A Trip in a Self-Driving Car Now Seems Routine

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times: A Trip in a Self-Driving Car Now Seems Routine

Boring.  That's the best way to sum up my second ride in a Google self-driving car, on Tuesday.

My first ride, now almost four years ago, included merging onto a freeway and navigating a sweeping flyover curve with all the dexterity of a human driver. This time our route was even more mundane, basically an uneventful tour through the city streets of a Silicon Valley community.

Since it created the project in 2009, Google has upgraded its fleet of cars from Priuses to Lexus S.U.V.s, and the navigational hardware, positioned in the vehicle trunk, is now more compact. Also, when the driver switches into autopilot, it no longer makes a neat, swooshing Star Trek sound effect. Rather, an anodyne female voice informs passengers that the car is now driving.

[Dr Frankenstein]

As a programmer and roadgeek, I still don't trust self-driving cars. Sure, the driving rules are rigid, but the surrounding drivers aren't following them as rigidly. Cities, towns and county don't follow traffic control device rules as rigidly. Heck, even DOTs fail at following their own rules. Heuristics have to be involved at some point or another, and that means being prone to false matches. Heck, simple computer programs are hardly ever bug-free, less so ones that are as complex as a car driver.

For example, I assume that they don't just rely on (often outdated) GIS data for things like speed limits and lane geometry, so I wonder how they could handle things such as the black speed limit signs on Canada's Capital Region parkways, or the misuse of white pavement markings (in lieu of yellow) that I've seen in a town or two.

I wouldn't even trust a car to parallel-park itself, a task that my driver's license certifies that I'm able to do anyway. Just like that whole driving thing.

What would they expect you to do with a self-driving car, anyway? Sit back and take a nap? Heck, no. You still have to be on the watch for unforeseen things or whatever would make the car fall back to manual driving. After a while, I'd go "You know what? Nevermind. I'll handle the whole thing myself."

[hotdogPi]

They probably rely on Google... because it's a Google car!

[corco]

My guess is we see a slow phase-in of self driving cars over the course of our lives. I'd guess in the next ten years or so we'll see them start to be introduced as secondary features, and fifty years from now the self-driving will be the default but the car will have a manual override.

Because of what Carl says, I'd assume it first becomes legal to drive a self-driving car on, say, only interstates, with the car able to tell you whether or not it is capable of self-driving on any given stretch of road. Slowly that network would expand, human drivers will become marginalized, and at some point you'd only need to use the manual override if you're out on a logging road or something, and at some point the car will be able to "learn" as it drives, sharing that information on new roads it "discovers" with cloud servers up in the sky, and at that point hopefully I'll be dead.

[realjd]

As a programmer and roadgeek, I still don't trust self-driving cars. Sure, the driving rules are rigid, but the surrounding drivers aren't following them as rigidly. Cities, towns and county don't follow traffic control device rules as rigidly. Heck, even DOTs fail at following their own rules. Heuristics have to be involved at some point or another, and that means being prone to false matches. Heck, simple computer programs are hardly ever bug-free, less so ones that are as complex as a car driver.

For example, I assume that they don't just rely on (often outdated) GIS data for things like speed limits and lane geometry, so I wonder how they could handle things such as the black speed limit signs on Canada's Capital Region parkways, or the misuse of white pavement markings (in lieu of yellow) that I've seen in a town or two.

I wouldn't even trust a car to parallel-park itself, a task that my driver's license certifies that I'm able to do anyway. Just like that whole driving thing.

What would they expect you to do with a self-driving car, anyway? Sit back and take a nap? Heck, no. You still have to be on the watch for unforeseen things or whatever would make the car fall back to manual driving. After a while, I'd go "You know what? Nevermind. I'll handle the whole thing myself."

The cars have a number of sensors beyond GPS and a camera. Usually they have LIDAR, thermal imaging, ultrasound, and a number of other ways to detect what's going on.

You're right about there being heuristics, but they're not programmed by hand. These types of systems rely heavily on machine learning. The premise is at Google writes some base rules to teach the computer how to learn, then goes and does a bunch of road tests with a human driver and a full sensor load. The computer uses that data to learn how humans drive, and thus how to drive itself.

I just found this great article that goes more in detail about the current state of self driving cars, the history behind them, and how they work. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/11/25/131125fa_fact_bilger?currentPage=all

[vdeane]

And then the cars become sentient and take over the world like in that Pixar movie.  And then the technology will be expanded to trains and boats a la Thomas the Tank Engine and Theodore Tugboat.

What would they expect you to do with a self-driving car, anyway? Sit back and take a nap? Heck, no. You still have to be on the watch for unforeseen things or whatever would make the car fall back to manual driving. After a while, I'd go "You know what? Nevermind. I'll handle the whole thing myself."

I wouldn't be surprised if self-driving cars fail to take off without government mandates for this reason (or changes to the law allowing the cars to be fully autonomous).  People's enthusiasm for them will die REALLY fast once they realize they still have to watch the road.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

As an avid car and driving enthusiast, I am staunchly opposed to self-driving cars, but I'm pretty sure I've made that clear before.

[realjd]

As an avid car and driving enthusiast, I am staunchly opposed to self-driving cars, but I'm pretty sure I've made that clear before.

Yeah, this isn't the first time we've had this discussion.

To be clear up front, I'm excited by the technology, safety, and convenience; but I absolutely do not want to make this mandatory. I'll probably buy a self driving car when they're available but want to keep a self driving sports car for fun.

[corco]

I am certainly glad I'll probably be dead by the time we get to that point, because I love driving, but the idea would be to eventually make self-driving illegal.

If the robots are good enough at communicating with each other, you can do away with more or less all traffic lights, signs, etc. The way traffic flows would, in theory, be a lot more efficient as the sort of neural hive mind created by a bunch of cars in an area could have traffic automatically move as efficiently as possible, in ways a group of people could never do- and a person self-driving would theoretically hinder that process (though certainly by that point all the robo-cars would know of the presence of a self-driven car and could plan accordingly, but the self-driver might not be able to handle driving on a road that is surrounded by robo-cars, especially if it leads to the substantial modification of traffic laws to increase efficiency). Really neat stuff, but I'm hoping to be dead before it happens.

[jeffandnicole]

I think we'll move into self driving cars quicker than we think. As it is, car technology has moved pretty slow over the past 100 years.

Look at flight: the first plane flew a few hundred feet in the 1900's. 60 years later, we were flying to the moon.

Yet, we somehow have kept cars simple. Only over the past 20 years have cars become more computerized. But with that technology, it can be used with some additional equipment to automate driving relatively quickly.

And for those that think it'll take the fun away from driving: I think the exact opposite. Now you can drive longer, further, and be able to see more and take more pictures while you have the car programmed to take you where you want to go.

[Takumi]

As an avid car and driving enthusiast, I am staunchly opposed to self-driving cars, but I'm pretty sure I've made that clear before.

Same.

[briantroutman]

As an avid car and driving enthusiast, I am staunchly opposed to self-driving cars, but I'm pretty sure I've made that clear before.

I think you're missing the up-side here. As an avid car and driving enthusiast, I embrace anything that might prevent befuddled seniors, soccer moms, and sleepy 9-to-5ers from tying up traffic through their own ineptitude.

My takeaway is: 99% of people view driving as an unwelcome chore. Good riddance to them; I hope they enjoy being shuttled in their self-driving Prii–or better yet, take mass transit. Coupled with more stringent driver training requirements and higher use fees, that will free the rest of the highway for those who enjoy driving and have demonstrated the technical and financial capacity to do so proficiently.

Now if this comes at the cost of self-drivers (i.e. they're barred from the road or are given less than adequate facilities), I'll be opposed.

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

In order for self-driving cars to function as efficiently as possible, all of the vehicle's controls will need to be by-wire, including the steering.  Steer-by-wire will destroy the driving experience.

And mark my words: they will be mandated.  Not might.  Will.  It will be in the name of Safety™, as always.

[Dr Frankenstein]

I mean, we keep laughing at people that take GPS directions as absolute, right?

I don't expect that we'll the ability to pre-program an itinerary in much more detail than "Point A to Point B", perhaps with intermediate stops, on a self-driving car. I expect weird (and possibly crippling) congestion patterns to come out of this. That narrow, unpaved park road that's straighter than the beautifully paved and graded highway that goes around the park AND has the same functional classification on Google's map, and which Google Maps always routes you through? Oh man, Hell awaits.

Also, I-95, because Interstate. Man, those snowbirds' trips to Miami are going to be miserable (but hey, they won't have to handle it by themselves). There's a reason why I go through Delmarva.

[vdeane]

At best we'll be able to choose from up to 3 oddly routed itineraries like you can on Google Maps if the route isn't modified.  If the majority of the public just blindly follows GPS, does anyone really think that automakers will take the time to allow users to choose their route, given that Joe Public does not care?  At best, it will be top of the line cars only.  The ability to travel old alignments or clinch out of the way highways will essentially go away.  I don't expect that the computer will keep a following distance optimal for photos/videos either.

And mark my words: they will be mandated.  Not might.  Will.  It will be in the name of safety, as always.

I believe it's Safety(TM)!

[Crazy Volvo Guy]

I believe it's Safety(TM)!

Duly noted, post updated.