back to article Google's driverless car: It'll just block our roads. It's the worst

Driverless cars will solve congestion. Driverless cars will improve road efficiency; driving along closely behind each other in platoons. Driverless cars will stop you waiting at the kerb for a taxi. Yeah, yeah; it’s all drivel. The tech is wonderful, gee-whiz-that’s-great stuff, but there’s a few things that are unbelievably …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Test Man

    "We’re told by the G-drive gushers from Mountain View that road trains or platoons of driverless cars will use roads more efficiently because they’ll be able to drive more closely together than human-controlled vehicles. Right. So you’re driving along at 60mph and come across a slower platoon of some twenty vehicles moving at 55mph. You overtake them, noticing there’s no gap between each car in the platoon that’s large enough to let you in, and then you come up to the exit ramp you need to take but can’t get onto it because the platoon prevents you passing though it."

    Good point, but think about it - how does sat navs (even ones going back from the last decade) do when you miss your turning? They reroute. It'll clearly be the same here.

    "The cars use GPS to locate themselves, with more precise location data provided by the LIDAR and other sensors. Sensor input is received and processed, we understand, by a quad-core x86 processor using a modified version of Ubuntu Linux.

    What happens when the GPS data is unavailable, as with a long tunnel? Does the car get lost?"

    Again, what do sat navs do in tunnels? Use "Dead Reckoning" - it already knows it's in a tunnel because the map data is already in it's system, so it simply judges where it is by the current speed via GPS just before it went into the tunnel (which will be far far easier in a car because it will be able to rely on the car's speedometer directly and not on the speed upon entering the tunnel).

    So good points, but took me not even a second to work out, so Google's engineers would have clearly already thought of this.

  2. sandman

    Unbiased Opinion

    For a totally fair and unbiased opinion may I recommend - http://sniffpetrol.com/2014/05/28/google-announces-shitty-car-for-idiots/

  3. Snivelling Wretch
    Headmaster

    > "software algorithms so that the vehicles can drive safely and relatively anonymously"

    I think you mean "autonomously" - this is Google we're talking about after all.

  4. chris lively

    Mr. Mellor,

    I humbly request you stop posting on topics that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Stick with storage.

  5. Kevin 6

    Here is a question

    Where I live the street lights a good amount of times are burnt out so say there is a red light, but then the green is burnt out does the car just sit there?

    Also the times there are power failures that take street lights out how would it react? Will it just be like hey there's no stop light, and no stop sign so I can cruise clean through ignoring traffic?

    Or something that would terrify me is it going to use directions provided by google? http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/10-dumbest-google-map-fails.html That site is a case in point. So what about when a blind person asks to be driven somewhere, and the thing instead drives off a bridge, or strands them in the middle of nowhere.

  6. Russ Pitcher
    Flame

    Oh, for Pete's sake!

    This is a lousy article - possibly the worst I've ever read on El Reg. What we have here is an author who has already made up his mind and is desperate to find any argument to use against the idea, no matter how weak, rather than a reasoned assessment of the technology taken to its logical conclusion. And to be honest, complaining about the possibility of improving mobility and freedom for the physically and visually disabled is pretty offensive!

    This is a prototype of a new and game-changing technology. All the points made and more need to be worked out, no-one is denying that, but how about exploring the real impact that such vehicles might have - for better or worse - as they are gradually introduced into the real world, improving all the time. What might life be like in 20, 50 or 80 years time? Think how much better life could be if the two hours a day I currently spend driving to and from work - sometimes with my mind on other things, no matter how good my intentions are - could be spent starting work during the commute, reading a book, calling friends, doing anything within reason! Properly managed, this could reduce congestion, shorten journey times, improve efficiency and boost safety. None of this will happen overnight, but if we work hard it will probably get there.

    And no, I don't like the idea of giving up the right to drive my own vehicle, but surely a reasonable compromise can be worked out and the potentially huge benefits are worth some sacrifice? Every disruptive change is just that - disruptive, but after the pain comes the real benefit. The industrial revolution was a bugger for those that lived through it and lost their livelihood, but I'm glad it happened!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh, for Pete's sake!

      Here here.

      18 years ago, I thought I'd learn to drive, and in about 25 years, my licence would be irrelevant as all cars would drive themselves by then - this kind of depressed me, as I quite liked driving at the time. Now I've grown up a bit, and live in a city - I'd by happy for Google to drive me to work and back rather than have to start stop every 2 seconds...

      Why complain and pick holes at a prototype that someone is trying?! Surely that's stifling innovation, something that I'd expect the reg to be in favour of!

  7. tangerine Sedge

    Of course it won't fly

    As DaggerChild stated, this will be explored then quietly dropped when the issues, cost and reluctance to adopt make it unviable.

    These autonomous cars will never work in a mixed environment, it's just too complex and there are too many variables to consider for a 100% safe solution(*).

    Therefore, the only option is to separate these cars from other road users, i.e. build very expensive exclusive infrastructure. This is never going to happen, as this is exactly the same problems that Buses and trains have, i.e. fixed routes and timetables ( if you think that there will be enough google cars to cope with rush hour traffic then you will be mistaken. You'll be in a queue waiting for your car with everyone else, apart from those people that have paid google for priority).

    What Google has failed to understand, is that cars have given people a massive amount of freedom. The freedom to go where you want, when you want. You don't have to book anything, you just jump in your car/bike and go. People are not going to give that up without a massive fight.

    (*) variable weather conditions, pot-holes, closed roads, other road users, pedestrians, random cats/dogs/drunkards, fallen branches, escaped sheep. And to keep 100% safe, they'll probably travel much slower than other traffic too.

    1. DavCrav

      Re: Of course it won't fly

      "These autonomous cars will never work in a mixed environment, it's just too complex and there are too many variables to consider for a 100% safe solution(*)."

      1754 people were killed on the roads in 2012, and 23,039 people were seriously injured. We don't have a 100% safe solution now. Self-driving cars just need to be better than that.

      1. tangerine Sedge

        Re: Of course it won't fly

        1754 people were killed on the roads in 2012, and 23,039 people were seriously injured. We don't have a 100% safe solution now. Self-driving cars just need to be better than that.

        I disagree! Society currently has a very low risk threshold, so anything above a handful of deaths in these things will be a disaster.

        If 1754 people died every year in aeroplanes or trains, would that be acceptable? Trains and planes are highly regulated to ensure safety, and I believe that google cars would be in the same category.

        Imagine the Daily Wail headline : "Robocar kills 10 in high speed joy ride!", with the tagline "PM Farage demands action now!".

        I assume human nature categorises risk appetite depending upon how much control they have over the situation. If someone feels in control (i.e. a driver) they'll accept more risk, if they are not in control (i.e. a passenger) they will accept less risk.

        Therefore, these vehicles would have to reduce deaths to just a handful every year to be considered succesful. I'm not saying it's logical, or rational, but I truly believe that will be the case. Combine that with the costs of infrastructure and these things will never be accepted.

        Perhaps some aspect of these vehicles will be incorporated into future cars though? Improved cruise control for motorways which control speed and distance according to other traffic around you. Perhaps they will communicate with other cars and become fuel efficient automated convoys? Like cruise control now, as soon as the driver takes control then the auto-pilot switches off. But then, this is all stuff that the major manufacturers are investigating now.

        The whole thing is a puff-piece for Google to demonstrate how cutting edge they are (even though every man and his dog in the auto industry can do driverless cars).

        1. Charles 9

          Re: Of course it won't fly

          The thing about trains and airplanes is that they have a lot attached to them and operate in environments where, if they fail, they tend to fail badly. In the actuarial world, that's called "low-probability, high-consequence". IOW, planes statistically are safer than cars BUT when a plane DOES go wrong, 9 times out of 10 it isn't pretty. Can you say the same about a car, even an automated one?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Of course it won't fly

      If being self driving was the price I had to pay to finally get my flying car I'd accept it gladly.

  8. sabroni Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Top Article.

    It's got all the googletards in a lather!

  9. BlinkenLights

    These cars need a human level AI.

    So how will these cars cope with roadworks, temporary traffic lights and stop/go boards?

    Instructions from police officers at accident scenes?

    Obstructions in the road and narrow streets with cars parked on one or both sides?

    Will it understand gestures from other drivers or headlight flashes giving way to it in those situations?

    Will anyone let one of these cars in from a side road in heavy traffic and how will it know when it can pull out?

    Think about every decision you make when driving and then how a computer driven car would know about that situation and how would it be programmed to deal with it?

    1. Zane

      Re: These cars need a human level AI....on the contrary

      You'd be surprised how bad the "human level AI" compares to some rather simple algorithms

      for coping with the situations you mention.

      Humans are not very good at driving cars.

      Two simple examples:

      - parking: normally, in about 30% of the cases where the car would have fit into the parking lot, the driver is too afraid it won't or thinks it will be too complicated, or just doesn't have a good 3dimensional view of the situation to get it done. The algorithms to get a car into every parking lot if it fits is pretty simple - I worked with guys who have written this kind of software, it works amazingly well.

      - breaking: a lot of accidents happen because drivers are too shy to break hard enough. In fact, if you have moderately modern car, there is already a lot of software involved when you break, which will make sure that the car really stops and does not break out. Software is very good at breaking your car hard enough so it does not touch anything.

      /Zane

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This thing

    needs it's own road, like the subway. I don't think this will go well on ordinary roads until every car is a driver less car.

  11. NotWorkAdmin

    Tell me I’m wrong.

    OK, you asked, I'll tell you you're wrong (AFAIK). The premise (as usual) is that humans can negotiate roads better than machines. I'm afraid I don't believe that. Yes I'm a driver. I enjoy driving, but I think I can be honest enough with myself to admit I am far, far from perfect (although, of course, I believe I'm above average - who doesn't).

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Tell me I’m wrong.

      But then, not even the ROADS obey the rules all the time. Think spontaneous incidents: unmarked holes in the road, kids or animals suddenly darting in front of you in a road with no swerve space, a tree begins to fall on the road (We can see the tree is falling and react before it actually blocks; how will the car hold out on something that irregular?), blackouts that take out the traffic lights or other situations where the traffic control isn't done by a machine but by a human using gestures or signs that may not even be well-coordinated.

  12. BongoJoe

    How will it pay the toll over the Severn Bridge?

    1. DJO Silver badge

      Tolls

      How will it pay the toll over the Severn Bridge

      This is Google we're talking about, they already know everything about you so taking the toll directly from your bank account (plus 5% handling charge) would be trivial.

      Of course the guided coin cannon might be tricky, alternatively arrangements with the toll operators shouldn't be impossible, but less entertaining.

      1. trigpoint

        Re: Tolls

        Considering the Severn Bridge can't even take cards, I can't see them taking direct debit anytime soon/

    2. Fink-Nottle

      > How will it pay the toll over the Severn Bridge?

      Trick question.

      Everyone knows a journey to Wales in a Google car would be impossible. Welsh place names have too many characters to be input by touch screen and are impossible to decipher using speech recognition.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Whatever happened to OCR and direct location plotting?

  13. Gannon (J.) Dick

    Wow.

    I wonder if they got the idea for driverless cars while laying in partner-less beds ?

    Oh, and will there be some sort of Siri-like assistance involved when it becomes necessary for the human passenger to roll down the window and flip the bird to nearby drivers ? This could be a show-stopper. Often this is the only braking device installed in New Jersey cars.

    1. Manual Shift

      Re: Wow.

      Amen

  14. Hollerith 1

    I like driving, but...

    ...I do rather like the idea of starting the five-hour drive to Cornwall with a flask of good coffee, plentiful snacks, movies and books, and a foot-rest, and enjoying being driven while relaxing, perhaps with a little nap, the whole way. Just like a train, only totally private and I'm taken right to the door.

    A discreet commode would make it a little palace.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: I like driving, but...

      Yes, but this is Google so there will be timing issues ... that's probably an obscure way to put it

      OK. What I really want to know is: Do you make a mad dash for the commode when the adverts go off and the movie comes on ? Will there be sufficient time before the ads come back on again ?

      Perhaps some Do No Evil(tm) time shifting features could insure you could always back up the movie so as not to miss any advertising ? A crowdsourceable commode, maybe ? I'm just tossing out these ideas, this has to be thought through or the Technology will be the bane of us all.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I like driving, but...

      How would the robo-car behind react to the sudden appearance of a turd* in the road?

      *not driving an Audi

  15. tk666

    If you think these things can make the traffic worse then you obviously live in a country where the humans can drive. I live in California, where nothing, man , beast or machine could be more inept than the local drivers. Maybe that's why google is optimistic.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      California drivers inept?

      You've never been to New York (or Boston) have you?

      1. Charles 9

        Re: California drivers inept?

        You want a REAL test? Try a major southeast Asian city, like Manila. There you have all the worst things you can imagine: impromptu roadblocks, snap constructions, flimsy guardrails, and roads filled with drivers who never seem to obey any kind of signage or road marking (probably because most roads, even multi-lane ones, are unmarked). Heck, good luck finding a traffic light. Oh, did I forget to mention all the different methods of transport that use the same stretch of asphalt, including pedestrians, bicycles, human- and animal-drawn carts, and all sorts of improvised vehicles that would be practically alien to any outsider?

  16. Message From A Self-Destructing Turnip

    Cup holders

    "We think it will still have cup-holders though."

    Pahh! We will all be supping coffee and orange juice straight from the clouds.

  17. Fink-Nottle

    Look on the bright side ...

    ... no more Jeremy Clarkson on the TV!!!

  18. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Can it honk?

    Here in Silicon Valley, it seems that anyone breathing can get a driver's license or install a traffic light. It's impossible to get around some areas without honking, occasionally going through a defective red light, or making an illegal U-turn when idiocracy reaches the critical point of deadlock.

    From what I've seen of Google's self-driving cars, they simply avoid areas of bad drivers and broken traffic lights. That logic is not going to work on a wider deployment. The cars would get jammed or smashed on both sides entering Sunnyvale.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Re: Can it honk?

      "... they simply avoid areas of bad drivers and broken traffic lights."

      Brilliant!!!!!

      This will enable them to exclude most of the EU and not just France or Paris.

  19. ben edwards

    The 1-second buffer is almost TOO short in the SF bay area. There's too many intersections where people flaunt their red light at the left turn for up to 5 seconds and roll through regardless.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Business Friendly

      Well, Ben, you know how tough it is for startups to gain a toe hold on competitive markets.

      Perhaps if you offered to shut down BART then Google could work feverishly to develop a driverless car that stops at red lights.

  20. Richard Jukes

    Google powered motorhome, set the address and the alarm clock, wake up shower, coffee and get delivered straight to work. Extra hour in bed. Genius.

    1. Gannon (J.) Dick

      Genius

      Genius. Now there's a word I don't often hear applied to the lifestyle of poor musicians and campaigning politicians

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    additional benefits include no interactions with dvla, no need for insurance, no parking or speeding tickets.

    councils will go bust owing to losing the profits from parking tickets. the govt won't like losing it's photo identity cards either.

    win win!

  22. Borg.King

    What about the empty Google cars?

    Kids will take the family car to go to their friends, and then send it back home empty. When they want picking up they'll call the car to come and get them.

    No need for the parents to be taxi drivers now. Families might even get an extra google-car just to be the kid's taxi.

    1. Diogenes

      Re: What about the empty Google cars?

      Great , between school and after hours activities (sport, ballet etc) parents will never need to interact with their offspring

      1. DiViDeD

        Re: What about the empty Google cars?

        "between school and after hours activities (sport, ballet etc) parents will never need to interact with their offspring"

        And that would be a problem because?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: What about the empty Google cars?

          Because, at least west of the Atlantic, a chronic spate of parents not keeping their kids under control is leading to a spate of malcontents. Schools aren't allowed to teach much behavior (because they're government institutions and they're supposedly not supposed to legislate morality) and parents are shirking their responsibilities.

  23. Joe Gurman

    Mr. Cranky?

    My, my, did we get up on the wrong side of bed today? Someone's pretty cranky, that's for sure.

    Most green lights in the States, at least, last a lot longer than 5 seconds, so the putative two fewer cars to get through an intersection per cycle will probably be not 20% but more like 5% fewer. And if all the cars in the queue start moving at the same time, or only a fraction of a second later, a lot more vehicles will get through the intersection than with drivers talking to passengers, checking their e-mail, texting, polishing their toenails, eating, .... and all the other driver behaviors that make motoring so much fun.

    I'd be much more concerned about how good the software is when the first cars are released for real-life road driving. What will the vehicle do when the traffic lights are out? (That happens here often enough when electrical storms pass through that it's a common experience among human drivers.) What do they do in the case of animals on the road? Spill from trucks (sorry, lorries)? Humans crossing the road in the dark wearing dark clothes, on rainy nights? Semi-trailers changing lanes without signaling, and not seeing the wee people-pods?

    I wish Google all the luck in the world with this.

  24. Old Handle
    Go

    There are some valid criticisms here (such at the platoon as barrier problem), but the green light thing is silly. All they're doing is emulating what human drivers typically do. In my experience people only very rarely actually start moving the instant the light changes. They might do it if they're in a big hurry or they want to get ahead of everyone else so the can change lanes. But normally attention starts wander and they could easily take a second to react to the green light.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Thing is, the average drive IS in a hurry AND have learned to get telltale clues that the light's about to cycle. Ideally, especially at night, they keep an eye on the crossways lights. Once they're seen yellow, the driver knows it's time and can prepare. Even during the day, drivers can watch the cross traffic. When most of them start slowing down as they approach (because they won't make the light without attracting a cop), that's usually a sign their light's turning red.

      Based on my own firsthand experience, cars usually start rolling WITHIN a second of the light turning green. Cars that don't usually start getting horned.

  25. ian 22

    More vehicles? Horrors!

    So expanding markets is a bad thing? If you are a libertarian, you must be a rather bad one.

    In any case, the straw men you present (how platoons will interact, for example) are easily knocked down. Your concern that Granny will achieve some semblance of independence is touching, however I suspect you've never spoken with Granny and heard her frustration and resentment at having her mobility curtailed.

  26. Diogenes
    Coat

    Jeremy Clarkson ???

    Will he be able to tip one over ?

    1. MrXavia

      Re: Jeremy Clarkson ???

      you just KNOW they will try to make it crash....

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like