Brenda Connolly

Google gets license to operate driverless cars in Nevada - CNN.com

I plan on going to Vegas for Christmas. This may be fun.

__________________

Nibb Tardis

This begs the question: who is responsible when there is an accident ?

There is a reason why car manufacturers haven't gone to fly-by-wire controls for motor vehicles. It's not because it would be more expensive or impractical. It's because of the legal liability problems when something goes wrong.

As long as there is a human holding the steering wheel with a foot on the brake pedal, and there are mechanical linkages that connect to the wheels, nobody can claim that it's not their fault.

Taco Rubio

I thought this was an excellent article on the implications:

Google's Revolutionary Self-Driving Car | John C. Dvorak | PCMag.com

Beebo Brink

People are not jumping for joy because we are control-freaks who would rather trust our own imperfect judgment than give up the steering wheel to an automation software program. This isn't a rational resistance, but I predict it will be an intractable one.

__________________
Noob: "okay.... im in a house with cages and people in gags and the door just locked and i cant get out :c"

Adeon Writer

I don't think these things auto drive on highways. They have a very low top speed.

Taco Rubio

I don't know, I already take naps when driving all the time, I'm looking foward to doing so without any worry.

great great video here (watch it all, please):

Void

ah but there's the rub... you aren't trusting the software... you are trusting the people that programmed it, the people who put it together, whether it's contingencies are robust enough, the devices it's using to operate (and whether they are functioning properly or not), and anyone who has or can make changes to it.

any one of those could be the source of a disastrous error that might be obvious to a local user.

That isn't exactly an irrational resistance, a machine can only do what it's programmed to do. no more, and possibly less (if anything in the chain breaks down).

That's not an argument against such systems, but it is an argument for fast manual overrides.

__________________
- These eyes can do more than see

Beebo Brink

Given the consistently poor judgment exhibited by so many average drivers, even flawed software is likely to be safer and result in overall lower numbers of traffic accidents.

However, just as people resist wearing a seatbelt because "I don't want to be trapped in the car" even though statistics show most people are hurtled through windshields without them, we all seem to trust our own perspective more than rational statistics. And we all believe our own driving skills are better than they are (myself included), so it's all the other drivers who need to give up control, but not us.

Void

statistics are great, until you happen to land outside the curve...

after all statistics say most people are straight.

all that said, I have no problem hopping in one of this IF there is a manual override (even if I didn't use it).Simply because the more of these are in operation, the more predictable and safe they are in general. Otherwise I might think twice... better to have it and need it then to need it and not have it.

Lo Jacobs

That was awesome! Nice twist at the end.

__________________
SORRY FOR PARTY ROCKING

Eunoli Rain

My first reaction was to be uncomfortable with this idea. But, then I started to think about the aging population and the percentage of people who refuse to stop driving when they can no longer see or react as they should - or who simply continue because they can't survive otherwise. I think this could end up being a much safer and more reliable alternative once its ready for primetime.

Nibb Tardis

I wonder how well it works in the rain or fog or snow, when road markings are a bit worn off or when STOP signs are missing or have been vandalized.

Not everyone lives in Legoland suburbia.

Joshua Nightshade

I agree with Taco's link and I also frankly don't understand why this hasn't happened already.

__________________

Ugleh Ulrik

This technology wont only be used for cars but for any job that requires driving. School buses, Public Transportation, Taxi, Delivery Trucks.

Some times I wish Technology could halt, at least the technology of making less jobs.

Nibb Tardis

Because it probably doesn't work as well in the real world as it does in a promotional video. And also because car manufacturers don't want it for the reasons I stated above.

Samantha Fuller

The robust and off road verities of this technology are only about 15 - 17 years old. In the first year (2004) of the the DARPA Grand Challenge the farthest any of the entrants got was 7.32 miles the next year (2005) 4 different teams were racing through a grueling off road course. In the 2007 Urban Challenge autonomous cars were contending with traffic and traffic laws. Nonetheless substantial portions of this technology will be available in the 2013 model year cars, it goes by the names Adaptive Cruse Control and Lane Keeping System.

Samantha Fuller

I don't think this will replace professional drivers. I think that society will want a person on the scene to assume responsibility and monitor the machinery, even if that person is blind or crippled and not to take over.

Gabriell Anatra

I don't.

One of the first uses will be to get rid of truck and taxi drivers to save money.

They'll leave sleepy morning commuters, the cell-phone yakkers, the kids, the wanna-be Nascar drivers, and the makeup-mirror moms for last 'cause they're the ones that will complain loudest about it.

Joshua Nightshade

The first cars probably didn't work as well as the advertising literature either, so what?