# Anyone else here excited about the Google self driven cars?



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

"Self driven" in quote for now as they are not really finalized, but so cool! I’ve been following google’s self driving cars for a while now and love the idea. I think it will be the biggest thing in automotive history besides the invention of the automobile.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/27/5756436/this-is-googles-own-self-driving-car


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

I can see it now - Google Taxi! And maybe one day, Google Jet - a highway in the sky.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I have to admit, I'm a bit worried about the whole 'computer driving car' thing. I guess getting into an accident because of a software glitch isn't really any difference than being in an accident because of human error, but at this point - I'd rather take the human error, since I know it isn't all that common.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Four Pillars said:


> I have to admit, I'm a bit worried about the whole 'computer driving car' thing. I guess getting into an accident because of a software glitch isn't really any difference than being in an accident because of human error, but at this point - I'd rather take the human error, since I know it isn't all that common.


I guess I'm even more worried about hacking and terrorism. Imagine how much fun hackers would have causing mayhem by figuring out ways to remotely control cars with people in them, forcing them to go where they don't want to go. No thanks!


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm not. I understand and agree with the benefits of having vehicles that drive themselves, but in my mind, you should be able to take over if the situation calls for it. The Google cars have no human operated controls.

Well, thinking about it more now... I could totally see these working in niche markets - maybe at resorts or mines or something, places with closed road systems where the cars have a limited amount of destinations that don't change - but I can't see them working on public roads for the average person.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Terrible idea. Humans need to control computers, not the other way around. Besides, the whole point of cars is personal freedom. This idea takes most of that away. As with my finances, I must remain in control and not some 3rd party.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We had an automated train in our warehouse that ran on wires in the concrete floor.

It worked really well..........until it didn't.

It would "leave" the track and crash into 7 high racking, forcing people to scatter out of it's way.

The company eventually took it out and leased more fork trucks.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

So we need robot driven cars to get to offices staffed by robots and to *restaurants manned by robot servers*?
Why?
Just stay home and watch robots on TV shows.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

Barwelle said:


> I'm not. I understand and agree with the benefits of having vehicles that drive themselves, but in my mind, you should be able to take over if the situation calls for it. The Google cars have no human operated controls.


Did you read the article I posted? It says there are controls where humans can take over in case they need to. I wouldn't want cars on the road with this, at least not for the first so many years. There would be way too many circumstances that no company could possibly account for them all.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> So we need robot driven cars to get to offices staffed by robots and to *restaurants manned by robot servers*?
> Why?
> Just stay home and watch robots on TV shows.


 ... maybe I'm watching to many re-runs but I'm being reminded of The Terminator movies which doesn't hold well for mankind. :biggrin: 

On a more recent note, I heard or read somewhere that drones are being used for delivering pizzas ... talk about being hopeless couch-potatoes.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... maybe I'm watching to many re-runs but I'm being reminded of The Terminator movies which doesn't hold well for mankind. :biggrin:
> 
> On a more recent note, I heard or read somewhere that drones are being used for delivering pizzas ... talk about being hopeless couch-potatoes.


Reminds of that 1990 Total Recall movie of life on Mars with Arnold Schwarzenegger ..
'WELCOME TO JOHNNY CAB..."


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm with you, Addy. I think it sounds amazing, and I can't wait for it to happen. (By the way, the link did not work... so I haven't read the article.)

Seems to me, once self-driving cars are commonplace, car ownership will be greatly reduced. People will be able to order a car to their door for the time they need it, and once they arrive at their destination, it can go off and drive someone else around. This will be a huge business opportunity for companies like Zipcar. 

Shipping will also be changed. No more need to plan rest breaks into the shipping schedule. Self-driving trucks will only need to stop to fuel.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I can't wait to buy the first Ford HAL car.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Four Pillars said:


> I can't wait to buy the first Ford HAL car.


 ... why would you buy a 'car' when you're a Bike warrior? :biggrin: 

PS: Not saying you can't.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

The age of the automatically controlled car for mindless drivers who don't have to concentrate on driving any more. 
We will just sit in the seats and yak on our iPhones while surfing the net looking for bargains..but why even bother with that..unless its just personal transportation? 

Shopping malls will become a thing of the past, practically everything will be ordered on line..well except food and maybe services such as haircuts, and clothes that you still have to try on in a store. 

As Rod Sterling announces on the TV show a few decades ago.."Outer Limits".. "Imagine a place in space and time.... do not adjust your sets....we control the horizontal and the vertical.."

Excited owner of NEW GoogleCar purchase:

" Look at this beauty! It's got 4 seats, a trunk for shopping bags, and recharges overnight."
Wife: I like the fact it has GPS controlled steering, because you never ask for directions!
Husband: Because I know where I'm going.. well most of the time.
Wife: And dear, *it comes with Windows...18* and is always connected to the WiFI internet. We don't need a key, just a password.
Husband; Lets try it out...Tim Hortons or McD's?
Opens the door and gets in, wife same.
Googlecar: in a simulated human voice. "Key in password with your iphone please!" Put on seatbelts. Select GPS destination to where you are going. If you do not know destination, speak into the microphone
for translation of destination to GPS co-ordinates...'
Moving....
Adjusting lane to make turns..
Speeding up, slowing down, braking..
Googlecar now CashCab: You have arrived at your destination!...care to answer some questions and win $25 for each correct answer?


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Planes basically fly themselves with very little operator control.


----------



## Barwelle (Feb 23, 2011)

Addy said:


> Did you read the article I posted? It says there are controls where humans can take over in case they need to. I wouldn't want cars on the road with this, at least not for the first so many years. There would be way too many circumstances that no company could possibly account for them all.


The first line of the article you posted: "_Google today announced its own design for self-driving cars, which will drive people around without a steering wheel or pedals._"

Also, (bolding is mine) "_Google says the program is currently in a *prototype phase*, but that it plans to build around 100 early versions of the vehicles for testing this summer. Those cars [...] will *initially* include manual controls in case something goes wrong_", implying that they will be removed at some point.

OK, so my wording was off (Should have said "will have" instead of "have") but the end goal of this project is a vehicle without manual controls. 

Sags' example is perfect. Technology works well, until it doesn't. And when it doesn't, then it really F's up. I'm not anti-progress by any means, but I think that there always needs to be a way to revert back to the old fashioned methods if/when the tech fails.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Humans also work well, until they don't


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Terrible idea. Humans need to control computers, not the other way around. Besides, the whole point of cars is personal freedom. This idea takes most of that away. As with my finances, I must remain in control and not some 3rd party.


Terrible idea for blind people, old infirm people, and children, too? 

I guess you take the stairs instead of elevator, too, in order to preserve your freedom from the tyranny of the elevator control computer.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Regardless of how long it takes, the impact of autonomous road vehicles is going to be *huge*. The economic value that will be created is enormous. I'm doubtful that it will be Google that will capture this market, but it will come, in fits and starts. And this is an enabling/disruptive technology, the full impacts of which we can only begin to imagine.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

to me it's the Home Automation "craze" of the 1990's all over again. You can have a computer turn your lights on. 

First people found out it's $50 per light for the X10 switch and $400 for a motor that wind your blinds open and closed and then after they were ok with the cost and performance, they realized something.....
They like flicking the light switch. They're even willing to get up to do it. 

When the google car can tow my boat to the launch, back it down the ramp and back a 5th whell in between the trees in Algonquin park, a few people will want it. Not in our lifetimes. 

Now, that said. For a developing nation just getting cars... it is awesome and exciting I'm sure. A whole culture and society could really thrive around it if civil engineers get linked up with automotive engineers. 

It doesn't excite me though, because I'm a heavy equipment tech. We've had successful autonomous vehicles for decades.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtMNFZLMWE


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Regardless of how long it takes, the impact of autonomous road vehicles is going to be *huge*. The economic value that will be created is enormous. I'm doubtful that it will be Google that will capture this market, but it will come, in fits and starts. And this is an enabling/disruptive technology, the full impacts of which we can only begin to imagine.


agree, i think it will have to be a merger of the guys with the software knowledge and the guys with the car building knowledge ... maybe ford and google ... foogle ?


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

If the plow hasn't been by, and they're all clogging my road, It will be exciting to nudge them into the ditch with my bumper. They look light

What do people find so difficult about driving? Turning the power assisted steering wheel? Pushing the power brake pedal with your toe?
If people hate driving, take the bus. A bus is more efficient. 

Nascar races will be pre-won on a simulator - exciting for the bookies with the tech.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Not sure how well that will work, given the video record of who hit the car.


----------



## Hawkdog (Oct 26, 2012)

Most trains are now automated are they not, especially subway trains.

How many trucker jobs will be lost when trucks become computer driven? No tractor drivers needed for farms. Shouldn't be any worries about a future labour shortage.
Surgeries are done by robots now as well.

Anyone watching the latest 24 show? with the automated drones. 

Its actually a bit worrisome


----------



## leoc2 (Dec 28, 2010)

Found this on another forum. Not sure it was posted here.


Should A Robot Sacrifice Your Life To Save Two?

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/...der-should-robot-sacrifice-your-life-save-two


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Synergy said:


> Planes basically fly themselves with very little operator control.


yes, but they still need pilots in them, to take off and land and interact if things go wrong.which sometimes they can. Autopilots are handsfree innovation in a plane, but pilots can override them
if some kind of onboard emergency occurs.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> to me it's the Home Automation "craze" of the 1990's all over again. You can have a computer turn your lights on.
> 
> Not in our lifetimes.
> 
> ...


 I remember working at the Globe and Mail and Telesat in the early 70s. Nobody had heard of a PC back then, much less an iphone/smartphone/dicktracy style cellular device that Samsung is now marketing.
Now, 42 years later, these are the new reality. The same with the electric car..how many years did it take before these were more than just auto show concept cars? Now you can actually buy one.
In the last year or so, Ford has come up with "park assist" in one of their cars, bluetooth and wi-fi, GPS are standard in a lot of 2014 models.

The self drive cars will eventually come on the scene, but not in every locale in North America..California, the southern states, Florida..anywhere the winters don't exist or are less severe.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

Barwelle said:


> Also, (bolding is mine) "_Google says the program is currently in a *prototype phase*, but that it plans to build around 100 early versions of the vehicles for testing this summer. Those cars [...] will *initially* include manual controls in case something goes wrong_", implying that they will be removed at some point.
> .


Fair enough. Plans thus far are to have manual over ride controls in the cars, at least according to CBC radio reports I've heard (as of yesterday). I for one would not want to ride in a vehicle without this, especially at first until all the kinks are worked out.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

leoc2 said:


> Found this on another forum. Not sure it was posted here.
> 
> 
> Should A Robot Sacrifice Your Life To Save Two?
> ...



Simple, travel in numbers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Addy said:


> Fair enough. Plans thus far are to have manual over ride controls in the cars, at least according to CBC radio reports I've heard (as of yesterday). I for one would not want to ride in a vehicle without this, especially at first until all the kinks are worked out.


With any computer steered or operation assisted vehicle, eventually there will be some issue with it. Hopefully Google, or whomeever they get to agree to manufacture these self drive cars enmasse will have the dealer infrastructure to deal with service items such as glitches and annoyances. 
Manual override is fine, but that also means that at least one of the passengers (two?) will have a valid drivers licence and can negotiate in traffic if the computer decided to quit or glitches. So it will still require a steering wheel and brake.accelerator pedal and a person that knows the rules of the road and can drive it back to a service center safely.

*In the future scenario: (Two kids neither one 16 or having a valid driver's licence) on the road to do some shopping:*
Autodrive vehicle grinds to a halt and starts flashing "low battery"
*First passenger:* Didn't you plug it in last night? Now what do we do? Call roadside assist. 

Driving along, a a tire picks up a nail..flat tire. 
Vehicle display" You have a flat. Call roadside assist. 

Driving along..the computer glitches, goes into manual mode;
Neither passenger can safely drive in traffic. 
*First passenger*: Ashley: can you drive this thing?
*Second passenger*: I've never tried, how I do it? Is the GPS still working? Oh wait..I'll download a GPS app on my smartphone.
Now..lets try and get into fast moving traffic..screech! as a big transport truck bears down on them....didn't you check your blind spot first?

*"Driver:*..with what? There are no outside mirrors on this thing...only a vanity mirror so I can apply my lipstick and makeup!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Synergy said:


> I can see it now - Google Taxi! And maybe one day, Google Jet - a highway in the sky.


Personally, I'd see that as the first application, though you'd have a fight on your hands with the established taxi companies. You could probably start with hotel-airport shuttles. Running small cars on electricity may be cheaper than the big buses that may not be full. You also avoid the problem of trying to force payments that you would have when running an automated taxi, though I imagine you can set it up as a pre-pay based on distance before you leave.

As for glitches, if designed correctly, they would have a similar default setting like the Tesla where it would have you pull over safely onto the side of the road while things get worked out.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Imagine "roadside assist" comes as driverless ... better yet, send a drone to check it out first and then the Dispatch headquarter decides if roadside assist is required. The future to come ... :surprise:


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

carverman said:


> With any computer steered or operation assisted vehicle, eventually there will be some issue with it. Hopefully Google, or whomeever they get to agree to manufacture these self drive cars enmasse will have the dealer infrastructure to deal with service items such as glitches and annoyances.
> Manual override is fine, but that also means that at least one of the passengers (two?) will have a valid drivers licence and can negotiate in traffic if the computer decided to quit or glitches. So it will still require a steering wheel and brake.accelerator pedal and a person that knows the rules of the road and can drive it back to a service center safely.
> 
> *In the future scenario: (Two kids neither one 16 or having a valid driver's licence) on the road to do some shopping:*
> ...



I'm not sure if you think I have a very low level of intelligence, or if you just like to tell stories about things that are blatantly obvious.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> Personally, I'd see that as the first application, though you'd have a fight on your hands with the established taxi companies. You could probably start with hotel-airport shuttles. Running small cars on electricity may be cheaper than the big buses that may not be full. You also avoid the problem of trying to force payments that you would have when running an automated taxi, though I imagine you can set it up as a pre-pay based on distance before you leave.
> 
> As for glitches, if designed correctly, they would have a similar default setting like the Tesla where it would have you pull over safely onto the side of the road while things get worked out.


I really like the idea of it eventually being capable to the point of essentially acting like a taxi service. I can only hope the bugs can be worked out in my lifetime!

Interesting about the Tesla, I wasn't aware it had that feature, smart.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

carverman said:


> I remember working at the Globe and Mail and Telesat in the early 70s. Nobody had heard of a PC back then, much less an iphone/smartphone/dicktracy style cellular device that Samsung is now marketing.
> Now, 42 years later, these are the new reality. The same with the electric car..how many years did it take before these were more than just auto show concept cars? Now you can actually buy one.
> In the last year or so, Ford has come up with "park assist" in one of their cars, bluetooth and wi-fi, GPS are standard in a lot of 2014 models.
> 
> The self drive cars will eventually come on the scene, but not in every locale in North America..California, the southern states, Florida..anywhere the winters don't exist or are less severe.


Are you saying that you have a home automation system? That technology has been around for 25 years. Groovy.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> Imagine "roadside assist" comes as driverless ... better yet, send a drone to check it out first and then the Dispatch headquarter decides if roadside assist is required. The future to come ... :surprise:


You baited me Beav!

Imagine in space and time a problem with the Google car. It can't deal with the real problem using artificial intelligence, and it's logic with 1's and 0's and fuzzy logic ="maybey" 
can't work around the problem.
Its signals Google Headquarters by satellite or cell phone frequencies. Automated roadside assistance is dispatched, a Indian IT support person.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmD_8cBqhW0&feature=kp


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Addy said:


> I'm not sure if you think I have a very low level of intelligence, or if you just like to tell stories about things that are blatantly obvious.


Don't take life so seriously...sheesh! :biggrin:


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> You baited me Beav!
> 
> Imagine in space and time a problem with the Google car. It can't deal with the real problem using artificial intelligence, and *it's logic with 1's and 0's and fuzzy logic ="maybey"
> can't work around the problem.
> ...


 ... in this case, I'll ditch the car and start peddling from the foldable bike retrieved from the trunk. But gotta make sure I have the key to manually open the trunk first to retrieve the bike! :biggrin:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

One of the drivers that experienced a Tesla fire described it as not very scary. He said that he would buy another one.



> About 30-45 seconds later, there was a warning on the dashboard display saying, 'Car needs service. Car may not restart.' I continued to drive, hoping to get home. About one minute later, the message on the dashboard display read, 'Please pull over safely. Car is shutting down.'


You can read about it here:

http://www.cnet.com/news/man-in-tesla-model-s-fire-id-buy-another-one/


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Where I come from we have buses and taxicabs. Same thing but automated. I'm sure it's coming and when it does, will be less controversial than credit cards in grocery stores.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> One of the drivers that experienced a Tesla fire described it as not very scary. He said that he would buy another one.


He hit a "3 prong trailer hitch" in the middle lane? Isnt' that a rear-ender and if he was actually driving, he wasn't paying attention either. 



> About 30-45 seconds later, there was a warning on the dashboard display saying, 'Car needs service. Car may not restart.' I continued to drive, hoping to get home. About one minute later, the message on the dashboard display read, 'Please pull over safely. Car is shutting down.'


Looks like a bit of a meltdown from the picture...glad he got out ok.

Maybe they should come with a built in fire extinguisher under the hood?..and this message on the display .." Car is on fire.!!..you have 30 seconds to get out before the batteries explode...have a nice day!"


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

I think some real gains could be made with traffic issues by adding "auto drive" lanes in really congested areas. A fair number of cars now come with most of the sensors needed to pull this off, they would just need a common "smart lane" communications interface. While a full auto drive feature might be nice I just can't see that working in a lot of places for a long, long time.


----------



## DayTek (Sep 26, 2013)

Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear took a spin in a self-driving BMW 330i a few years ago. Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnKzK6dX8Q

My reaction would be similar to his if I were in a vehicle I had no control over..."Brake, please brake, brake, brake...BRAAAAKE!!!"..."Please don't get it wrong, please don't get it wrong!" There would be no benefits for me personally because I would be too concerned with watching that the car operated correctly. 

Technology that moves you around without human operation concerns me because it's only as safe as it's programmed to be - It doesn't go beyond what it's been asked to do. Even with its sensors and whatnot, it doesn't posses intelligent judgement or empathy. It's designed to be safe and operate safely, but as a computer, it doesn't _really_ grasp the importance of it's passengers well-being. 

Also, there's the problem of _accountability_. What happens when two man-driven cars get into an accident? The legalities of it are that _someone_ is to blame. Then someone gets sued or goes to jail or whatever the repercussions may be given the situation. Well, what happens if two self-driven cars get into an accident? Who's to blame? We know what's to blame, but _who's_ taking ownership for the damages or the injuries? Can't sue the passenger because they weren't driving; They weren't the one in control, calling the shots and making the decisions. There was no bad judgement on their part. This leaves a hole in the justice that people are going to be craving if something bad happens while they are passengers in self-driven vehicles. So guess who's gonna get the lawsuits if accidents happen? Car manufacturers may see a market for self-driven cars, but they'll be bled dry with legal issues.

This kind of technology is fascinating, but given the problems, I can't imagine this is the way of the future.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

I already have a name for mine ... Christine ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O08w8CegEeg


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

DayTek said:


> Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear took a spin in a self-driving BMW 330i a few years ago. Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnKzK6dX8Q
> 
> My reaction would be similar to his if I were in a vehicle I had no control over..."Brake, please brake, brake, brake...BRAAAAKE!!!"..."Please don't get it wrong, please don't get it wrong!" There would be no benefits for me personally because I would be too concerned with watching that the car operated correctly.


Yes, imagine a small child darting out in front of your car...your worst nightmare. Even if you can't stop in time..having HUMAN CONTROL over the brakes makes a big difference between hitting
the child and running over it. Sorry to put these disturbing thoughts into readers minds..but technology and artificial computer intelligence has its moments..BUT..it cannot accomodate every
traffic scenario encountered in real life. The computer may be a lot quicker provide it understands what needs to be done..but the human mind (the driver) has that extra 'sense" to ANTICIPATE
what needs to be done BEFORE it happens. 

Computers these days can use what they call "fuzzy logic" and successive approximation..but after all they are just a machine. 



> Technology that moves you around without human operation concerns me because it's only as safe as it's programmed to be - It doesn't go beyond what it's been asked to do. Even with its sensors and whatnot, it doesn't posses intelligent judgement or empathy. It's designed to be safe and operate safely, but as a computer, it doesn't _really_ grasp the importance of it's passengers well-being.


Yes, that too. Remember the SEGWAY (the two wheel person mover, that was touted as the greatest thing since slice bread when it came out and it would revolutionize public transportation
'in the future:..it got its start in the US and initially it was allowed to be used on sidewalks....after a few pedestrian accidents..some cities banned it's use on the sidewalks..and that meant
if you still wanted to use a Segway, you had to deal with traffic the way bicycles do. Not so popular now.



> Also, there's the problem of _accountability_. What happens when two man-driven cars get into an accident? The legalities of it are that _someone_ is to blame. Then someone gets sued or goes to jail or whatever the repercussions may be given the situation. Well, what happens if two self-driven cars get into an accident? Who's to blame? We know what's to blame, but _who's_ taking ownership for the damages or the injuries? Can't sue the passenger because they weren't driving; They weren't the one in control, calling the shots and making the decisions. There was no bad judgement on their part. This leaves a hole in the justice that people are going to be craving if something bad happens while they are passengers in self-driven vehicles. So guess who's gonna get the lawsuits if accidents happen? Car manufacturers may see a market for self-driven cars, but they'll be bled dry with legal issues.
> 
> This kind of technology is fascinating, but given the problems, I can't imagine this is the way of the future.


You raised an interesting point about third party liabilty. Right now, the insurance industry understands 3rd PL and that is the MINIMUM insurance you need to have to even drive.
In Ontario, operating a motor vehicle (electric or gas) without insurance is $5,000 fine for being stopped without insurance. Not sure what happens if you injure or kill someone..
but more than likely by the time the courts get through with the offender, its some jail time and civil court lawsuits...they take pretty much all your assets (if any).

I would expect that someday IF these automated cars catch on, the insurance industry will come up with new policies to cover them.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

I think we can all agree there will be situations a self driven car will not be able to anticipate. I strongly feel this will improve given time, (ie not at first) and given that a computer will be able to react much faster than a human, accidents will go down.

Even in todays cars, there is a lot of automation. One of my favourite is gap cruise control. It amazes me, fascinatingly wonderful.

I'm sure when cars, trains, planes and even bicycles were first invented (and human controlled) there were pessimists who argued until they were blue in the face there were too many things that could go wrong. And they were probably right, but if we listened to them we would all still be walking everywhere (which isn't such a bad idea but not the point of this thread).

To denounce self driven cars because of the obvious is ludicrous, you could remain a nay sayer or be an optimist, you're choice of course.


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

Addy said:


> To denounce self driven cars because of the obvious is ludicrous, you could remain a nay sayer or be an optimist, you're choice of course.


Your response implies that to support Google in taking over transportation is to be an optimist. To be indifferent to google is to be a nay-sayer?
hmmm. that's kinda scary, no?

This technology has been applied in the mining industry since about 1990. stick "Google" on it and it becomes exciting? Not to me. It seems to be a demo of who has a monopoly on the audience and marketing power.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> Your response implies that to support Google in taking over transportation is to be an optimist. To be indifferent to google is to be a nay-sayer?
> hmmm. that's kinda scary, no?
> 
> This technology has been applied in the mining industry since about 1990. stick "Google" on it and it becomes exciting? Not to me. It seems to be a demo of who has a monopoly on the audience and marketing power.


Google is a multi-billion dollar US company. Their investment strategy is to branch out into what I would call "niche markets". Whether the niche market materializes over time remains to be
seen. I remember being excited back in the 60s with the flying car..there was even a TV show on it (Taylor Aerocar) with Bob Cummings.

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


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

Where is it today...50 years later and why are we not flying around in these things and taking off and landing on streets rolling into our driveways? Liability and human nature, and lets
face it..some people have trouble with paying attention driving (texting) and having to qualify for a pilot's licence and observe flight path restrictions..not to mention not doing maintenance on them (like a lot of drivers out there) and you would visualize a lot OF CRASHES into houses , shopping centres and they would be banned very quickly.

Not saying that automation cannot be used in cars, but it has to be introduced in such a way, that these automated cars and the people that own them are not a hazard to others
on the road.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I am reminded of elevators that had human operators. What do you do if it fails?

With the trend towards texting while driving, I would prefer a computer (at least it will be attentive)!

Also most car insurance is now no fault.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> I am reminded of elevators that had human operators. What do you do if it fails?
> 
> With the trend towards texting while driving, I would prefer a computer (at least it will be attentive)!
> 
> *Also most car insurance is now no fault*.


Until you have an accident, or maybe two within a period of time..then watch the premiums skyrocket!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> Yes, imagine a small child darting out in front of your car...your worst nightmare. Even if you can't stop in time..having HUMAN CONTROL over the brakes makes a big difference between hitting
> the child and running over it. Sorry to put these disturbing thoughts into readers minds..but technology and artificial computer intelligence has its moments..BUT..it cannot accomodate every
> traffic scenario encountered in real life. The computer may be a lot quicker provide it understands what needs to be done..but the human mind (the driver) has that extra 'sense" to ANTICIPATE
> what needs to be done BEFORE it happens.


I would argue the opposite in this situation. The driverless car is tracking the situation all the time with a 360 degree overview. It would probably track that a kid is close and possibly end up in front of the car, and either steer away or brake before you even notice the kid.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I would argue the opposite in this situation. The driverless car is tracking the situation all the time with a 360 degree overview. It would probably track that a kid is close and possibly end up in front of the car, and either steer away or brake before you even notice the kid.


Maybe so. However..if the car brakes suddenly, and the rear (driverless) car is tracking the car in front, it will more than like brake suddenly too and so on.
It could end up like these immediate slowdowns on the expressways, where the cars at the back rear end the car in front. 

Not saying it can't happen with the driver in control..but unless you have built in communication between ALL of these cars,
something extraordinary can happen. because the programmers that program these cars, are human too.

It may take many years and only be reliable in southern states where there is no snow. Up here you need to watch out for icy roads, black ice, drifting snow whiteouts,
-30 degree weather area in some places,
and other road conditions that may affect the reliability of this concept.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> Maybe so. However..if the car brakes suddenly, and the rear (driverless) car is tracking the car in front, it will more than like brake suddenly too and so on.
> It could end up like these immediate slowdowns on the expressways, where the cars at the back rear end the car in front.
> 
> Not saying it can't happen with the driver in control..but unless you have built in communication between ALL of these cars,
> something extraordinary can happen. because the programmers that program these cars, are human too.


Oddly enough I think a temporary slowdown is preferable to a multi-car pile up because someone doesn't notice the one ahead of them is breaking suddenly. Let's face it, the latter is more likely than the former.



> It may take many years and only be reliable in southern states where there is no snow. Up here you need to watch out for icy roads, black ice, drifting snow whiteouts,
> -30 degree weather area in some places,
> and other road conditions that may affect the reliability of this concept.


Weather will be a factor because it uses LIDAR which doesn't work well in inclement conditions. So for the time being you will probably see this in California and other states with little precipitation.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> Oddly enough I think a temporary slowdown is preferable to a multi-car pile up because someone doesn't notice the one ahead of them is breaking suddenly. Let's face it, the latter is more likely than the former.
> 
> 
> Weather will be a factor because it uses LIDAR which doesn't work well in inclement conditions. So for the time being you will probably see this in California and other states with little precipitation.


Fully agree here. If we had 12 months of June..here in Canada, it would be a wonderful life for most of us..except the polar bears, skiers and ski-dooers, who, no doubt would find something to complain about.
For the rest of us, a winter such as we have experienced in December of 2013/14..the great ice storm of the GTA..and tons of snow up here in Ottawa..is best forgotten as quickly as possible.

I am not against automation. It has done wonders everywhere. I'm not a Luddite..but we have enough problems with traffic already (brain-dead drivers in the morning that don't wake up until they pull
into the Timmies drive-thru and get a DOUBLE-DOUBLE to start their day..sipping it..while driving in the morning traffic, eating the cruller and fixing hair/putting on lipstick/yakking on the handsfree
(it's a fine now..if you are caught with yer smart phone glued to yer ear) and not always paying attention..especially on icy roads.....


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

so, if I'm driving my 1966 Volvo, and I swerve at the google car.... how much will it be responsible for getting out of my human way? I suppose every accident will automatically be the fault of the human operated vehicle during the transition? lol

I could see a system that is more of an advanced cruise control, where certain stretches of highway (London to Windsor for e.g.) could be set up to allow telematic control if the weather permits it - engagement controlled by the road sensory system.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

hystat said:


> so, if I'm driving my 1966 Volvo, and I swerve at the google car.... how much will it be responsible for getting out of my human way? I suppose every accident will automatically be the fault of the human operated vehicle during the transition? lol
> 
> I could see a system that is more of an advanced cruise control, where certain stretches of highway (London to Windsor for e.g.) could be set up to allow telematic control if the weather permits it - engagement controlled by the road sensory system.


It may have limited uses, but remains to be seen...ah..there's the rub, you have to hire two CERTIFIED ENGINEERS, with laptops, in case something goes wrong. 


> Koslowski points out that the state of California recently announced that *in order for a self-driving car to be on the street, there must be two certified engineers sitting in the front seat in order to assume control in case things go awry*.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/how-practical-is-google-s-driverless-car-1.2658083



> Because the vehicle is wholly automated, Henein says the most obvious concern is computer error or failure. As well, because the car *relies on an internet connection to identify and navigate to its destination, a drop in the signal could bring the car to a halt* — possibly in a very precarious situation.
> 
> "If the map is being updated remotely, and there's a lack of connectivity, the car may not know where to go and then the car may not move," says Henein.


Darn! and I suppose the hackers will have fun with it...

Hacker #1: Wanna have some fun with Grandma's car? I got into the access port. Lets ramp up the speed a bit...40-60-80km... and ...instead of her GPS destination
(some favourite shopping center), at the left turn..there is a lake close by....
Hacker #2..are you sure you won't be detected in a followup investigation when they pull it out of the lake?
Hacker #1: Naw, they'll just blame it on a computer glitch....


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Driverless cars are coming and when they do they will be popular. No more drunk drivers. No more texting and driving. No more reckless drivers. Our manually controlled cars will seem as primitive to future generations as horse drawn carriages seem to us.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

olivaw said:


> Driverless cars are coming and when they do they will be popular. No more drunk drivers. No more texting and driving. No more reckless drivers. Our manually controlled cars will seem as primitive to future generations as horse drawn carriages seem to us.


Well maybe someday, but why stop at driverless cars...why not robots to replace workers everywhere..Home-Depot has a few automated checkouts, and these "bots" are 
replacing the "worker pool", whether TFW (temp foreign workers) or Canadian high school graduates..or even grandmas that cant survive on the shrinking buying power pensions
that they get.

Someday, we may even see a grayhaired fashioned 'bot" at Timmies serving up yer morning Double-Double from a window at the TIM HORTONS AUTOMATED DRIVE THRU...
as you roll up in yer Google driverless car manufactured in Asia, (GM, Chrysler and Ford..long gone...the auto plants in Canada/US..long gone) Electric cars here and there..
.battery operated this and that (we have those already) ..cell phone implants in our ears....and you start to wonder as you are driven in this machine world...just where exactly 
IS everyone?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Do you also decry that we have tractors to plough fields and excavators to dig ditches?

Human labour and toil is not something to aspire to. It is, for now, a necessary evil.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Do you also decry that we have tractors to plough fields and excavators to dig ditches?
> 
> Human labour and toil is not something to aspire to. It is, for now, a necessary evil.


C'mon Andrew...I not against mechanization to improve productivity (as above)..I just stating an opinion, that the current partially brain dead generation with cell phones stuck to their ears while walking
into sign posts or traffic..doesn't need more automatic inventions..they should be keeping their brains from rotting and driving allows decisions to be made that passengers don't have to make.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Well maybe someday, but why stop at driverless cars...why not robots to replace workers everywhere..Home-Depot has a few automated checkouts, and these "bots" are replacing the "worker pool", whether TFW (temp foreign workers) or Canadian high school graduates..or even grandmas that cant survive on the shrinking buying power pensions that they get.
> 
> Someday, we may even see a grayhaired fashioned 'bot" at Timmies serving up yer morning Double-Double from a window at the TIM HORTONS AUTOMATED DRIVE THRU...
> as you roll up in yer Google driverless car manufactured in Asia, (GM, Chrysler and Ford..long gone...the auto plants in Canada/US..long gone) Electric cars here and there..
> .battery operated this and that (we have those already) ..cell phone implants in our ears....and you start to wonder as you are driven in this machine world*...just where exactly IS everyone?*


 ... sleeping in a pod. Welcome to the future - have your pick - planet Aliens or planet X. :biggrin: Oooops, Robcop is just around the corner. nthego:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... sleeping in a pod. Welcome to the future - have your pick - planet Aliens or planet X. :biggrin: Oooops, Robcop is just around the corner. nthego:


Not sure if you ladies ever watched the Swartznegger movie calle TOTAL RECALL..it is R rated as there is a female alien shown on a Mars bar with..three..not two..anyway.this is a family oriented
forum so I will leave it at that..anyway...in a futuristic Mars society (and there are some that want to sign up for a one way trip to Mars..if it every happens) there was these automated "Johny-Cabs"
that drive you around to your destination and ask for some fare..forget what the Martian money was..but Arnie..tells him.."Here's your fare, and twists the head off the robot! I laughed when
I saw that!

Heeeres..Johnny!


----------

