backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by lagomorpha.. on Jun 4 at 9:11 AM


  (Source: Getty Images)
GM is taking the project seriously

General Motors Corp. (GM) gave Google Inc. (GOOG) its begrudging regards this week after hearing about the Mountain View, Calif. company's vision for autonomous vehicles.
 
I. GM on Google -- It's a "Real... Threat"
 
While it looked a bit like a Volkswagen AG (ETR:VOW) Beetle smacked with the ugly stick a few more times, Google's in-house design for an autonomous electric vehicle (EV) is turning heads based on the sophistication of its driving and collision avoidance.  Google is building a fleet of 100 of the bulbous 2-seaters to test its smart driving technology.
 
At an event in the Detroit, Mich. area, GM's Product Development chief, Mark Reuss was inevitably asked to weigh in on the excitement surrounding the Google fully autonomous smart car.  He did not hold back, responding:

Anybody can do anything with enough time and money.  If they set their mind to it, I have no doubt [that they will be] a very serious competitive threat.  [The car is] kind of cool [and looks sort of like a VW Beetle].

[Automation is] going to be a creep, it’s not going to be a mind-bending thing.  I don’t think you’re going to see an autonomous vehicle take over the city anytime soon
.

Google automated car
Google's automated car is a "threat" according to GM's Product Development chief.

GM certainly seems an authoritative voice on the topic.  
 
In April 2014 in the U.S. it sold over 254,000 automobiles internationally, ahead of Ford Motor Comp. (F) (210,000+) and Toyota Motor Corp. (TYO:7203) (199,000+) [source].  GM was sales king of the auto industry longer than any other company in the history of the automobile.  
 
From 1931 to 2007, GM sold more cars and trucks than any other automaker.  And even as it's struggled to hold back a surging Ford and to regain its lead from Toyota, GM is still seeing strong sales.  (Volkswagen was the only automaker to beat it in 2013, a bit of a surprise.)
 
And it's good to see such straight talk from GM and an earnest assessment of its possible future competitor.
 
II. The Race to a Smart Car
 
For years we heard lots of automakers pay lip service to the concept of autonomous driving, with some even spending a good deal of money and time investigating it.  GM was perhaps foremost in the field prior to its bankruptcy.  Over a half-decade ago, back in Jan. 2008 we road along in a modified 2008 GM Tahoe which won the DARPA's (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) 2007 Urban Challenge.

GM Darpa
GM's 2008 Chevy Tahoe, modified for the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge
[Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech LLC]

As the car zipped around the obstacle course in sunny Las Vegas, Nev. it quickly became apparent why the vehicle won the smart car challenge -- it was pretty good at avoid collisions... really good, in fact.  As a demo, a second test driver would cut off the GM car or otherwise block its path.  In every case the GM vehicle knew what to do, performing better than many human drivers would in such a case.
 
But after the bankruptcy rolled around in mid-2009, the pace of development has slowed, in some regards, allowing the U.S. automaker's foes to catch up.  GM's current plans for commercialization involve a more scaled back version of the technology called "Super Cruise" which is only semi-autonomous.  
Cadillac Super Cruise
The technology will allow the user to hand off control to the vehicle during long highway drives, but otherwise will drive like a standard vehicle.  GM wrote that the technology will "use a fusion of radar, ultrasonic sensors, cameras and GPS map data, seamlessly integrated" to perform "semi-automated driving including hands-off lane following, braking and speed control under certain driving conditions."

But GM added in on a cautionary note:

The system is designed to ease the driver’s workload on freeways only, in bumper-to-bumper traffic and on long road trips; however, the driver’s attention is still required... because the system will have operational limitations based on external factors such as traffic, weather and visibility of lane markings. When reliable data is not available, such as when there are no lane markings, the system will prompt the driver to resume steering.

In other words, this smart car was only so smart.
 
III. GM Not Alone in Struggles Toward Full Self-Driving
 
The limitations echoed Ford -- currently the world's second largest automaker -- which in 2010 introduced a semi-autonomous parallel parking.  Called Active Park Assist (APA), the system provided so-called "electronic power-assisted steering" (EPAS).
 
In other words, it basically steered for you and tried to tell you how long to press the gas and when to brake via various beeps.  The clear issue, as I saw it during a 2011 test drive was that the technology would do nothing to stop the user from bumping a car in front of or behind it.   And by detaching the driver from part of the maneuver (steering), but not all of it (gas/braking), the maneuver almost felt more dangerous/risky to perform at times.
 
In my experience the system was workable, but at times seemed more frustrating than simply performing the maneuver on your own.
 
EPAS Second 1  EPAS Second Park 2
  EPAS Second Park 3   EPAS Second Park 4
    EPAS Second Park 5  

Toyota had a near identical system -- the parallel park system (PPS), which handled the gas and steering, but not the brake.  Toyota first introduced the system in its Lexus branded luxury models.  It also integrated smart braking technology to avoid objects in driveways, etc. via integrating millimeter wave sensors and the braking system into a collision avoidance algorithm.
 
Ford has been active since, working on an improved version of its lane keeping technology called Traffic Jam Assist, which mirrors GM's "Super Cruise" in providing semi-autonomous highway driving.  That technology should arrive around the same time as GM's.  In the meantime Ford has added perpendicular parking to its portfolio, courtesy of French supplier Valeo S.A. (EPA:FR).  Volkswagen had been using Valeo's Park4U system parking system since the 2011 model year [source].  
 
Last year Ford added one more trick, upgrading the system to be fully autonomous.  With the new system the owner could activate the parking maneuver via a key fob and the Fully Assisted Parking Aid (FAPA) would activate driving the vehicle into or out of a spots.  The feature has proven to be especially useful in preventing scratching to other drivers' doors.
 
IV. Google + Tesla?  Be Afraid.
 
What every automaker should be most fearful of is Google and Tesla teaming up.  The pair has already expressed interest in such a union; as mentioned, Larry Page is a Tesla Roadster owner, as is Google's R&D chief Sergey Brin.
 
Other than Google who is close to full automation?  GM, Ford, Volkswagen, and Toyota are all pursuing the safer, but less exciting route of partial automation for highway traffic.  It is unclear if any of these companies' plans involve merging onto or off of highways; it appears that the automation may solely be limited to highway driving at certain speeds.
 
Nissan Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7201) is taking a similar route, but it might be a bit ahead given that it not only is testing autonomous cars on a Japanese highway, but is merging on and off.  Its autonomous Leaf EV drove itself on the highway trip at speeds of 40-80 km/hour (~25-50 mph).  Nissan has set a target of 2020 for "autonomous" vehicles with Autonomous Drive; however, it is unclear whether that target includes urban/city driving.

Nissan Autonomous Drive
Nissan's Autonomous Drive LEAF EV aims for a 2020 launch. [Image Source: Nissan]

Sweden's Volvo AB (STO:VOLV-A)(STO:VOLV-B) is building fully autonomous driving systems which should merge onto and off of highways by 2017.  During my time with Bayerische Motoren Werke (BMW) AG (ETR:BMW) at CES 2014 I talked to some of their senior engineers and learned that they too were testing automated vehicles.  Those tests are currently confined to the track, but it's possible BMW may field a self-driving coupe in the same timeframe as Volvo.
 
V. Google has Mastered What Its Rivals are Still Trying to Achieve
 
But to be honest, GM is right.  Automakers should be worried about Google.  Because everyone -- and truly every one of them -- is far behind Google.  
 
Google's project began in 2010.  At the time, many believed the power of a supercomputer would be needed for city driving.  Many dismissed the project as a joke or gimmick
 
Two years later Google had already logged 300,000 hours miles of automated driving without an accident.  (Google's fleet consists primarily of retrofitted Lexus RX 450h and the Toyota Prius hybrids.)  Two years later, Google's fleet has logged 700,000 miles of autonomous highway travel.  It's clear that Google's highway driving technology is basically done, versus even Nissan who is still in the testing phase.

Google Lexus


Google has already moved on to finishing a far more ambitious set of algorithms -- routines for city driving.  So far the fleet has logged "thousands" of miles in city driving, leading to vital algorithm improvements.
 
VI. City Driving is Final Test for Google
 
CEO Larry Page recently said that Google has no competitors.  And it truly believes that.  In two years it did more than the rest of the automaker did in the last decade, when it comes to automated driving.
 
The evidence is strong that Google's new self-driving car is not intended as a full fledged design, but as a design focused on urban environment.  Evidence of that is found in its top speed -- 40 km/h (~25 mph) -- which may be sufficient for a crowded city like New York City, but not for highway driving.

Google self-driving car
[Image Source: Google]

Google is so confident in its new design that it's made the bold move of gutting the vehicle removing nearly all controls, including the brake and gas pedals and the steering wheel, something none of the traditional automakers would dare to do.  The new Google X design has two buttons -- Start and Stop.  Program the route and car does the rest.

It's slightly disconcerting and terrifying to think that the Google car's two occupants have no means of controlling the vehicle.  But when you think of it, such feelings are, statistically speaking, overconfidence.  As Google points out 1.2 million people die worldwide in traffic accidents and 90 percent of those are due to human error.

From everything we've seen thus far, you're probably safer allowing Google's algorithms to steer for you.

GM, to its credit has a city-street pod car of its own it's testing -- the EN-V.  By the sound of it that vehicle is still being prototyped, though, and has yet to hit city streets.  GM is developing the curious compact at one of its research facilities in China.

EN-V
The GM EN-V concept vehicle [Image Source: Autoblog Green]

So when all is said and done, it looks highly unlikely anyone will beat Google to the goal of fully automated driving from point to point.  Tesla Motors has probably the best plan -- if you can't beat them, join 'em.

VII. The Android Edge

Even if some other car company -- say GM -- manages to pull abreast of Google in the automation race, it's highly unlikely that its vehicles will ever be as effective at driving.  The reason for that is that Google is continuously mining data -- including location data -- from tens of millions of Android smartphone users across the U.S.  It's almost a given that Google is looking to use this dataset to provide predictive capabilities to its driving algorithm.   

iPhone
Smartphone tracking could give Google beacons to improve its self-driving performance.
[Image Source: Pete Warden and Alasdair Allan]

In other words, Google's cars will be more fuel efficient and safer because they effectively have a beacon on a good deal of American drivers -- regardless of how new or old their car is.  No other company can claim that.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: no need for total self-drive
By Reclaimer77 on 5/30/2014 11:43:31 AM , Rating: 0
I don't know if humans are better drivers than software, but I DO know that our current AI technology sucks, and humans are far better at decision making.

99% of the time, a self-driving car will be just fine. But that 1% encounter is the difference maker in your life.

Just this morning I avoided an almost certainty of me being involved in an accident, because I anticipated what the jackass next to me was going to do and reacted to avoid it.

There's NO WAY you can tell me a current self-driving car could have done that.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/30/2014 12:00:23 PM , Rating: 2
How did you anticipate it? How quickly did you react? How did you know the area you reacted to had no traffic, pedestrians, etc?

AI plays a relatively small role in all this. The computer controlled car sees and knows about every object around it and is tracking all of their movements. The second the car in the lane next to you started moving toward your lane, the computer controlled car would have acted.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/2014 12:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The second the car in the lane next to you started moving toward your lane, the computer controlled car would have acted.
Your vehicle's reaction time is not 0 seconds, nor is the computer's.

Anticipating traffic patterns helps you position the car, direct the steering, control the gas and have the breaks ready BEFORE the accident occurs. That leads to a reaction time of 0 seconds, because you're probably going to be PROACTIVE. And SAFE, since you are positioning yourself with enough time not to hit other drivers. You have to be able to drive, though, and that's where automation will make inroads: crappy drivers.

Even GM admits it's solution didn't work in the city, where reaction times matter most. That tells me automated driving isn't ready for complex or dense traffic flows, just like Reclaimer said.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/30/2014 12:52:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Even GM admits it's solution didn't work in the city, where reaction times matter most. That tells me automated driving isn't ready for complex or dense traffic flows, just like Reclaimer said.


HAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHHAHAHA.... hang on.... HAHAHAHAHA... I can't catch my breath.

" Even GM "

HAHAHAHAHA.... HAHAHAHAHA....

We're not talking about a building a new transmission or brake caliper. This is a computer science problem. This is like declaring good BBQ impossible, because McDonalds had difficulty making the McRib.

Google has logged tons of accident free miles on city streets with pedestrians and bikes jump out in front of them.

LOL... "even GM"... geez that never gets old.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/2014 1:27:13 PM , Rating: 4
Sigh... From the article:
quote:
For years we heard lots of automakers pay lip service to the concept of autonomous driving, with some even spending a good deal of money and time investigating it. GM was perhaps foremost in the field prior to its bankruptcy. Over a half-decade ago, back in Jan. 2008 we road along in a modified 2008 GM Tahoe which won the DARPA's (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) 2007 Urban Challenge.

As the car zipped around the obstacle course in sunny Las Vegas, Nev. it quickly became apparent why the vehicle won the smart car challenge -- it was pretty good at avoid collisions... really good, in fact. As a demo, a second test driver would cut off the GM car or otherwise block its path. In every case the GM vehicle knew what to do, performing better than many human drivers would in such a case.
Computer science problem, yes. One that GM was solving better than anyone else prior to Google. And with results that were pretty damn good. And GM was upfront about the limitations and use cases:
quote:
The system is designed to ease the driver’s workload on freeways only, in bumper-to-bumper traffic and on long road trips; however, the driver’s attention is still required... because the system will have operational limitations based on external factors such as traffic, weather and visibility of lane markings. When reliable data is not available, such as when there are no lane markings, the system will prompt the driver to resume steering.
But don't look at GM's solution. Look at Google's. It can't drive faster than 25mph. There aren't that many accidents at those speeds, and collision avoidance is pretty simple. Let's bump this car up to 65mph and put it on an Atlanta highway. Or send it to the Bronx and have it navigate the Grand Concourse or Cross-Bronx Expressway during rush hour gridlock. Pretty sure we'll see accidents.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Rukkian on 5/30/2014 2:31:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But don't look at GM's solution. Look at Google's. It can't drive faster than 25mph. There aren't that many accidents at those speeds, and collision avoidance is pretty simple. Let's bump this car up to 65mph and put it on an Atlanta highway. Or send it to the Bronx and have it navigate the Grand Concourse or Cross-Bronx Expressway during rush hour gridlock. Pretty sure we'll see accidents.


That is only for their new car that is just being introduced. The 700k miles logged previously were on highways and freeways.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/2014 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
In two states, California and Nevada. Locations with some of the most forgiving traffic in the country. That's why I said Atlanta and New York's Bronx, which has some of the worst traffic I've ever seen in the US. Heck, those cars weren't even tested in LA which is IN California. Mountain View isn't a densely populated city, so I couldn't trust a car that's only learned to drive there. The point being that there are use cases for this car, but it's not yet proven itself for ALL driving locations, vehicle types, cargo loads, etc... Which is what Reclaimer said:
quote:
I don't know if humans are better drivers than software, but I DO know that our current AI technology sucks, and humans are far better at decision making.
Emphasis on the word CURRENT.


By flyingpants1 on 5/30/2014 1:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
What does it really matter, though, so long as the total number of accidents goes down?


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 6:23:10 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
AI plays a relatively small role in all this. The computer controlled car sees and knows about every object around it and is tracking all of their movements .


You believe that huh. The problem is it isn't. It can't tell that load is about to fall of that simi or is improperly secured, it can't tell that tire is falling off. It can only react AFTER the fact.

If their is a box in the road and a person next to it, it can't tell one is a box and one is a person unless it's specifically programmed for it. But I doubt it is.

You're problem is you think because some computers can go down a road in good ,mostly controlled, conditions that its better then a person. We will see when we get MILLIONS of these things running down the roads in the wild.

Adding to that, like with software it tends to work fine in the labs. Once in the wild we find MANY problems that could not be anticipated. However here those problems WILL kill people.

So have fun with your unfounded beliefs about the perfection of computer controlled vehicles. Right now its mostly untested and unproven.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By bug77 on 5/30/2014 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Just this morning I avoided an almost certainty of me being involved in an accident, because I anticipated what the jackass next to me was going to do and reacted to avoid it. There's NO WAY you can tell me a current self-driving car could have done that.


The point is, if the jackass was in a self-driving vehicle, you'd wouldn't have had something to avoid to begin with.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/14, Rating: -1
RE: no need for total self-drive
By Monkey's Uncle on 5/30/2014 12:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Why not?


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/2014 1:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Because there are only two ways this could happen:

1) A government mandate
2) Drivers voluntarily giving up control

The first will never happen. I can't say how the rest of the world will deal with this, but driving is as much a part of American culture as football and apple pie. The second will never happen, because, again, driving is a part of American culture. There will always be manual drivers, and they will screw up the automated drivers. At least, the current ones; with continued development these things will get better. However, as an experience automated driving does not provide the thrill of manual driving with your own hands and feet.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/30/2014 1:12:29 PM , Rating: 4
It will be economic pressure via auto insurance.

After a year, when nearly every single accident involving a self-driving car is shown to be the manual drivers fault (and the self-driving car, will have all the info logged to prove it). Insurance on self driving cars will go to almost nothing, while manual cars will go up and up.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Reclaimer77 on 5/30/14, Rating: -1
RE: no need for total self-drive
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/30/2014 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Smokers want to smoke. Most drivers don't want to drive.

Taking autonomous taxis will cost way less per mile than owning even a junker. It will be what people want for less money.

As saturation gets over 50% and accidents decrease, each fatal accident will get media attention. People driving manually will be vilified for what we consider an honest accident today, because it will be obvious that they chose that to endanger others, even at a financial cost.

IF the tech works, that's what is coming.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Reclaimer77 on 5/30/14, Rating: 0
RE: no need for total self-drive
By Monkey's Uncle on 5/30/2014 6:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Please provide me the survey where all 200+ million registered drivers in the United Stated say they "don't want to drive".


Please provide us the survey where all 200+ million registered drivers in the United Stated say they "do want to drive".


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Spuke on 5/30/2014 6:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please provide us the survey where all 200+ million registered drivers in the United Stated say they "do want to drive".
I guess that means you have no proof to back up what you said. LOL!


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 12:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
You're the one making the claims... you're the one that needs to provide the proof.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Monkey's Uncle on 5/30/2014 3:43:56 PM , Rating: 3
Oh man, that is so funny.

What makes you think insurance companies won't? Do you have any idea how much someone driving a dump truck pays in insurance? What makes you think an insurance company won't charge you that same kind of premium once a safer, less dangerous mode of transport comes available to people cheaply?

Self driving cars will have:

1. Less 'at fault' accidents.
2. Less prone to theft.
3. Less often used in crimes as a getaway vehicle (they are pretty freaking slow)

Police departments will love them.

Insurance companies stop being the bad guy for beggaring folks that need to use their cars to go to work.

People who live in cities and abhor public transit (just like someone else I know does) will love them.

People going out and getting shitfaced in a pub will love them because they don't have to rely on 'designated drivers' staying sober, taxis or public transit to get them home. They can take their own car!

The designated driver types in the above will love them because they don't have to BE designated drivers & can get shitfaced right along with you.

Kids will love them because they don't need a license to 'drive' one.

Yes, it is another tool for the evils socialists to punish you :D

(And yes, there are an awful lot less smokers in the world simply from the pressures of society and economics making their smoking habit far less enjoyable)

Don't get me wrong. I love driving my car.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 12:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
Where is this mythical city where millions of robots are driving around everyday making perfectly sound judgments and no mistakes are made....

And until one does this is just a hypothesis that exists in your mind. Perhaps some day it will come true but I doubt were as close as you think we are.

So far all these self driving cars have been tested in extremely controlled conditions. It reacted well to getting cut off, please if that's the best test they came up with (the one test a computer SHOULD perform well at) I'm not convinced.

Mixing this technology to aid in a humans driving I'm all for.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Rukkian on 5/30/2014 2:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't forsee a time when there are no manual drivers, that does not mean that there will be a ton. Will some people prefer to drive themselves - sure. Just like some people cant stand an automatic vehicle compared to a stick shift. In the end, I think the majority of people use their cars to get from point a to point b (work, groceries, school) and do not really feel the need to be in control.

As for the tech not being able to handle the manual drivers, that is absolutely false. The current vehicles have logged 700k miles with no accidents caused by the automated car, and significantly lower accidents in general, since the computer is always paying attention, and can anticipate what other drivers are going to do, leaving plenty of space, and knowing every escape route possible. There is no way for a human to actually know that much data simultaneously until we grow at least 8 eyes (2 in every direction).

Yeah I know every person is a super human and capable of knowing ahead of time what every other driver is doing if you ask them, but if that were true, we would not have the number of distracted driving, and accidents where a human is at fault in some way or another.

Even if just the 30% of people that are horrible drivers, plus those with less than stellar reflexes (my grandparents come to mind) switch to automated cars, the roads would be much safer, and much more efficient.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Spuke on 5/30/2014 3:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The current vehicles have logged 700k miles with no accidents caused by the automated car
Were all those miles done on public roads? What were the weather conditions? Dry, rain, snow? What were the traffic conditions? Heavy, light, city, freeway?


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Rukkian on 5/30/2014 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have the stats in front of me, but at this point they are allowed (and have been used) on public roads in 3 states that I know of. At this point it has not been tested in snow (I am sure that is coming), but I am sure some rain has been tested.

I don't say it is ready for mass consumerism today, but to say we are no where near being viable (like some here are claiming) seems wrong as well.

I understand that some people are against this and will fight tooth and nail anytime a self-driving car is mentioned, but to a good portion of the public, I don't think the day can come fast enough.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By amanojaku on 5/30/2014 5:05:58 PM , Rating: 3
They're allowed to drive in four states: California, Florida, Michigan, and Nevada. Testing occurred in two states: California (Mountain View and San Francisco), and Nevada (?). Locations that aren't known for heavy traffic or large numbers of traffic accidents.

And I don't think anyone said driver-less cars are not viable as a technology. Even Reclaimer, the most staunch advocate of independence, admits driver-less cars have potential. What people HAVE been saying is today's driver-less technology, even Google's, is unable to reproduce all of the skills the average driver needs. You guys don't want to accept the fact that Google's tests are VERY limited.

Can't blame Google for not testing in the rest of the country (it's illegal), but come on, at least run the thing in LA, Huston, or Austin. Skip Detroit, you'll never get the car back.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 1:07:20 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of humans out there that will follow that criteria of 700k miles with no accidents/tickets (It's not just one Google car that achieved this.) in fact if mixed results are allowed choosing the right people will lead to figures that BLOW that out of the water.

Plus, you said that a computer can anticipate what other drivers are going to do, mind explaining that one?

Knowing every escape route possible? There are only so many maneuvers available to a car. I contest that a person is more able to predict the outcome of an escape attempt better than current and near future computer software. Which is a prerequisite for figuring out which escape route is better. A human brain is still vastly superior to a computers (of course a lot of people fail to use theirs). At worst your statement is false at best it's only true in part.

Because people drive in the real world... LOTS of them. Until your self driving car reaches the numbers that we see from humans all you're saying is just conjecture and a hypothesis.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 6:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
What makes you believe that? Things can't fall off a computer controlled vehicle? We will see how "perfect" these cars are once they enter the "wild" and are used by millions.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By Murloc on 5/31/2014 9:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
that situation would disappear (or have a greatly reduced chance of happening) if most vehicles on the road were autonomous.

Also maybe your accident would have happened, but 10 others wouldn't have.


RE: no need for total self-drive
By SlyNine on 5/31/2014 12:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are basing this off of what fact? conjecture and nothing else. Until there are millions of these things driving around in the wild we will not know how they can really handle normal driving duties. So far these tests take place in less populated areas, and we don't even know the full details of the tests. For all we know the person takes control if certain conditions are meet.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki