U.S. vehicle safety regulators tell Google that computers can qualify as drivers

[doppler (Rick)]

No more problems with having a few too many at the local, the car will get you home. I guess the taxi companys will loose out a bit here (or maybe just the drivers, another job lost to technology?).

I guess a few people will have two cars, one for commuting to work and the pub and the other for hooning around on weekends.

[AndrewJ]

I reckon if it does become legal and implemented, the idea of "owning" a car will quickly disappear ( esp in cities ), and private ownership would be banned, to ensure the fleet stays consistent, and prevent "modifications/hooning".
( Also allows the govt to track you even more than now )
Big businesses will own them and they will just run around and be "booked" by a smartphone as required.

Andrew

[bugeater (Marty)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

I reckon if it does become legal and implemented, the idea of "owning" a car will quickly disappear ( esp in cities ), and private ownership would be banned, to ensure the fleet stays consistent, and prevent "modifications/hooning".
( Also allows the govt to track you even more than now )
Big businesses will own them and they will just run around and be "booked" by a smartphone as required.

Andrew

Hot tub time machine 2?

[sn1987a (Barry)]

I can't wait! - just pack up the trailer after an all night session, hop in the car " take me home Hal ...oh and stop and wake me up at the servo on the way for a bacon and egg toasted"

[GrahamL]

Volvos new pedestrian avoidance system works a treat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XskQq-YHpc


Ok maybe the avoidance system wasn't actually fitted to the car they tried to test on ,,which brings us right along to imo ,a driverless car puttering round like grandma having an anxiety attack and the mountains of stoopid people on the roads is going to end in tears sooner or later.

[bugeater (Marty)]

Honestly I'd trust a computer driving a car a million times more than most of the morons driving out there. Yes I rode a motorcycle nearly every day for over 10 years and barely a day went by when some numpty didn't try to kill me. And seriously, if I was stupid enough to step in front of a car, I'd trust the computer's reflexes way more than a human's.

I actually did some work on driverless cars and related technologies many years ago. I came across an interesting paper that looked at adaptive cruise control and the effects it has on traffic flow. It was computer modeled, but basically something like 10% adaptive cruise control vehicles was enough to dramatically improve traffic flow. You can think of them kind of herding the rest of the idiots out of the normal speed/stop/speed/stop routine that so messes with smooth and efficient traffic flow. It was very interesting.

TLDR: even a small number of computer controlled vehicles on the road can have significant benefits for all road users.

[Wavytone]

Won't be long before you can instruct the car to go fill itself up at a servo, or take itself to be serviced and return.

[RobF (Rob)]

Bring it on I say. I've learned to dread the return to school and uni months in our neck of the woods. Every "merge to a single lane" situation can become a fight to the death.

Latest stats on drug use/abuse in drivers frightening. We each pass stoned (or hyped!) morons multiple times each day now without knowing it.

Leads me to believe even Gen I and II vehicles will be a big safety improvement. Don't want to be on the jury when there is an ugly accident for an autonomous vehicle mind you. Statistically it has to happen at some point.

[bojan]

Andrew, you are spot on here.
Public transport (private or business, doesn't matter) is the futiure.. especially in big cities (and the world tends towards becoming a single big city anyway).

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

I reckon if it does become legal and implemented, the idea of "owning" a car will quickly disappear ( esp in cities ), and private ownership would be banned, to ensure the fleet stays consistent, and prevent "modifications/hooning".
( Also allows the govt to track you even more than now )
Big businesses will own them and they will just run around and be "booked" by a smartphone as required.

Andrew

[AndrewJ]

Gday Bojan
As much as i hate the thought of it, it would have massive cost benefits in a large city. Ie
no need for driveways and garages in houses/buildings.
no more need for "public carparks" everywhere,
no more onstreet parking blocking traffic flow
massive reduction in maintenance/repair/spare parts facilities, as only limited/std models allowed

Just think how many more people can be squeezed in
without needing to increase road infrastructure.

Andrew

[doppler (Rick)]

And a lot of people will be out of jobs in the cities.
I for one enjoy my drive to work and back, but I don't live in a big city and the drive here is very relaxing even in peak hour traffic (which is only for half an hour)
Automated taxi's might be good in reigonal area's where public transport is non existant at night and weekends, and taxi trips for the night out are the most expensive part of an outing.

[AndrewJ]

Gday Rick
Fully agree they would be good in the boonies, but if owned by big business, then they wont be used anywhere that they cant guarantee something like 80-90% usage time.
It will be like internet etc. Only the large/densely populated regions make it cost effective to set up.
As to unemployment, what i reckon is Google can use part of their profit to pay local people to drive around the bush in the ( worn out ) googlebots to constantly update the GPS maps :-)

Andrew

[bojan]

Originally Posted by doppler

And a lot of people will be out of jobs in the cities. .....

There will be new jobs, because cities will grow.... and they grow because there are (more and new) jobs available in cities.

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Won't be long before you can instruct the car to go fill itself up at a servo, or take itself to be serviced and return.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/07/t...-charge-video/

[gary]

The February 2016 issue of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) Spectrum magazine has a cover story by Nathan A. Greenblatt,
an intellectual-property lawyer in Palo Alto, entitled "Self-Driving Cars
Will Be Ready Before Our Laws Are".

Originally Posted by Nathan A. Greenblatt, IEEE Spectrum Magazine

It is the year 2023, and for the first time, a self-driving car navigating city streets strikes and kills a pedestrian. A lawsuit is sure to follow. But exactly what laws will apply? Nobody knows. Today, the law is scrambling to keep up with the technology, which is moving forward at a breakneck pace, thanks to efforts by Apple, Audi, BMW, Ford, General Motors, Google, Honda, Mercedes, Nissan, Nvidia, Tesla, Toyota, and Volkswagen. Google’s prototype self-driving cars, with test drivers always ready to take control, are already on city streets in Mountain View, Calif., and Austin, Texas. In the second half of 2015, Tesla Motors began allowing owners (not just test drivers) to switch on its Autopilot mode.

The law now assumes that a human being is in the driver’s seat, which is why Google’s professional drivers and Tesla owners are supposed to keep their hands near the wheel and their eyes on the road. (Tesla’s cars use beeps and other warnings to make sure they do so.) That makes the vehicles street legal for now, but it doesn’t help speed the rollout of fully autonomous vehicles.

It’s not only the law that’s playing catch-up but also the road system. We’ve invested billions of dollars [pdf] in a transportation infrastructure designed for human vision, not at all for computers. But it’s possible to make changes to the laws that govern the roads and the infrastructure, and those could go a long way toward making driverless cars the rule instead of the rare exception.

IEEE Spectrum article, which contains many additional interesting hyperlinks, here -
http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportat...e-our-laws-are

Brookings white paper "Products Liability and Driverless Cars: Issues and
Guiding Principles for Legislation" by John Villasenor April 2014
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...rless_cars.pdf

[AndrewJ]

Gday Gary
If they do end up modifying the infrastructure to "assist", which will be pretty much a given for full automation in a city environment, then i wonder how long before idiots start indirectly hacking that to cause grief.
( Bit like the legends of the Cornish luring ships ashore with wrongly placed lanterns )

Ive learnt over time its easy to make something do what you want.
Its much harder preventing it from doing what you dont want
Its going to be an interesting ride.

Andrew

[GrampianStars (Rob)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGi6j2VrL0o
the future of taxies from back in the 80's

[multiweb (Marc)]

Maybe they should automate public transport before trying to dive into the personal car market. It makes a lot more sense.

[bojan]

Here we go:
http://www.news.com.au/world/breakin...01f367b6f58b50

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by bojan

Here we go:
http://www.news.com.au/world/breakin...01f367b6f58b50

The accident was between a bus and compcar and reading the details one could conclude if the bus was computer controlled there probably would have been no accident.

My father is 94 he still drives and it would be great to see him (and other drivers who find their capacity is diminishing) in a driverless car.
For myself my legs are not as good as a teenagers and I would welcome such a vehicle.
I regularly drive from Tabulam to Sydney and back so I would love to hand over the driving to a compter managed car. No doubt it would talk to you as well and point out places of interest and would lfill the void of loneliness on a long trip.