Google has unveiled its design for autonomous cars. Big surprises include the absence of both steering wheel and pedals and a two-seat design that resembles a theme park ride.
On Tuesday, May 27, Google unveiled its design for self-driving cars. Big surprises for Google’s guinea-pig passengers include the absence of both steering wheel and pedals and a two-seat design that resembles a ride in a theme park.
The new Google car looks nothing like the Toyota Prius, Audi TT, or Toyota Lexus, which Google previously used for its self-driving trials. A laser radar system, with the range finder mounted on the top, however, remains a part of Google’s new design.
In this bold iteration, Google, a non-automotive company, is clearly committed to changing the conversation around self-driving cars.
Rather than promoting the self-driving car as an extension to cars we own today, Google is pitching the new prototype as a completely new category of transportation, like a “robo taxi” that picks up the young, the old, and the disabled to carry them from point A to point B.
Google’s promo video makes that clear. As Larry Page, Google’s co-founder, wrote in the comment section of the video clip, this is “a next step for the self-driving car team... this video says it all.”
Beyond all the technology and regulatory issues anticipated, I firmly believe that the biggest hurdle autonomous cars must clear is us: namely, our deeply rooted -- and not entirely unreasonable -- distrust of machines.
No, I’m not being a Luddite here.
One of the prevailing, recurrent themes of science fiction, from Karel Capek to the Terminator films, depicts a benevolent machine whose intelligence has progressed to the point beyond that of humans. But somehow, something goes wrong, and we, the humans, don’t have a clue about how to stop the machine.
I think Google, a master of its own messaging, has seen the movie. In fact, the company makes mighty efforts in the promotional video to ease that yet-to-surface, basic human trepidation about machines.
Sure, we hear people casually talking about how “cool” Google’s self-driving car is. It is cool. But in reality, I think many of us would still need a lot more convincing before plunking down, sometime around 2020, serious money for an autonomous car.
However, if the self-driving car neither looks nor acts like a car as we know it today, and if it’s designed to function as a personal bus or cab instead of a replacement for our own driving machine, I think that Google’s new self-driving car might be onto something.
It’s one thing that conventional automakers promote the Advanced Driver Assistance System (ADAS) as a suite of new safety bells and whistles. But it’s a whole different ballgame talking the existing customer base into buying autonomous cars. Decoupling the concept of the car from the very act of driving is a radical departure for any car OEM.
Clearly, the next chapter of the self-driving car isn’t about designing the super-cool car of the next decade, which most carmakers are very good at.
Google’s co-founder Sergey Brin believes the new Google car prototypes have "the ability to change the world and the community around you." Well, even if you don’t totally buy into the altruistic pitch that Google cars will help the underserved, Google has taken an irrevocable first step in changing the debate on the autonomous car, from being a personal luxury to a tool that serves the social good.
— Junko Yoshida, Chief International Correspondent, EE Times
I like re-framing the concept from something extraordinary with lots of technology and costing hundreds of thousands to car for all...I easily see nobody owning a car in 50 years (like nobody owns a train, a plane or a bus with few very minor exceptions)...but how do we get there is not clear to me...for 50 years there will be a mix of people and computers driving the cars...Kris
This seems like a step in the right direction. Rather than gradually wean folks off of driving, offer them a viable replacement. Something like this could start operating in restricted areas of cities or communities, for instance, as an alternative form of public transportation (the taxi driverw would hate it). Then, as people got used to being driven about by a machine, the self-directed vehicles could be phased out by raising the driver skill level requirements so that not just everyone could get a driver's license.
@kris, I am glad you like this reframing of the concept. I have always suspected this but I think Google's latest video clip makes it clear...this ain't a car as we know it for our own driving, but it is simply a "ride" -- another transportation mechanism.
Rather than envisioning the day when nobody owns the car, I'd like to see it yet another transportation mechanism we can use when we feel like it...
I wonder what is currently being discussed or soon to be discussed in the boardrooms of Tesla, Nissan, Crysler, GM, Ford et al? Google, with this and also their Maps and their Streetview have a huge headstart on any answer they may respond with.
Feels to me like a compelling medium-term threat to their skin in the game.
Lovely!! Google has demonstrated again that the team Google has the capability of innovating the right product. This is what is expected out of the self driving car....passengers would just have to seat and enjoy...rest will be taken care by car's automated driving system. Next step would be to demonstrate the same car moving on a busy road...and hope to see that soon!
I agree Rich, that sounds liek a sensible thing to do...I would welcome rising levels of driving skills required right now, half of the people where I live (Vancouver) don't know how to drive...and don't get me started on texting while driving, that already kills more people than alkochol
"Something like this could start operating in restricted areas of cities or communities"
I think this hits the nail on the head. One of the fears I head about self driving cars relates to all of the variabilities that exist when driving. Remove a lot of the variables and a lot of those concerns become mitigated.
I have seen this LASER device on top of the vehicle, and think that it falls far short of what it is wanting or supposed to do.
Instead of the "Bubble-Gum" machine on top, they should have pulse coded LASERs surounding the car horizontally, and then some on top to check for low clearances. Then use the available Radar sensors (Front & Back) to judge distance between other vehicles, and GPS for positionning the vehicle.
Why did they settle for such a silly device as they did, when better technology is already in use on standard cars today?
I don't argue that having a self automation vehicle is a good thing to have, and there are some foundations that might be in a possition to institute them into a transit program in some cities.
But, Google needs to find some new blood for their mix of "Techies" to start thinking further than where they are right now. I think their technology for this auto is in a stale-mate, and won't go into production untill they get rid of the LASER scanner on the roof. Somebody there must have a personal interest or agenda for keeping that rediculus thing.
Just some of my musings over it. I would like to see them in production, but make it realistically functional, and safe for the passengers.