VIDEO: Google Has a Fleet of Self-Driving Cars

[JMcEntegart]

We've all encountered people who shouldn't even be allowed play with Tonka trucks, never mind drive. But is Google one of those?

VIDEO: Google Has a Fleet of Self-Driving Cars : Read more

 

[lauxenburg]

What's the fun in the car driving itself?

 

[ColMirage]

[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]What's the fun in the car driving itself?[/citation]

Look ma, no hands!

 

[werxen]

Would I still get a DUI? If so... wtf is the point.

 

[TeKEffect]

would be awesome driving home from Vegas when I'm all hungover from the weekend.

 

[mikem_90]

[citation][nom]lauxenburg[/nom]What's the fun in the car driving itself?[/citation]

Long trips, up late, you should have turned off at that last rest stop, but... eh...its only a few more miles till...zzzzzz...

Plus, theoretically fewer accidents... once any bugs get worked out.

And imagine, for your parents as they get older and lose the ability to drive themselves around, this would be a perfect thing to give them the mobility they need without constantly asking for a ride.

 

[mikem_90]

[citation][nom]werxen[/nom]Would I still get a DUI? If so... wtf is the point.[/citation]

I would wager that for a while till things are in the 5 nines Category for reliability, they will require a human in the driving seat in order to take over in case there is a malfunction.

Some local and state governments will likely feel the need to have laws about this, we'll see.

 

[kyeana]

[citation][nom]edilee[/nom]These cars should not be on open roads and should only be driven on closed courses. Technology and electronics fail and putting these cars mixed in with non-automated and unaware motorist is a very careless act even with a person there acting as a back up.Google needs to focus on web things and get robot cars off public roads. Imagine the lawsuit if one of these malfunctioned and caused a major accident...at least put a "robotic car" sign on the damn thing so people no that vehicle has no driver.[/citation]

1. There was a driver there ready to take over if anything started going wrong
2. Do you really think that they didn't extensively test this in a closed course prior to trying it on the road?

 

[burnley14]

I think these self-driving cars are for people like the YouTube uploader, driving around taking videos and not watching the road. There's some irony there I'd say. . . .

 

[drwho1]

great for 90 year olds wanna be drivers!
same for 16-20's year olds

 

[Guest]

I can just imagine the complexities & dynamics involved in trying to get the A.I. software to be able to overcome the variety of winter conditions that one can encounter which can cause serious accidents.

No matter how much they are able to improve an A.I., it'll still be no substitute for human instinct & reflexes which can only be learned through experience.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]edilee[/nom]These cars should not be on open roads and should only be driven on closed courses. Technology and electronics fail and putting these cars mixed in with non-automated and unaware motorist is a very careless act even with a person there acting as a back up.Google needs to focus on web things and get robot cars off public roads. Imagine the lawsuit if one of these malfunctioned and caused a major accident...at least put a "robotic car" sign on the damn thing so people no that vehicle has no driver.[/citation]
You didn't read did you? These cars do have drivers in them that are trained and ready to take over in case something goes wrong. They said Self-Driving cars, not Unmanned Cars, they are not the same thing at all.

 

[eddieroolz]

As long as it doesn't malfunction like Volvo's pedestrian testing, I'm sold xD

 

[buckcm]

I have a few thoughts about how awesome this could be:

1) The car can go pick up your son or daughter from practice.
2) You could sleep the entire time in the car or do work. Think about going to work in rush hour and how stressful/boring/tiresome it can be (or at the end of the day especially). You could take a nap or do work.
3) You could have some awesome fun with criminals. If everyone has ever seen the rigged car on police shows, the criminals freak out. They would be driving, and suddenly they lose control; the car would then be commanded to take them to the police station.

 

[Murissokah]

Skynet hits the road.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Renegade_Warrior[/nom]I can just imagine the complexities & dynamics involved in trying to get the A.I. software to be able to overcome the variety of winter conditions that one can encounter which can cause serious accidents.No matter how much they are able to improve an A.I., it'll still be no substitute for human instinct & reflexes which can only be learned through experience.[/citation]

If a woman can do it, you think a modern computer can't? Hmmmm, then again, we all know how women drive. I'll retract that statement.

 

[rohitbaran]

Google's plan of world domination with robots begins! First up, driverless cars.

 

[DjEaZy]

... skynet minions...

 

[iboomer]

[citation][nom]edilee[/nom]These cars should not be on open roads and should only be driven on closed courses. Technology and electronics fail and putting these cars mixed in with non-automated and unaware motorist is a very careless act even with a person there acting as a back up.Google needs to focus on web things and get robot cars off public roads. Imagine the lawsuit if one of these malfunctioned and caused a major accident...at least put a "robotic car" sign on the damn thing so people no that vehicle has no driver.[/citation]

Google is just the latest on the band wagon. I remember awhile back, that Volvo did something like this with UNMANNED vehicles (yes on a closed track) for what I remember to be a really long time.

You are an idiot if you think that the vehicle your driving with you behind the wheel is safer than the one Google put on the road to chauffer the techs around.

FOOL!

 

[x3style]

[citation][nom]Renegade_Warrior[/nom]I can just imagine the complexities & dynamics involved in trying to get the A.I. software to be able to overcome the variety of winter conditions that one can encounter which can cause serious accidents.No matter how much they are able to improve an A.I., it'll still be no substitute for human instinct & reflexes which can only be learned through experience.[/citation]

You overrate the human beign, you can never match up to a perfectly tuned machine, as you ar unable to reevaluate your decissions at the nanosecond frame. You see something you turn hard left end up in a tree, while an A.I. may turn left the right amount to change remove impact vector then turn right the right ammount at a time to redress the car without losign control while simultaneously controling accelerations independently on all 4 tires and also controling the suspentions so that the car dosen't flip over. All this while you just blinked. Machines are flawless the only error is in humans. Besides it could serve as augmented driving. A sort of next level safety layer taking control when you run out of control. Imagine this whole thing syncronized. 2 Cars heading twoards eachother both can comunicate and syncronize theyre movements so that they fit both limitations and avoit impact. You think too small.