions of these things pumped out? And will the collapse of competition mean that there will be a monopoly (dare I say it, Über) that over-charges all of humanity after they have essentially captured the market in the exact way that an evil empire like Über would?

An even bigger question I have, will this kind of development essentially mean the doom for anonymous movements? We can all imagine that there will essentially be no way that you will be able to ride in one of these without identifying yourself and at some point manual vehicles will be banned; very likely in most of our lifetimes. At which point you, the guy who rides his bike or walks will be highly suspect if you are even able to at all, since you must be hiding something since you don't want to use the government tracker transporter.

defen• 12 years ago

Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.

It's a status symbol. If you don't understand them or why cars function as such...you probably don't understand people :)

krapp3• 12 years ago

I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it.

Yes, but if you have to have a car, and some people do (to commute to work, etc) then what a car costs is what you have to pay. It's not squandered money if there aren't any other options.

If you pay too little, chances are you end up with a lemon that will just die on you after a week, and then where are you?

brc4• 12 years ago

All possessions are fundamentally irrational. I'm baffled why people would collect vinyl, buy overpriced designer clothing, pay for expensive tickets to sport, buy expensive kitchen implements - and on and on and on.

I like cars. I like driving. There are some cars I'd be happy to own, even if they didn't go. I spend money on buying, maintaining and driving cars because it's something I like doing.

This is no more or less irrational than any number of other discretionary spends. So you shouldn't be baffled anymore.

toyg2• 12 years ago

With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear

That's a bold statement. It might become more of a luxury, i.e. something you buy when you reach a certain income, rather than something you need to live. But disappear, no, it won't.

As anecdote, I can bring the experience of European life. In a lot of European towns and cities, you can live quite comfortably without a car, today -- after all, they were built for people and horses. Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.

In London, a lot of people simply use cabs to move around most of the time; but sure enough, if they have a decent income, they'll buy a car and park it somewhere, ready to be driven during their countryside weekends.

Already today, car ownership has very little to do with convenience; it's mostly about ownership and individualism, something that is completely opposite to the concept of sharing. My wife is absolutely horrified at the thought of sharing anything ("germs! ruined things!" etc etc), and that will not change because of Google or Uber.

eru16• 12 years ago

Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.

Do Europeans really by SUVs like that? I was under the impression a sports car like a Porsche (or even Ferrari) would be the grander status symbol?

ollysb2• 12 years ago

In London I know a fair few people that earn over £100,000. None of them own cars. Aside from the fact that the tube or a bike is generally far faster for A-B the drinking culture means that people really don't want to be stuck having to drive a car home.

lambda• 12 years ago

I don't want to own a self-driving car. I want the self-driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber. Press a button on my phone, the closest one shows up, drives me where I want to go, and then hangs out nearby for the next person or goes back to the closest designated parking location.

These self-driving cars will be cheaper than even UberX/Lyft/whatever, as there is no driver to have to pay. They can be smaller than a cab, taking up much less parking room (they can park too close for their doors to open, and they don't need to including seating for a driver), which can actually be a fairly significant cost in the city, where convenient parking spaces can sell for as much as a house does elsewhere.

jasonwilk• 12 years ago

The way Google seems to be approaching self-driving cars is the right one in my opinion. Self-driving cars will be on-demand, booked through something like Uber and will not be owned by the end-user.

I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my car, what would be the point? Vanity of course has to be considered but in the future, I see self-driving cars which we don't own will the the status quo in cities, and owning a manual operating a car will be either a novelty or something for people outside of major city hubs.

cmdli• 12 years ago

There could be a market for owning self-driving cars outside of major cities. Not everyone has access to a cab-like service now so unless that changes adding some sort of autopilot to regular cars would be useful.

kayoone• 12 years ago

I like being a passenger in a nice car more than in a crap car, so owning a nice self driving car would be a bit like having your own chauffeur and time to do other things while enjoying your car.

hotgoldminer• 12 years ago

The vision should be to replace as many drivered cars as possible with driverless and network the vehicles. I see a future without a need for stop lights.

bostonpete• 12 years ago

I want a self-driving car to free me up to do other things on my hour commute twice a day. Even if it were more cost-effective to rent (which I suspect it would not be given how much I would need to rent), I can think of 2 reasons I'd rather own:

- Don't have to worry about availability. Turns out there are a lot of people in my region who go to work in the morning and go home in the evening.

- When you spend that much time in your vehicle, it becomes and extension of your personal/living space. I don't want to spend 10 hours a week in a public box that may have a mess or an odor from the person before me.

dlubarov• 12 years ago

High-end sports cars are fun to drive, but wouldn't it be nice to turn on autopilot from time to time? Like if you're stuck in traffic, or you need to do a bit of work, or you get tired during a long trip.

Some might also prefer ownership so that their car is always available with no delay, or so that they know their car will be perfectly clean and odorless.

I think you're right that on-demand will eventually make sense for a majority of people, though.

millstone5• 12 years ago

My family doesn't own our cars because we like driving them. We own them for convenience! The prospect of ordering a car, waiting for it to arrive, futzing with car seats, transferring car toys, dealing with scarcity and surge pricing, etc. for every trip is very unappealing. And renting is usually more expensive than owning anyways!

In the near term, I'm looking forwards to hybrid assistive technologies. We took a vacation that required seven hours of highway driving. Toyota's freeway mode ("Automated Highway Driving Assist"), which controls speed and steering, would have made a big difference.

aetherson6• 12 years ago

I think that virtually nobody who is certain that self-driving cars will be short-term rentals (ie, the Uber model) has children. It's a HUGE blind spot that the of course mostly very young, mostly childless tech commentariat has.

The value of car ownership as a way to have large amounts of your property available at whatever location you are presently at without you constantly engaging in a bunch of loading and unloading work is not to be underestimated.

(There are plenty of other ways that long-term rental or ownership of driverless cars makes sense, too. How prevalent a ride-for-hire model will be is going to depend on lots of details about the technology; it's not a given.)

ghaff4• 12 years ago

From a technology perspective as well, autonomous operations on designated sections of highways seems much more practical and nearer-term than visions of robo-Uber. I suspect a lot of the enthusiasm comes from urbanites who only marginally need a car today. And the capability gap between today's assistive technologies or even truly autonomous highway operations and being able to just virtually hail a robotic cab in a city seems as if it's a lot bigger than a lot of people appreciate. I suspect this has been the source of much of the tension between the auto makers and Google. I'm all for having a vision of what's ultimately probably possible but there would seem to be pretty compelling interim steps that seem much more achievable in interesting time horizons. They're probably not very interesting is you just drive around cities or congested suburbia but they look pretty appealing if you do any amount of longer distance driving.

threeseed• 12 years ago

Self-driving cars will be on-demand

Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car.

Sometimes you need a car now to goto the shops, drop your kids at doctor etc. without having to wait 10-30 minutes for a car to arrive from the other side of town.

olalonde• 12 years ago

Waiting time for a cab where I live takes less than a minute on average (in fact, I'd say the median is around 20s). In a driverless world, it's possible that the cab market where you live will be a lot more efficient/cheaper and the assumption that waiting for a cab takes 10-30 min won't hold anymore.

eru16• 12 years ago

Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car.

Cheap enough cabs with a minimum of latency, do.

ericd3• 12 years ago

That's just an availability problem. One of the likely effects of self driving cars is that taxi density will increase by quite a lot, which should decrease pickup latency.

brc4• 12 years ago

But the truth is that assisted driving is already a much larger market that self-driving cars. Many manufacturers already have lane assist, braking assist, self parking and other features. This type of creeping automation is much more likely to take over than coming at it from the other end. I would say both markets will get going and converge over a decade or more.

nodata• 12 years ago

It looks crap.

Google, please don't release that.

(OR: Google, I will pay more not to ride in that.)

closetnerd5• 12 years ago

Thank you.

vinkelhake• 12 years ago

To those that get hung up on the design: remember that this car is limited to 25 mph for regulatory reasons. Having a design that is closer to a bumper car than a model S seems fitting with that in mind.

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

To those that get hung up on the design: remember that this car is limited to 25 mph for regulatory reasons.

Which might explain exactly why it looks very similar to many NEVs [0] or Motorized Quadricycles [1], which tend to have similar constraints.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neighborhood_Electric_Vehicle

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorised_quadricycle

amckenna• 12 years ago

A lot of people are bashing the car's appearance, but I think people forget that putting the first driverless cars on the road is as much a PR challenge as it is a technological challenge. Truly autonomous driverless cars is a huge shift in the way we have operated for almost 100 years. There will be a lot of caution and resistance from political groups, concerned citizens, entrenched interests, etc. The car that they put forward first needs to be non-threatening, safe, and easy to adopt.

Given Google's stake in Uber the car will be part of a fleet that can be summoned by a mobile app, not some product you go out and buy. Because there will be no dealerships and individual owners, they don't care about attracting buyers for the vehicle - it doesn't need a cool factor. What it needs is to be non-threatening and safe so you will feel comfortable getting in one and going for a ride.

Additionally, the first car on the roads will just be making in town trips and will be limited to 25mph - no highways or major arterials. This means it makes more sense for the car to be compact, light, and similar to a Smart Car, than a Camry or SUB.

Toenex• 12 years ago

Uber have the right idea here; own the platform, not the infrastructure. Lets face it, a cars spends most of its life stationary, waiting for you to drive it. Not so the autonomous vehicle. Autonomous vehicles are freed from the shackles of parking so why not lease your car to Uber and have it earn money as a cab? The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.

thanksgiving• 12 years ago

The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.

Perhaps, this will be the case in the long term. However, until then perhaps we could implement some sort of price surging where rental costs of parking space skyrockets when demands get high. Uber is doing the hard work of making price surging palatable. Everyone else just needs to ride on their coat tails.

zanny6• 12 years ago

You won't lease or own self driving cars. That makes no sense. You will just subscribe to a drive service if you drive a lot or just pay per ride and have one pick you up.

I easily see you scheduling regular events (leave for work at 8, for example) and your car will be out front waiting each day.

anigbrowl2• 12 years ago

Assuming Google wants to get into the car business, all it has to do is add a button to google Maps/now. I don't think ther's anything special about the Uber platform, and Google already integrates journey planning through the Calendar and Google Now interfaces (eg telling you that you need to leave in 5 min to catch that train).

You're right on the car parking. I think the City of Chicago actually made a very shrewd decision to sell their street parking revenue to a private operator for a 75 year period in return for a fixed amount of cash up front (obviously I'm oversimplifying). It was excoriated as a terrible deal by most people, but none of them seem to have considered the probability that there just won't be the same sort of demand for parking in even 10 or 20 years.

dopamean• 12 years ago

The appearance of the car is really important. If it looked too fun, like a Ferrari, some may think it's not safe. It reminds me of "helper" robots in movies about the future. They always have such unintimidating appearances. This car appears to be attempting the same thing and I'm ok with it.

jastanton3• 12 years ago

sure appearance can convince a person of a well designed product. But I prefer, a well designed product, especially when my life is on the line over appearence. Tesla may come out with a super shiny beautiful self-driving car, but I will probably go with a dorky Google car if it has X miles (where X is a large impressive number) under its belt.

derefr3• 12 years ago

In fact, now that you mention it, this is pretty much Baymax-the-Car. It just needs to puff up when it accidentally drives into a lake.

krapp3• 12 years ago

I have to be honest - the last thing I think of when I look at it is "safe." Maybe that's just because I'm an American and feel the need to put as much iron between me and everyone else as I can.

It's cute, and non-threatening looking, and probably the right design for what it is, but people are still going to look at it and think "this is going to get destroyed if a real car hits it."

jnosCo• 12 years ago

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that using an autonomous car as a cab would be illegal. Current permits are rather specific about having an manufacturer's employee behind the wheel at all times. I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't expect any state to lighten up the requirement of at least having someone behind a wheel for the foreseeable future. I think most patrons of Uber don't really want to be sitting behind the wheel.

jastanton3• 12 years ago

"I think most patrons of Uber don't really want to be sitting behind the wheel." - if the vehicle was self driving, then absolutely.

I can imagine a scenario of 24/7 tech support VC'ing at the push of a help button or if Google notices the car has malfunctioned.

Getting the laws changed will take time. When presented as a n option will it be in demand? You bet!

oaktowner• 12 years ago

This generation of cars doesn't have a "wheel" at all -- there is literally no steering wheel and no way for a human to operate it.

So legislation will clearly need to change before these are street legal.

krschultz2• 12 years ago

"It doesn't need a cool factor"

That was the death knell of Google Glass (at least in its current incarnation). Seems that Google hasn't learned much.

zanny6• 12 years ago

Google Glass is a camera on your face. The self driving car revolutionizes transportation internationally forever.

One makes you look like a hipster. The other is primed to save tens of thousands of lives a year if it gets rapidly adopted.

One weighs grams. The other can run you over and crush your skull.

Perception matters. This initial design is so insanely non-threatening it achieves its appearance goals. It does not need to sell units, it needs to sell the idea.

derefr3• 12 years ago

AFAIK, Google Glass was explicitly a prototype, meant to visually advertise itself as a prototype to anyone who looked at it—in the same way that, say, a breadboard or a caseless Arduino visually advertises itself as a prototype.

Seeing someone wearing Google Glasses was meant to put you in mind that they were testing something and you could help them test it, not that they were using a piece of everyday consumer electronics.

And this car is pretty much the same: it's meant to stand out (see my other comment above: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8785463). So I wouldn't say they needed to learn anything.

As the technologies are accepted and commercialized by other parties, then they can make one that looks normal-ish.

anigbrowl2• 12 years ago

/pedant mode

Death knell, not death nail. A 'knell' is the slow solemn tolling of a bell at a church funeral. This has been a public service announcement.

derefr3• 12 years ago

The car that they put forward first needs to be non-threatening, safe, and easy to adopt.

Moreover, I think Google wants their car to be recognizable as a driverless car. They don't want it to blend in, because people would (at least for now) think that was "spooky"—that any car anywhere around them could be being secretly driven by a robot.

Instead, the visual distinctness means that it's instantly clear that these are their own thing, in much the same way that golf carts, scooters, and backhoes are—despite all being wheeled vehicles that can be driven in car lanes—their own thing. Because they're recognizable, it makes it possible for you to build a separate autonomous response into your subliminal "driving event loop" for the class of "driverless car", the same way that you will react separately to seeing any of the above in your lane. Which is exactly what people want, in order to feel in control: the ability to notice and compensate for the driverless cars around them if they all encounter some pathological edge-case.

(Just as an example of what I'm talking about—and this is a completely untested hypothesis on my part—I bet that driverless cars come to a complete stop a lot more frequently, in surprising places, because their sensors tell them something is standing in front of the car—e.g. a pigeon. A regular driver knows a pigeon will just sit there minding its own business as the car approaches it, but fly away right before the impact would happen; a driverless car might not know that. Because of this, your driving algorithm for being behind a driverless car will likely have a component similar to driving behind a school bus: "this vehicle makes frequent sudden stops, and I need to be ready to stop too. I should be more car-lengths away from it than are strictly necessary.")

betenoire• 12 years ago

oh I sure hope it takes more than a pigeon, but I see your point

eru16• 12 years ago

Not pigeons right in front. But the driverless car often sees dangerous spots (like debris on the road, or an accident site) before any human can see. So they might stop or slow down earlier.

(I think I learned that in one of the tech talk videos about it.)

iandanforth• 12 years ago

Plastic bags actually. A plastic bag looks pretty solid to most sensors and cars have been known stop suddenly when one flies in front of the car.

jordonwii• 12 years ago

That sounds plausible to me. Apparently, even things like exhaust from another car in cold weather can interact with the laser in a way such that the car can mistake it for a large object directly in front of the vehicle.

Source: tech talk at my university by a self-driving car engineer.

justincormack2• 12 years ago

Well I guess we wont get these in Europe (due to rain) but there are lots of cars that look like that here already.

drcode• 12 years ago

the first car on the roads will just be making in town trips and will be limited to 25mph

I think the rest of us are going to start loathing these timidly-driving things: "Oh f%#k! I'm stuck behind a self-driving car again, now I'll be late for my meeting."

spyder• 12 years ago

Or not: http://www.wsj.com/articles/traffic-engineers-say-slowing-do...

billsossoon2• 12 years ago

This is also a prime opportunity to question the idea of traveling at 85 mph in 4,000 lb. metal boxes that get 13 mpg.

In my town, many parents put their newly-licensed teenage children behind the wheels of enormous SUVs in the name of safety, simultaneously reducing the safety of everyone around them. If tanks were street legal, we'd probably have 16 year old kids barreling down the road in them.

closetnerd5• 12 years ago

Actually theres been a lot of research that increasing speed limits have more benefits than not. Most accidents that happen on high ways resulting in fatalities are due to driving under the influence. A higher speed limit has been shown to decrease accidents, decrease ticket fines, and decrease fuel consumption.

Making it illegal to buy SUVs is moronic even if buying them is moronic in itself. Lots of things in life are dangerous, and we're going too damn far with needing to make anything with a potential of danger illegal. I'd much rather own a Range Rover which is far more comfortable, enjoyable to drive, accommodating, while reserving the capacity to take me to Yosemite a few times a year.

DougWebb• 12 years ago

Aren't most tanks driven by teenagers already? Of course, they get very specialized training, but it still shows that teens can handle that responsibility under the right circumstances.

Actually, I don't really know: how old are the soldiers in a typical tank crew? I guess they might have a couple of years in the service before they get into a tank, so maybe they're early 20's rather than teens.

graycat• 12 years ago

Do they really have driverless cars or just cars that run on essentially electronic tracks very carefully determined?

If someone moves the location of a traffic light, can a Google car still find the traffic light? Wbat if a bulb in the traffic light is burned out; is the car smart enough to negotiate the intersection with the failed light? What if a bucket of white paint fell on the road yesterday; is the Google car's image processing good enough to recognize this or to tell the difference between wet paint and dry?

Heck, when I drive, there is a lot for me to watch and analyze. A Google car can do that?

moe2• 12 years ago

A Google car can do that?

Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM

tonylemesmer• 12 years ago

or if someone parks a flatbed with a ramp in the road with lines painted up. Will the Google car just drive onto the back of the truck? Would this be how you kidnap the cars and occupants?

Shivetya• 12 years ago

I don't care how it looks, it if still cannot drive in bad weather, snow, and worse needs detailed up to date maps, its not truly autonomous driving, its like programmed driving with a few extras.

When the cars can come to you where ever you may be, broke down on the side of the road for example, and take you anywhere regardless of conditions then it can be heralded.

As it stands now its nothing more than the automated cars shown as high tech in Jurassic Park.

beaner• 12 years ago

This is silly. I bet you can't drive through a swamp in a jeep, because you haven't acquired the skill. But that doesn't mean the rest of your driving doesn't qualify as real driving.

agildehaus• 12 years ago

Perhaps because what you describe is not autonomous driving, but human driving. And it's been through a 100 year trial and found to kill over a million people worldwide each year, prevent the elderly and disabled from living full independent lives, and be a huge time and money sink that many humans have to accept.

Snow, heavy rain, being able to go everywhere with up-to-date maps -- these are problems which will find solutions in time. I have no doubt that up-to-date maps will be no problem, considering these vehicles constantly collect centimeter-accurate 3D maps of where they drive and upload them to Google.

And being able to pull over to the side of the road to pick someone up? A simple software feature. There's nothing preventing that NOW.

Don't get caught up in thinking that these things have to be perfect upon release to have a huge benefit.

LukeB_UK• 12 years ago

Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal got to have a ride in one and shared his thoughts here: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

brianstorms• 12 years ago

It actually looks like a car that would fit in well with the overall design motif of The Oatmeal.

zanny6• 12 years ago

He also owns a Model S.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

productcontrol• 12 years ago

Edit: Google staff and fanbois have far too much time to downvote, but less time to articulate why it seems!

I tried to use Google's driverless car, but everytime I asked it to search for rival services, it kept driving me to their search and adsales offices. Was a bit weird. Like they told the car to prefer their services first! My eurotrash friends promised to investigate though, so that's nice.

alimoeeny• 12 years ago

Part of the aggressive downvoting comes from people who have actually lost loved ones or lost money and time in road accidents and really really want this technology to get somewhere. If I had downvote powers I would have downvoted you too.

3apo2• 12 years ago

From an economic standpoint, I would be interested to see how many OTC parts this system. That is, does it need a $1000 lidar or would it get a similar performance with a cheap $100 sensor? From a technical point of view, 25mph is very limiting IMO. You probably do not need a very sophisticated controller to navigate at 25. If you reach speeds of 60-70MPH with varying road curvatures, the controller design gets trickier.

venaoy• 12 years ago

I disagree. City driving at 25 mph is a lot more complicated and needs a lot more computing power than highway driving at 60-70 mph. City driving involves: handling the "dead zone" of intersection (square of pavement with no marking), poorly marked roads, pedestrians/cyclists/cars getting in your way, complex turn lanes, etc. By comparison highway driving is a piece of cake: clearly marked lanes, no sharp turns, no intersections, clear entry/exit ramps, all vehicles moving in the same direction, no pedestrians.

greeneggs2• 12 years ago

On city roads, if your car gets confused it can just stop, even without pulling over. This will annoy a lot of people but nobody will die.

On a highway, you can't safely just stop. And there are still difficult driving situations. For example, construction zones often have poorly marked lanes (or multiple, contradictory lane markings), construction workers to watch out for, and nowhere to pull over. Exit and entry ramps may be clear, but merging at speed and in traffic is a difficult and unsafe problem. And any failure at highway speeds is far more dangerous than at 25mph.

3apo2• 12 years ago

What you say is true - city driving is complicated with too many decisions to make, but it does not need a very optimized controller to control the car through those scenarios. Changing a lane at 15-25MPH is far more easier than on a turning highway with merging traffic at 55-60MPH. At that speed the controller would not only need to safely execute the maneuver but also stabilize the vehicle in the event it needs to come to a halt or take an evasive action.

Moreover if there is say some uncertainty in the sensor readings at 25mph, that is multiplied by many factors at higher speeds and becomes very significant. Control at higher speeds has more stability issues and can deal with less uncertainty and than at lower speeds.

eru16• 12 years ago

The 25 m/h speed limit is a regulatory hack. The converted normal cars already drive on the freeway (with human back-up drivers in them).

kandalf• 12 years ago

Given that as far as I know, roads must be extensively mapped in advance of a self-driving car going on them, there is a nice bonus of doing self-driving cars exclusively through Uber at first. Uber can know the exact route the passenger wants to take in advance, and only send cars to passengers whose routes are already mapped. Furthermore, they can choose to only send them out when the conditions are good (no snow, etc. assuming conditions are still a problem when these go into fuller production). A nice way to roll the cars out incrementally without some of the problems they might otherwise have...

eru16• 12 years ago

Good point! People are working on the extensive pre-map requirement, though.

jastanton3• 12 years ago

Google has had much more PR about it's revolutionary tech and that has a LOT going for it. When tesla comes out with their self driving car, if it looks 100x better than this prototype, I still might pick Google. Better aesthetics with comparable functionality will win the majority of time in my book (think Android devices vs Apple devices), however when it comes times to putting my life on the line, I will go with something I feel is safer 100% of the time regardless of how it looks. And like always, Google will dominate with it's superior functionality (backed by their PR over the last couple of years) over any tesla any day.

millstone5• 12 years ago

"Much more PR" than what? The only ads for self-driving cards I've seen are Ford's ads for its automatic parallel parking.

And far from "dominating," Google is a small player in any market for physical goods in which it competes. They're much more likely to license their technology to other manufacturers than sell it directly to consumers.

eru16• 12 years ago

"Much more PR" than what? The only ads for self-driving cards I've seen are Ford's ads for its automatic parallel parking.

Ads are not the only form of PR. (They are actually some of the weakest.)

bbayer• 12 years ago

What is the purpose of Google here, to develop a platform that car manufacturers want to integrate or producing driverless cars under Google brand?

kin• 12 years ago

A lot of people are bashing its appearance. I think it looks cute. So, to each his own on the regard. But seriously guys, this is happening a lot sooner than I thought and I really could not be any more excited to have these on the road.

jvagner• 12 years ago

Cute, adorable, non-threatening... could have been achieved and still looked.. better, methinks.

Animats• 12 years ago

They've got to make more progress on the sensors. They still have that overpriced Velodyne HDL-64E scanner (about $100K) on top of the prototype. The new vehicle has a slightly smaller device on top, probably the HDL-32E. Google doesn't seem to be making progress on flash LIDAR or millimeter microwave radar, which are going to be needed for reasonable-cost production vehicles.

CMU/Cadillac have a self-driving car. They have a number of long videos taken with a back-seat camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXhvQeArwWM

It's good enough that it's been driven around downtown Washington. It doesn't seem to sense turn signals or infer much intent from other-driver behavior. The driver has his hand on the auto/manual switch at all times; clearly there's not much confidence in this thing yet.

bane2• 12 years ago

Lots of people are point at this being Uber's future "auto-car". Here's an alternative idea:

- You can buy this car. It costs $100,000. But that's okay.

- When you aren't actively using it, you tell it to go "Uber mode" and pick up and drive people around as part of the "Uber Network of Cars"

- You split the fee with Uber/Lyft/whoever. They get 30%, you get 70%.

If the average ride pays you $7, over 5 years that's like 8 rides your car has to "sell" per day to be effectively "free" to you (except for financing, insurance, etc.).

- At the end of the workday, Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office and whisk you home.

- After dropping you off at home, your car goes back onto Uber mode and does night-time service (if you opt-in).

You could probably pay your car off much earlier than 5 years with more rides/higher average ride fare, after which your car is making you money. Clever people will use this extra to finance more cars to run small fleets and effectively live without working.

TranquilMarmot• 12 years ago

Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office... ...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up.

You sigh as you clean up the mess, "At least it feels like I'm living in the future now..."

But, most likely, the cars will keep track of who is riding in them and you could hunt down whoever made the mess and make them clean it up. Or maybe it has cameras installed? Talk about an invasion of privacy! Plus it's not like they ever signed a waiver saying they WOULDN'T shit in the car.

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office... ...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up.

Well, self-cleaning cars don't take a whole lot of new technology. But, sure, that's one of the reasons that I think that self-driving taxis, while clearly one of the long-term applications, probably aren't the first use of self-driving cars. And, particularly, the personally-owned self-driving vehicle whose owner is the primary user but rents it out on the off hours use is, while it might be something people try early on in the self-driving vehicle era, likely to not be a big thing even after self-driving taxis are.

Or maybe it has cameras installed?

Conveyances used by the public often do, yes. I would rather expect this.

eru16• 12 years ago

You could probably pay your car off much earlier than 5 years with more rides/higher average ride fare, after which your car is making you money. Clever people will use this extra to finance more cars to run small fleets and effectively live without working.

If it's such a great money spinner, why won't companies do that? Why do you _want_ people to own cars?

bane2• 12 years ago

Companies could if they wanted. But up-front capitol costs are high like that, it's easier to "crowd source" the investment and take your 30% off of other people's effort. All you have to do is provide a coordinated system they can sign into/outof.

andrewljohnson• 12 years ago

Seems more likely that companies will own the fleets, and robo jitney won't be a thing.

yRetsyM• 12 years ago

I thought this was quite a good commentary on it: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

danblick• 12 years ago

What's with the side-view mirrors?

billsossoon2• 12 years ago

Reminds me of the Cozy Coupe [1] I had as a child. Perhaps that's not by accident. The fear is that these machines will be unsafe, either to their passengers or to other cards on the road. Making it cute my reduce the perceived threat level.

[1] http://www.littletikes.com/content/ebiz/shop/invt/612060/612...

jedunnigan3• 12 years ago

I don't have a firm enough understanding of how the LIDAR and laser's work in these vehicles, but it occurs to me that it might be possible for a malicious actor to confuse the cars and cause accidents. That's concerning.

icelancer• 12 years ago

This is true now with our current optical recognition devices. Try shining a laser in your eyes while you drive.

jedunnigan3• 12 years ago

Don't bother with the laser, just drive down the street and pass a car with HID headlights that aren't pointed directly towards the ground. At least in that situation your response will be to slow down (and hopefully the people behind you will see your brake lights).

But if someone can manipulate a LIDAR signal to confuse the car into thinking the road ahead is clear when it is not, well then the attack becomes much different.

ericd3• 12 years ago

Those LIDARs are a spinning array of lasers measuring time of flight for each laser as it spins. Each of ~64 lasers forms one scan line all around itself, and by taking all the scan lines together, they form a rough picture of the 3D structure of the surroundings. You can filter out aberrant inputs in software.

jedunnigan3• 12 years ago

Interesting, thanks!

brc4• 12 years ago

What, exactly, are the mirrors for?

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

FTFA: "Our safety drivers will continue to oversee the vehicle for a while longer, using temporary manual controls as needed while we continue to test and learn."

So, they need all the driver-used mirrors, etc., that any manually-operated vehicle has (plus, the applicable safety regulations probably still require them, since, while provisions allowing self-driving cars to operate exist in some jurisdictions, I don't think that exceptions to the usual equipment requirements, particularly the federal ones, for them actually exist yet.)

click170• 12 years ago

One of the aspects of this that I've been getting concerned about is the invasion of privacy that they will pose, especially if it's one or a handful of companies owning an operating the autonomous vehicles.

It's true that if you carry a cell phone you already carry a personal tracking device and offer this information up freely to your cellular provider, but I'm interested in reducing instead of increasing the amount of information I'm leaking in that way.

What kind of information will these cars track? They'll have to track who rides in them for accountability purposes, which I already find troubling. Your average cabby isn't going to be compiling a profile about you based on where you catch rides to. Who has access to the information such as who rides in which cars? Is this available via an open API? I'm already peeved at companies like FitBit which hold my data ransom, is this going to be another of those situations?

There's a lot of privacy questions that I feel aren't being adequately addressed, but I still look forward to the possibilities this will bring. The privacy questions are answerable and any problems should be correctable.

dogeye• 12 years ago

Nobody who has used Adwords believes Google will ever make a self driving car.

ericd3• 12 years ago

It's a lot easier to work on a greenfield project than to change an existing, extremely heavily used project.

And, different group.

I see their modified self-driving Lexus SUVs driving around Mountain View all the time.

pinaceae• 12 years ago

i guess it has a strong appeal to the hardcore android crowd. people that get excited about utility, but have no sense at all for style. not a bad thing, mind you, but it is already obvious that it will take a company that gets style, like Tesla and yes, Apple, to make this appealing to people on the other side of the spectrum. people who cannot unsee ugliness, assymetry and disproportion.

personnally i just hope roads stay open for motorcycles in the future. self-driven transportation can be massive fun.

davidw• 12 years ago

I wonder if these things could be used in potentially 'easier' niches like long-haul trucking: you'd create a loading/unloading port near the freeway, and send the truck to another port across the country.

Naturally, I don't know anything about trucking, and you'd want to be really sure something so big and bulky is safe, but the idea would be, rather than "do everything a car does all at once" to do something relatively simple.

Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

Related Stories