tech

Google expects public in driverless cars in 2 to 5 years

18 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

Just imagine all the lost revenue from the lack of moving violations. Kinda doubt gubmints will go along with that. No speeding tickets, no traffic light violations, no DUI/DWI. That's a LOT of people's money governments won't get.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Michael Craig: "...And if you're too drunk or sleepy to drive, the car can take you home." In the old days it was called a horse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Families can have picnics on the road. And if you're too drunk or sleepy to drive, the car can take you home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be really dumb to make these cars without manual controls. If the automatic system was to fail, the occupants on the vehicle, as well as the ones in the surrounding area would be doomed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Google driverless cars not going to be 100% accident free and Google expect to be sued 24/7 365 because car didn't go right or left or didn't accelerate or stop on time..This project is good for Mars colonization where everything will be build from scratch..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If it weren't for the cozy relationship between the Walt Disney Company and Apple (after all, the late Steve Jobs actually ended up being a Disney board member thanks to Disney acquiring Pixar), Google could have used the Walt Disney World resort to do a public test of driverless car technology, moving passengers between various portions of the resort in a highly-controlled manner.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Google said everyone will want to wear google glasses but had to scrap them because they are crap. Maybe some people want to actually use their brain and do things for themselves!! Although one look at the typical person on a japanese subway in the morning it will probably go down well here as they more time to have their face stuck in a screen rather than interact with people.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

An autonomous car can by itself:

Drive the kids to football practice and home again Drive you to and home from a party, even after drinking Fetch the in-laws for Sunday dinner sand return them home afterwords Find the way to where you want to go Park the car when you're done with it and drive the car to you when you want or med it. Drive itself to service when needed Make sure your kids doesn't crash it when they are allowed using it Return that lawn mower to your brother in law without you having to go Make money by letting other use your car when you don't need to (Uber and similar) You can work/play/sleep on longer trips You can order an autonomous car when your manual car breaks wherever you are.

And so on... This will most likely be a reality in the next five to fifteen years, with some of these options available in as little as two to three years.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I just cannot see the point of this.... I would guess the majority of people who drive cars enjoy doing so. Where is the enjoyment in a driver-less car?

Imagine your eyesight is below the legal limit to obtain a driver's license, and your employer transfers you to a location where there is no public transportation. (Unlike, say, making someone in a wheelchair work on the second floor of a building with no elevator, no one will raise a fuss if a boss does this to someone..)

Wouldn't you be very thankful for the existence of automated cars in such a situation?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Driverless car A crashes with Human drive carr B. Owner of car A says it's not my fault i wasn't even driving, so who pays? who is liable?

Well, I guess if its a software fault, the software manufacturer, if its a hardware fault, the manufacturer of the hardware. If the driver hasn't properly maintained it, or is using the software/hardware outside of its specifications or something, a bit like driving around without valid shaken now, the driver of car A. If this is going to be a very rare event, and a company, say Google, is making enough money out of the industry, I guess they'll pay when rare events like this were to happen.

How on earth can you make this massive assumption. Who's to say there won't be more accidents more people killed?

The testing that has been done. Like driving 700,000 miles without an accident. There's a lot more to be done, like adapting to poor weather conditions safely but they'll get there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You don't that's silly.

I was of course being flippant but it't a serious question. Driverless car A crashes with Human drive carr B. Owner of car A says it's not my fault i wasn't even driving, so who pays? who is liable?

But with less people killed or seriously messed up

How on earth can you make this massive assumption. Who's to say there won't be more accidents more people killed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I already don't enjoy semi or automatic transmission in cars and on newer Bikes.

Let push the levers and wiggle the sticks, grew IP with manual all the way.

In the future driverless will be mostly used but not in the near future(next few decades).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I would guess the majority of people who drive cars enjoy doing so. Where is the enjoyment in a driver-less car?

It will become an ethical/moral issue once driverless cars are proven to be safer than human drivers. If you've got 6000 road traffic fatalities per year in a country like Japan, and you can reduce it to close to zero, its hard to justify not to.

And what happens when inevitably one of these things crashes, who's fault is it?

We have that problem already. Manufacturers of equipment, cars etc. can be prosecuted if they don't follow laws regarding safety. Sometimes accidents happen and its no one's fault.

and how can you prosecute a machine?

You don't that's silly.

this will be an insurance nightmare.

But with less people killed or seriously messed up.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think a very significant number of people drive cars to get from A to B rather than for enjoyment - potentially a massive market.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I just cannot see the point of this....

I would guess the majority of people who drive cars enjoy doing so. Where is the enjoyment in a driver-less car?

And what happens when inevitably one of these things crashes, who's fault is it? always the human driver because the machine can't be wrong can it? and how can you prosecute a machine?.......... this will be an insurance nightmare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

can't be too soon! everyone over a certain age should then be forced to use one of these. Less accidents involving geriatrics.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It will make the roads safer! Will allow one to have a few drinks and ride home in safety.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I guess they have spotted a market for these, though for the life of me I cannot see the attraction. Take the physical and mental movements of driving out of most people's lives and it would complete the couch potato cycle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites