Comments on: Google’s Self-Driving Cars Are Cruising the California Highways

By: Web Design

Web Design — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:03:55 +0000

I like how everyone both here in in the comments is assuming that there was nobody in the car, and that a driverless, computerized car is somehow illegal.

By: Rapid Roy

Rapid Roy — Sun, 29 May 2011 08:08:48 +0000

I likes to drive fast. :)

By: DaveH

DaveH — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:48:50 +0000

I don’t think it says anywhere that there were no persons aboard, just that the car itself did the driving. It would be utterly reckless to test something like this without someone to override it in case of something going wrong.

As for the computer crashing issue, it’s a single-function computer, not a PC. It only has to do one thing, so it’s a much simpler machine, and there aren’t any other programs running at the same time. The vast bulk of computer crashes are due to unforeseen interactions between various bits of software. And, since it is a simpler device, it would be relatively inexpensive to have redundant processors, so that if one fails, the other takes over, and if both fail, a third, even more basic processor, pulls the car to the breakdown lane and stops it.

By: Phil E. Drifter

Phil E. Drifter — Fri, 31 Dec 2010 11:14:21 +0000

9. Jennifer Welsh: bullsh#t! They were HAVING SECKS

By: Hacker

Hacker — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 08:52:16 +0000

I think most of the “computer crash” comments are nonsense. I would trust a computer over a normal person any day. Further, not all people are normal: i.e. teenagers, drunk drivers.

I think the larger concern is security. The moment you connect a system controlling the speed and bearing of vehicle to the internet you open a doorway to malicious individuals and groups. Because vehicles are strictly governed by governments, you open up a wide variety of privacy concerns.

By: Bruce111

Bruce111 — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:39:13 +0000

I agree with the lucidly inclusive eclath and the lightly snarky Random, and suggest to the disdainful Doug Rosbury that future autonomous vehicles will likely have a manual function. I’m certain even a driving enthusiast like yourself can envision occasions when a self-driving car would be useful. Perhaps in the future when you are on a freeway with an auto-drive lane, you’ll marvel how all those unattached vehicles are zooming along at 140 mph separated by mere inches and choose the ‘autonomous’ function, just to be a part of the fun.

By: Doug Rosbury

Doug Rosbury — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:23:22 +0000

There is no more involving and enjoyable occupation for me than driving a car and so
any discussion of driverless cars is of no interest to me. Don’t take away from me this
very enjoable occupation. ———-Doug Rosbury

By: Random

Random — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 02:03:16 +0000

All those comments about “computer crashes” are making me laugh.

Experience with personal computer, who happens to sometime crash when you’re surfing the net, is totally irrelevant. How do you think a modern plane flight? Without computers doing 90% of the job, a human pilot wouldn’t be able to manage everything. Do you think there are “blue screen of death” in an A380 or an F18? What about the space shuttle? The mars rover? Hubble? Satellites?

Those are critical systems, which are either life-threatening, or impossible to repair if they were to fail, and are developped as such. These are not spreadsheet softwares or video games.

By: marcan21

marcan21 — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:15:14 +0000

Solved the problem for crashes. Both on board and cloud computing. When one of them fails, driver must take control or something. Having all cars on same network could allow better traffic, no need for traffic lights stops… just go for the shortest path for everyone.

By: Wesley

Wesley — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:19:31 +0000

It’s the future. But it’ll take a lot of refining for a computer to gauge wet or snowy conditions better than a human. They will of course, still crash sometimes. But as long as they do it less than a human would, that makes them safer. Instead of an angry or reckless human, the crash will be caused by a malfunctioning sensor.

The future will be an interesting place if nothing else!

By: Angela

Angela — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:51:00 +0000

I think it’s a promising idea. I also want to second eclath (#6); my dad is blind and lives alone, and has to rely on others to go to the grocery store, doctor’s visits, etc. He can manage okay for the most part with his cane once he’s at his final location, but has the vast majority of the difficulty in getting there! It would be fabulous if he could tell the car (of if I could program it remotely) to take him to a specific location and then back home. He’d be much more independent, much happier and I’d feel better about him living alone.

I also live in a combo college-resort town. Between the students/ parents who don’t know the town yet and the tourists who are only here for a few days at a time, most days I dodge at least one fender-bender when the person in front of me slams on the brakes when they spot the Wal-Mart sign or whatever. Having the technology that could help to direct them, or help me if I’m momentarily distracted, would be great. I try to pay attention all of the time while driving, but no person can pay 100% attention 100% of the time. A computer could.

The main issue, as others have alluded, is that it would have to be a pretty fail-safe system. Computers do crash, and if it’s relying on a data connection rather than an internal computer system, it would also be susceptible to the dreaded dead spots. My mountain town has a LOT of places where there’s no cell or 3G service.

Overall a great technological move forward! Thanks for sharing it, Jennifer!

By: MT-LA

MT-LA — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:12:29 +0000

At least for Google’s solution, this is the biggest issue:

“This information is transmitted to the Google servers and processed to detect and react to any obstacles that get in the car’s way…”

No one wants to rely on a network data connection for transportation – the data processing must be accomplished on-board.

By: Jennifer Welsh

Jennifer Welsh — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:32:32 +0000

Hey all,

Thanks for reading and commenting. I think a couple of people addressed some of the questions posed, but I just want to clarify a couple things. First, there was always a person in the car, ready to take the wheel at the touch of the brake or movement of the steering wheel, which made the tests completely legal.

Jen

By: Idlewilde

Idlewilde — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:45:13 +0000

In all those 140,000 miles, no one noticed a driverless car cruising around..or we would have heard of this via blog or youtube or something before now….

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:47:55 +0000

Just continue to manually drive, but have this technology available to alert the driver to issues around them. Like when an idiot reaches across the floor on the passenger side to get a phone the car can beep and yell at them that they are too close to another vehicle or have veered out of their lane and stuff. It would alert you during a lane change if a vehicle is in your blind spot. There is a lot of good stuff that would assist drivers to make them better.

By: eclath

eclath — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 02:30:52 +0000

The idea of automated cars is hardly new; just look at the DARPA Urban challenge and the European Prometheus project as examples. Computers in cars are nothing new either. The only surprise to any of us should be that implementation of newer computer based controls has stalled so much in the last decade. Even simple solutions like crash detection could help save lives when people have heart attacks, seizures, fall asleep, or are otherwise unpredictably impaired. Add in the long term goal of complete automation and your disabled or elderly neighbor will no longer be confined to their homes, or placing others at risk on the roads. Only with a long term vision and corporate backing from innovative companies like Google, Virgin Atlantic, Tesla motors, and Aptera will we actually break free from 200 year old carriage concept and realize new notions like automated cars, and the immense promise they bring to society.

By: Baron von Giggles

Baron von Giggles — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:24:44 +0000

Hey, that’s nifty!

By: Chicken Little

Chicken Little — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:02:01 +0000

Computer reliability is boring so we will develop the toys we want without it. At least it should eliminate people having canine level territorial battles as they drive. A mediocre computer is still a better option than the average selfish, arrogant, and emotional human driver.

By: Bob Snyder

Bob Snyder — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:06:39 +0000

Well, following the link provided in this article, they explain that Google had permission from local authorities and there was always someone behind the wheel should they have needed to manually override the car.

By: martin g

martin g — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:39:26 +0000

I’m not sure about the US, but in the UK they could certainly be booked for ‘Driving without due care and attention’. Or ‘Reckless driving’.
Google should ask themselves the simple question – ‘Do computers crash?’ And they are probably in a better postion to know the uncomfortable answer than most firms.
Seriously, what are they on?
But the broader point is that no legal affairs dept. at any car manufacturer is ever going to advise the board of directors that making a driverless car is advisable – unless perhaps they can persuade customers to sign an “it’s absolutely nothing to do with us – if it crashes, tough.” contract when they buy the car.

By: Rhacodactylus

Rhacodactylus — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:45:36 +0000

Ok, so I apologize for the plebian question in advance, but were these tests legal? I doubt there are statutes set up to deal with self driving cars. ~Rhaco