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

111–120 of 201 posts

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

#111

Post by dragonwriter »

brc wrote: post #110

What, exactly, are the mirrors for?

FTFA: "Our safety drivers will continue to oversee the vehicle for a while longer, using temporary manual controls as needed while we continue to test and learn."

So, they need all the driver-used mirrors, etc., that any manually-operated vehicle has (plus, the applicable safety regulations probably still require them, since, while provisions allowing self-driving cars to operate exist in some jurisdictions, I don't think that exceptions to the usual equipment requirements, particularly the federal ones, for them actually exist yet.)

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

#112

Post by jedunnigan »

icelancer wrote: post #108
jedunnigan wrote: post #103

I don't have a firm enough understanding of how the LIDAR and laser's work in these vehicles, but it occurs to me that it might be possible for a malicious actor to confuse the cars and cause accidents. That's concerning.

This is true now with our current optical recognition devices. Try shining a laser in your eyes while you drive.

Don't bother with the laser, just drive down the street and pass a car with HID headlights that aren't pointed directly towards the ground. At least in that situation your response will be to slow down (and hopefully the people behind you will see your brake lights).

But if someone can manipulate a LIDAR signal to confuse the car into thinking the road ahead is clear when it is not, well then the attack becomes much different.

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

#113

Post by djhunt »

kansface wrote: post #70
joshvm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

35mph is closer to the norm- I don't think a 25mph car would work (even in cities).

The speed limit on about 90% of New York City's roads is now 25 mph. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/things-to-know-...

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

#114

Post by oaktowner »

jnosCo wrote: post #49
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…

Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that using an autonomous car as a cab would be illegal. Current permits are rather specific about having an manufacturer's employee behind the wheel at all times. I'm not an expert, but I wouldn't expect any state to lighten up the requirement of at least having someone behind a wheel for the foreseeable future. I think most patrons of Uber don't really want to be sitting beh…

This generation of cars doesn't have a "wheel" at all -- there is literally no steering wheel and no way for a human to operate it.

So legislation will clearly need to change before these are street legal.

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

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

TranquilMarmot wrote: post #104
bane wrote: post #75

Lots of people are point at this being Uber's future "auto-car". Here's an alternative idea: - You can buy this car. It costs $100,000. But that's okay. - When you aren't actively using it, you tell it to go "Uber mode" and pick up and drive people around as part of the "Uber Network of Cars" - You split the fee with Uber/Lyft/whoever. They get 30%, you get 70%. If the average ride pays you $7, over 5 years that's li…

Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office... ...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up. You sigh as you clean up the mess, "At least it feels like I'm living in the future now..." But, most likely, the cars will keep track of who is riding in them and you could hunt down whoever made the mess and mak…

> Google Now summons your car to pick you up in front of your office... ...and, upon entering, you're met with a horrific scene of blood, urine, and feces left behind by the previous person the car picked up.

Well, self-cleaning cars don't take a whole lot of new technology. But, sure, that's one of the reasons that I think that self-driving taxis, while clearly one of the long-term applications, probably aren't the first use of self-driving cars. And, particularly, the personally-owned self-driving vehicle whose owner is the primary user but rents it out on the off hours use is, while it might be something people try early on in the self-driving vehicle era, likely to not be a big thing even after self-driving taxis are.

> Or maybe it has cameras installed?

Conveyances used by the public often do, yes. I would rather expect this.

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

#116

Post by olalonde »

threeseed wrote: post #93
jasonwilk wrote: post #16

The way Google seems to be approaching self-driving cars is the right one in my opinion. Self-driving cars will be on-demand, booked through something like Uber and will not be owned by the end-user. I feel that the other car companies working on self-driving car technology for consumers are wasting their time. The main reason I enjoy owning a nice car is that I like driving it. If I wasn't in control of driving my c…

> Self-driving cars will be on-demand Nonsense. That's just like saying taxis/cabs will negate the need for your own car. Sometimes you need a car now to goto the shops, drop your kids at doctor etc. without having to wait 10-30 minutes for a car to arrive from the other side of town.

Waiting time for a cab where I live takes less than a minute on average (in fact, I'd say the median is around 20s). In a driverless world, it's possible that the cab market where you live will be a lot more efficient/cheaper and the assumption that waiting for a cab takes 10-30 min won't hold anymore.

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

#117

Post by krapp »

dopamean wrote: post #33
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 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."

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

#118

Post by [deleted] »

bane wrote: post #75

Lots of people are point at this being Uber's future "auto-car". Here's an alternative idea: - You can buy this car. It costs $100,000. But that's okay. - When you aren't actively using it, you tell it to go "Uber mode" and pick up and drive people around as part of the "Uber Network of Cars" - You split the fee with Uber/Lyft/whoever. They get 30%, you get 70%. If the average ride pays you $7, over 5 years that's li…

[deleted]

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

#119

Post by millstone »

zanny wrote: post #65
Toenex wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber have the right idea here; own the platform, not the infrastructure. Lets face it, a cars spends most of its life stationary, waiting for you to drive it. Not so the autonomous vehicle. Autonomous vehicles are freed from the shackles of parking so why not lease your car to Uber and have it earn money as a cab? The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.

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.

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

#120

Post by rtpg »

thanksgiving wrote: post #36
Toenex wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber have the right idea here; own the platform, not the infrastructure. Lets face it, a cars spends most of its life stationary, waiting for you to drive it. Not so the autonomous vehicle. Autonomous vehicles are freed from the shackles of parking so why not lease your car to Uber and have it earn money as a cab? The future will be a bad time to get into car parking.

> 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.

Post reply on HN