VIDEO: Google's Secret Driverless Cars In Action
 

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VAiH1LX8guk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VAiH1LX8guk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

How do we know its driverless?

I saw a driver in that pious....

I can't decide what is more cool- the fact that they have these autonomous cars... or the fact that they kept it a secret for over a year that they were doing this project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html?_r=1
Official Google Blog: What we’re driving at

Wierd.

It's about time. Really, when you think of the technology involved (gps, motion sensor, radar/laser tracking) all the technology exists, it's just a question of a) putting it all together and b) convincing people that it's safe. Finally someone has tackled the first part. The second part may be much more difficult. But think of the increase in productivity of your average commuter if that 1-3 hours per day was suddenly freed up to work.

Weird, but I thought I saw a driver too. A driver with the seat in a far back position that would obscure view by the window/ door pillars.

There is a driver, he just doesn't have anything to do. I wonder why the car seemed to brake hard after the camera was on them.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1286801566.jpg

It looks like there are 3 people in the car . . . 1 in the front & 2 in the back.

Ian

If they're on a public road they'd better have a driver in case things go awry.

More correctly in the context of today's economy:

Think of how many more people they could lay off if they could demand an extra 1-3 hours of productivity per day from the remaining staff?

Dollars to donuts that's what would happen.

For those poor souls that have to commute a long way every day it would be great. For my 10 minute commute it ain't gonna happen.

I bet the cost will go through the roof once the first few accidents happen and someone can get a jury to award millions. It will be just like civil aviation, every single part supplier will get sued because some idiot crashes one of those cars. The parts will get silly expensive.

That's why I refuse to use self-checkout. Guy's complain that people are on welfare, yet this technology is aimed directly at putting the poor and students out of work.

At least you will be able to drink and drive legally.

Makes getting a lil head on Rt 4 a bit more interesting...

The one major problem that I see with these things is that people are already crappy drivers. Take away their need to drive 99% of the time, and they'll get 100% worse. Then, you've got REALLY HORRIBLE drivers that only have to drive the car under unusual (probably emergency) circumstances. Folks will get more and more distracted from driving and probably even sleep while driving, which is bad in case the car NEEDS human intervention.

Lets give folks even more excuses to claim less personal responsibility.

This is one of those things that'll probably work really well when it's working right, and be a catastrophe when it goes bad.

Another thing that will have to be figured in, is response to odd situations, ice (this on is probably easy), accidents, blow outs, etc....

It's a nice idea, and it may enhance the quality of life (or, at least, appear to), but I am not convinced that it'll make the world a better place.

Idiocracy here we come

I just wonder what a realistic price for automatic driving will be. Obviously it will have to have redundant systems and be virtually bulletproof. Will it ever be practical to put a person in a car that is blind to go to the grocery store? I just can’t see how it can be cost effective.

It's an app on my phone, G2,(Google phone #2). It's just a shame my car doesn't have bluetooth or a usb port! ;)

That's exactly what the "driver" is there for according to google.

They said the "driver" didn't have to touch the controls at all.

Just did a quick search, in 2009 there were just shy of 34000 traffic deaths in the US. Let's assume this driver-less system will not be 100% accurate, and that some accidents will occur. There's no way any company would put its name on a product or service that resulted in anywhere near 34000 deaths per year (except maybe tobacco co's), so let's say they get the accuracy rate to 99.5%, and there are 500 fatal accidents per year. Aren't we then way ahead of the current status quo? What if the court system permitted a certain # of incidents liability-free? Like say 500 or 1000. We've still cut the annual fatalities to almost 1/40th the current rate, which, anyway you look it, is a massive improvement. So maybe computers are to blame for those 1000 deaths, rather than human error. Isn't it still preferable?