Bill Signed In California To Allow Driverless Cars

[Darkness.]

Source, and to read more. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19726951

A bill to bring driverless cars to roads in California has been signed.

State Governor Jerry Brown backed legislation on Tuesday, and said: "Today we're looking at science-fiction becoming tomorrow's reality".

The bill was signed at the headquarters of Google, which has been testing a fleet of 12 autonomous computer-controlled vehicles for several years.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin said self-driving cars would be "far safer" than those driven by humans.

[Magical]

Awesome.

If only people weren't so bad drivers. And walked when they weren't supposed to.

Then we could allow these.

But people be walkin'. And people could be dying, if these cars don't react fast enough. Brains are still better than computers in this regard.

I really don't think the 'drivers' will be paying attention.

Not safe yet.

[Cognizant]

But people be walkin'. And people could be dying, if these cars don't react fast enough. Brains are still better than computers in this regard.

I really don't think the 'drivers' will be paying attention.

Not safe yet.

Agreed.
Not to mention, California drivers suck at driving... horridly.

[UnknownError]

:PAwesome.

If only people weren't so bad drivers. And walked when they weren't supposed to.

Then we could allow these.

But people be walkin'. And people could be dying, if these cars don't react fast enough. Brains are still better than computers in this regard.

I really don't think the 'drivers' will be paying attention.

Not safe yet.

Motion detectors or whatever they are called would be in the front of the vehicle. Like if something gets in like the space of a metre infront of the car, it would brake.

I think it's cool.

[Zenos]

When did I step out of the real world and in to the action/scy-fy movie The Demolition Man?

[Jess]

that's pretty cool..

[Magical]

:P

Motion detectors or whatever they are called would be in the front of the vehicle. Like if something gets in like the space of a metre infront of the car, it would brake.

I think it's cool.

And so those motion detecters would be able to stop the car at 100 km/h?

When the person is 300 meters away?

Nope.

They can't.

[techgeek]

thts sweet

[Gordo]

It's awesome and they will be better than humans. They will be able to stop as fast as the car would with a driver. Some day that's how all cars will drive and be connected to each other. No more accidents, way more fuel economy because they won't have to stop as much.

[Iron Man]

Cool. Next step is getting said cars on the mainstream market.

[Magical]

It's awesome and they will be better than humans. They will be able to stop as fast as the car would with a driver. Some day that's how all cars will drive and be connected to each other. No more accidents, way more fuel economy because they won't have to stop as much.

Yes. They will be able to put the brakes on, just as hard as a person.

But how will they see and identify a person crossing the road (like an idiot)?

That's very difficult.

[Mortal Coil]

First reaction: wut.

Reaction now: wut.

I mean, it's a little shocking, but this means that there will be cars without drivers to give me the finger! This is terrible!

[StoneColdNicky]

I read about this, and the headline said something about robot cars, so I was picturing cars with robots at the wheel. To be honest, I would feel more comfortable with that than cars with NOONE at the wheel, or someone doing nothing anyway.

[Zenos]

i'd rather regular cars witrh good drivers behind the wheels

[Spook]

1. How do the cars know where to go? If they have GPS, will they ALWAYS be automatically updated to backroads and new roads?
3. If, for example, a dumb person runs into the middle of the road, will the car recognize this?
4. Will the car change it's speed based on the speed limits in said area?
5. So, does the car just know when to back up?
6. What if you want to stop for a bathroom break or something? With the car driving you don't have the opportunity for quick changes in course, right?
7. Most importantly, does the car know when a streetlight TURNS red/green, and can it SEE stop signs????

Basically we are asking for a superhuman machine. If you're required to be behind the wheel, why not just drive instead of sit there?

I just all around hate the idea, sorry.

[Darkness.]

okay- this is utterly pointless
What the fuck is the use for cars without drivers?
Cars were INVENTED to get people places; so what use is a car that drives around on the road for no freaking reason?
:facepalm:

Noboby driving =/= nobody in the car.

Driverless cars are useful for people that can't drive, but still need to get from A to B.

[Spook]

Noboby driving =/= nobody in the car.

Driverless cars are useful for people that can't drive, but still need to get from A to B.

Yes, and I changed my post after realizing this before i read your post :)

[DerBear]

I agree this might be "cool" but I don't think that even with today's technology that it would be safe enough to allow on the streets.

Humans make mistakes but it has been proven time and time again over the last century that technology can fail and go wrong and we have paid the price for putting our trust in technology so many times and we have had so many things go wrong.

It does seem "cool" but honestly is coolness worth the possible risk of humans being injured, I for one think not.

[Magical]

1. How do the cars know where to go? If they have GPS, will they ALWAYS be automatically updated to backroads and new roads?
3. If, for example, a dumb person runs into the middle of the road, will the car recognize this?
4. Will the car change it's speed based on the speed limits in said area?
5. So, does the car just know when to back up?
6. What if you want to stop for a bathroom break or something? With the car driving you don't have the opportunity for quick changes in course, right?
7. Most importantly, does the car know when a streetlight TURNS red/green, and can it SEE stop signs????

Basically we are asking for a superhuman machine. If you're required to be behind the wheel, why not just drive instead of sit there?

I just all around hate the idea, sorry.

1. If there are driverless cars that rely on GPS, I think it will be updated. Even if they weren't, so what? There would be another route I'm sure.
3. That is my issue with driverless cars. How far away can they recognise an obstacle and slow down/stop?
4. Some advanced cars today can read American speed limit signs.
5. Cameras for backing up exist, and with ultrasound the car would be able to detect objects in its path. It then would be able to stop itself promptly. If cars can parallel park, I think they can back up.
6. You're in control of where the car goes. It does the going, you do the controlling.
7. If cars can read speed limit signs, I'm sure they can read stop signs, and see if a streetlight is red, yellow or green.

I agree this might be "cool" but I don't think that even with today's technology that it would be safe enough to allow on the streets.

Humans make mistakes but it has been proven time and time again over the last century that technology can fail and go wrong and we have paid the price for putting our trust in technology so many times and we have had so many things go wrong.

It does seem "cool" but honestly is coolness worth the possible risk of humans being injured, I for one think not.

I agree that it wouldn't be safe.

However, I disagree that technology fails. It is the humans who make mistakes or do not think of things during the creation of the technology that cause it to 'fail', while all it has done was what it was exactly what it was programmed to do. Technology simply obeys.

That being said, I don't understand what you mean by 'the possible risk of humans being injured'. If there was a possible risk only, people would be swarming over this like flies. There are many accidents with humans behind the wheel. There would also be many accidents with driverless cars. However, the driverless cars would only have accidents where either they were not at fault. This is because people being idiots and illegally crossing roads not at the crossings with high speed limits does not put the car at fault. The car might not be able to stop in time, and could hit and kill said person. It would still be, essentially, the person's fault.

[FreeFall]

I'm partially in awe of this, partially wondering how many people are going to blame faults on their car since it was driving itself. Oh well, can't wait to see what happens from here on out (:

[Cognizant]

Driverless cars are useful for people that can't drive, but still need to get from A to B.
Isn't that what Public Transportation is for?

It sounds cool, but coming from a Californian, this sounds like a pretty bad idea.

[Darkness.]

Isn't that what Public Transportation is for?

It sounds cool, but coming from a Californian, this sounds like a pretty bad idea.

Public transport isn't always the best or most convenient option for people. In some places public transport isn't always available.

[ImCoolBeans]

So if I "trip" and get hit by one of those I can just sue the government for damages?

[Abyssal Echo]

Isn't that what Public Transportation is for?

It sounds cool, but coming from a Californian, this sounds like a pretty bad idea.

brainless drivers now driverless cars ugh what next ???

Pat I'll take those tickets now :D

So if I "trip" and get hit by one of those I can just sue the government for damages?

yeah lol ! good luck

Please don't double post. Use the edit button instead. -Gigablue

[Cognizant]

Public transport isn't always the best or most convenient option for people. In some places public transport isn't always available.

Well, then in my opinion, the government should be spending money to put in more bus stop signs and train stations, not driverless cars that will have price tags WAY more than what any standard public transportation system would add up to. I see way too many faults with this, especially if the car glitches and drives off a roadway, or doesn't stop at an intersection. In my opinion, a bus driver or light rail/street car operator can do some things better than a computer can do.

To put this into California's perspective, they can be spending money on lengthening Bus lines, expanding local train service, and working on finishing our states High Speed Rail system.


So if I "trip" and get hit by one of those I can just sue the government for damages?
Can you sue the government when a 'normal' automobile hits you?

[HunterSteele]

Has anyone seen Google's video of a blind man taking a ride in one of their self-driving cars? Looks like the car drives pretty well to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE

I really don't think the 'drivers' will be paying attention.
A computer isn't sentiment, so it can't get distracted. What's it gonna do, daydream about being a superhero while it's supposed to be driving?

And so those motion detecters would be able to stop the car at 100 km/h?

Nope. They can't.
Well obviously not, since motion detectors don't stop a car, the brakes do, genius. :headbonk:

Yes. They will be able to put the brakes on, just as hard as a person.

But how will they see and identify a person crossing the road (like an idiot)?
It uses a laser rangefinder, not motion detectors. If you watch the video it's the spinning thing on top of the car. It uses a laser and radar to see people, other cars, curbs, barriers, and everything else it needs to see. If a person is crossing the road, it sees them.

So, does the car just know when to back up?
You back up while driving in traffic? I hope they don't let you drive.

[ImCoolBeans]

Can you sue the government when a 'normal' automobile hits you?

I was making a joke since the bill was passed by government of California.

[Cognizant]

It uses a laser rangefinder, not motion detectors. If you watch the video it's the spinning thing on top of the car. It uses a laser and radar to see people, other cars, curbs, barriers, and everything else it needs to see. If a person is crossing the road, it sees them.
Ah, yeah. Have you seen the video of cars like that racing? It isn't without faults. The computer can sometimes become confused and stop; what if it were to get confused and stop in the middle of a freeway? How would it be able to tell a red light from a yellow or green light?

You back up while driving in traffic? I hope they don't let you drive.
That's a little rude, don't ya think? :)

[HunterSteele]

It isn't without faults. The computer can sometimes become confused and stop; what if it were to get confused and stop in the middle of a freeway? How would it be able to tell a red light from a yellow or green light?
I'm not saying it's without faults, that's why it's still being developed and we don't have any self-driving cars transporting people today.

Picking out random faults that might occur with the cars aren't valid points. Engineers and scientists have all the time they need to keep improving the system. Saying you think the technology is a bad idea because taxi drivers will lose their jobs, for example, is a good point. Saying "What if [insert something that could go wrong]" isn't.

That's a little rude, don't ya think? :)
So is reversing in traffic.

[Cognizant]

Picking out random faults that might occur with the cars aren't valid points. Engineers and scientists have all the time they need to keep improving the system. Saying you think the technology is a bad idea because taxi drivers will lose their jobs, for example, is a good point. Saying "What if [insert something that could go wrong]" isn't.


Well, then in that case, it sucks for transit workers, because people are investing in these cars more than public transit (hence the Transit agency having to lay off workers, leaving them jobless), AND the shortage of public transit accessibility to people who want to take it (like me) over the cars.

Aaaand if public transportation were to go away (because why sit back in a train when you can sit back in a driverless personal car), well, there's a lot more cars on the road. In the Bay Area alone, around 1 million, 300 thousand more people would be on the road. And with our current systems, we already struggle with congestion.

[Magical]

A computer isn't sentiment, so it can't get distracted. What's it gonna do, daydream about being a superhero while it's supposed to be driving?


Well obviously not, since motion detectors don't stop a car, the brakes do, genius. :headbonk:


It uses a laser rangefinder, not motion detectors. If you watch the video it's the spinning thing on top of the car. It uses a laser and radar to see people, other cars, curbs, barriers, and everything else it needs to see. If a person is crossing the road, it sees them.

I don't think you quite understood what I meant. The cars are required to have a legally qualified driver behind the wheel just in case. I don't believe that the driver will be paying attention or driving, hence the quote marks.

OK, that was poor wording. The laser rangefinder has to detect an object from about 100 metres away and apply the breaks.

http://www.sdt.com.au/safedrive-directory-STOPPINGDISTANCE.htm

It can do this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder#Range

However, what if it turns a corner and is within the stopping distance? Will it swerve? Will it bash into the person?

Actually, I have to revise my opinion. That wouldn't be too hard.

Driverless cars? Quite safe!

One issue, Hunter, though. We DO have self driving cars transporting people today. Remeber that video :D?

[Spook]

So is reversing in traffic.

Ahem.

You. Back. Up. When. Exit. Parking. Space.
Car. Know. How. Back. Up. From. Parking. Space?

Is that clear enough for you, honey? :rolleyes:

[Darkness.]

The car will know how to back out of a parking space. It will also know when it is safe to back out.

[HunterSteele]

I don't think you quite understood what I meant. The cars are required to have a legally qualified driver behind the wheel just in case. I don't believe that the driver will be paying attention or driving, hence the quote marks.
Oh right I didn't realize that.

However, what if it turns a corner and is within the stopping distance? Will it swerve? Will it bash into the person?
If a car turns a corner and someone's in the way, the car wouldn't react any slower than a person would. If a human driver would've hit them, the computer probably will too, since it can't defy the laws of physics.

One issue, Hunter, though. We DO have self driving cars transporting people today. Remeber that video :D?
One person. It's not like the cars are for sale yet.

You. Back. Up. When. Exit. Parking. Space.
Car. Know. How. Back. Up. From. Parking. Space?
Then the question should've been, "Will it be able to exit a parking space?" Not "Will it know when to back up?"

[Magical]

If a car turns a corner and someone's in the way, the car wouldn't react any slower than a person would. If a human driver would've hit them, the computer probably will too, since it can't defy the laws of physics.

One person. It's not like the cars are for sale yet.

Now, the computer can definately react much faster than a person. However, HOW would it react? I have conceded that while that would be difficult feat of programming at this point in time, it is quite possible.

I'm sure more than one of those cars has been made, and more than one person has been transported in one. So technically I'm correct. :D

[peter50]

Awesome its sweet to know.
Anyway all the above participants perform well...

[ImCoolBeans]

OP request :locked: