Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 201 posts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#121

Post by click170 »

One of the aspects of this that I've been getting concerned about is the invasion of privacy that they will pose, especially if it's one or a handful of companies owning an operating the autonomous vehicles.

It's true that if you carry a cell phone you already carry a personal tracking device and offer this information up freely to your cellular provider, but I'm interested in reducing instead of increasing the amount of information I'm leaking in that way.

What kind of information will these cars track? They'll have to track who rides in them for accountability purposes, which I already find troubling. Your average cabby isn't going to be compiling a profile about you based on where you catch rides to. Who has access to the information such as who rides in which cars? Is this available via an open API? I'm already peeved at companies like FitBit which hold my data ransom, is this going to be another of those situations?

There's a lot of privacy questions that I feel aren't being adequately addressed, but I still look forward to the possibilities this will bring. The privacy questions are answerable and any problems should be correctable.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#122

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

joshvm wrote: post #59
kansface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The oatmeal wrote about it: | Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable... By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warr…

Is the 25mph limit a US thing? In the UK the normal minimum (aside from select residential zones where the neighbours complain) is 30mph. Many people would be very annoyed to sit behind a car doing 5 below the speed limit.

It varies from state to state. In California, where the testing is taking place, it happens to be 25. In Texas, it's 30.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#123

Post by JoshTriplett »

betenoire wrote: post #101
derefr wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The car that they put forward first needs to be non-threatening, safe, and easy to adopt. Moreover, I think Google wants their car to be recognizable as a driverless car . They don't want it to blend in, because people would (at least for now) think that was "spooky"—that any car anywhere around them could be being secretly driven by a robot. Instead, the visual distinctness means that it's instantly clear that the…

oh I sure hope it takes more than a pigeon, but I see your point

I hope it doesn't; consider the PR disaster that'll happen the first time a driverless car hits poor little Fluffy the cat. Nevermind that cars with drivers do that all the time.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#124

Post by aetherson »

xur17 wrote: post #91
aetherson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that virtually nobody who is certain that self-driving cars will be short-term rentals (ie, the Uber model) has children. It's a HUGE blind spot that the of course mostly very young, mostly childless tech commentariat has. The value of car ownership as a way to have large amounts of your property available at whatever location you are presently at without you constantly engaging in a bunch of loading and unlo…

They'll likely start expensive, and mainly be viable for short-term rental services, which are mainly used by people living in cities, etc. Then, as prices drop, some people will start to own them for convenience, but I expect car ownership to drop. Maybe people will only own one car to cover the situations you described, and rent when they need more than one. As a young person living in a city, I'm looking forward t…

I think I more or less expect car ownership to drop at least a little as well. That said, let me present the other case:

Car ownership is very prevalent right now. A driverless car that you can own is higher value than a traditional car you can own. Particularly, the owned driverless car:

1. Can be operated by a passenger who is not legal or safe to drive a traditional car, for reasons including but not limited to: sleepy, under the influence of alcohol, disabled, or (importantly) TOO YOUNG.

2. Can be used as a mobile depot for goods even in situations where a traditional car is impractical for such purposes (such as when parking is too much of a pain in the ass).

3. Can be more efficiently shared among a family, doing things like dropping a working family-member off at their job and then coming back home to serve the non-working family-member.

So while there may be young urban people who choose not to buy a car and instead rent it per-ride, they will be more than counterbalanced by the following rises in car ownership:

* Wealthy families who had one or two traditional cars and choose to buy two or three driverless cars, with the extra car devoted to driving the kids around when the parents don't want to.

* Cost-constrained couples who have the need for effectively two cars but only the money for one who previously chose to apply that money to public transit, but now buy a driverless car and share it.

* Wealthy urban dwellers who previously don't really like public transit/don't find it that convenient but previously coped with it because cars were so inconvenient now buy a driverless car that has increased utility in their city (because they don't need to park it/can use it when going out drinking/don't need to pay attention while in-transit). They don't go with the Uber option because they aren't cost-constrained and they like the privacy, reliability, and prestige of owning.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#125

Post by eru »

derefr wrote: post #62
amckenna wrote: post #25

A lot of people are bashing the car's appearance, but I think people forget that putting the first driverless cars on the road is as much a PR challenge as it is a technological challenge. Truly autonomous driverless cars is a huge shift in the way we have operated for almost 100 years. There will be a lot of caution and resistance from political groups, concerned citizens, entrenched interests, etc. The car that the…

> The car that they put forward first needs to be non-threatening, safe, and easy to adopt. Moreover, I think Google wants their car to be recognizable as a driverless car . They don't want it to blend in, because people would (at least for now) think that was "spooky"—that any car anywhere around them could be being secretly driven by a robot. Instead, the visual distinctness means that it's instantly clear that the…

Not pigeons right in front. But the driverless car often sees dangerous spots (like debris on the road, or an accident site) before any human can see. So they might stop or slow down earlier.

(I think I learned that in one of the tech talk videos about it.)

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#126

Post by eru »

krapp wrote: post #117
dopamean wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The appearance of the car is really important. If it looked too fun, like a Ferrari, some may think it's not safe. It reminds me of "helper" robots in movies about the future. They always have such unintimidating appearances. This car appears to be attempting the same thing and I'm ok with it.

I have to be honest - the last thing I think of when I look at it is "safe." Maybe that's just because I'm an American and feel the need to put as much iron between me and everyone else as I can. It's cute, and non-threatening looking, and probably the right design for what it is, but people are still going to look at it and think "this is going to get destroyed if a real car hits it."

There are (at least) two kinds of people Google needs to convince. First, people who will sit in a self-driving car; and that's already done. Second, people who share the road with a self-driving car. You are right `unthreatening' is the better word than the ambiguous `safe' here.

PS I think you are too American there. They don't drive tanks on the road in every country. But I see your concern.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#127

Post by eru »

millstone wrote: post #119
zanny wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't lease or own self driving cars. That makes no sense. You will just subscribe to a drive service if you drive a lot or just pay per ride and have one pick you up. I easily see you scheduling regular events (leave for work at 8, for example) and your car will be out front waiting each day.

Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting? Anyways, it makes no sense that everyone on my block owns their own lawnmower, and yet here we are.

> Isn't owning typically cheaper than renting?

Depends how you account for all factors. Owning usually comes with some hassle and risk. Renting means you pay someone else to discharge those duties. Another factor is the cost of capital for you vs the company that would rent to you.

Having your own lawnmower probably has something to do with transaction costs. Ie it's a hassle to coordinate among people.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#128

Post by graycat »

amckenna wrote: post #25

A lot of people are bashing the car's appearance, but I think people forget that putting the first driverless cars on the road is as much a PR challenge as it is a technological challenge. Truly autonomous driverless cars is a huge shift in the way we have operated for almost 100 years. There will be a lot of caution and resistance from political groups, concerned citizens, entrenched interests, etc. The car that the…

Do they really have driverless cars or just cars that run on essentially electronic tracks very carefully determined?

If someone moves the location of a traffic light, can a Google car still find the traffic light? Wbat if a bulb in the traffic light is burned out; is the car smart enough to negotiate the intersection with the failed light? What if a bucket of white paint fell on the road yesterday; is the Google car's image processing good enough to recognize this or to tell the difference between wet paint and dry?

Heck, when I drive, there is a lot for me to watch and analyze. A Google car can do that?

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#129

Post by eru »

rtpg wrote: post #120
thanksgiving wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The future will be a bad time to get into car parking. Perhaps, this will be the case in the long term. However, until then perhaps we could implement some sort of price surging where rental costs of parking space skyrockets when demands get high. Uber is doing the hard work of making price surging palatable. Everyone else just needs to ride on their coat tails.

but the jutification for surge pricing doesn't make sense with parking. The entire premise (that I have not seen data to verify, but the premise nonetheless) is that surge pricing increases the number of drivers on the road. Are we going to build more parking spaces for half a day? "Price surging" would become a fancy word for price gouging.

Surge pricing also limits demand. And that's a good thing; it's better if there's an expensive spot available, than no cheap spots.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project's first vehicle prototype

#130

Post by eru »

millstone wrote: post #81
derefr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK, Google Glass was explicitly a prototype, meant to visually advertise itself as a prototype to anyone who looked at it—in the same way that, say, a breadboard or a caseless Arduino visually advertises itself as a prototype. Seeing someone wearing Google Glasses was meant to put you in mind that they were testing something and you could help them test it, not that they were using a piece of everyday consumer ele…

Google has tried hard to make Google Glass fashionable in its current incarnation. That's why they are inserting it into New York Fashion Week, getting designer frames, etc.

That's back when they tried to be like Apple.
Post reply on HN