Core77

Google's Self-Driving Agenda

By Core Jr - June 2, 2014

in Cars

By Ben Valentine

After enjoying a short vacation, I finally read Google's post unveiling their brand new self-driving car prototype. I was surprised by just how disappointingly adorable the transformative car was. Their release, "Just Press Go: Designing a Self-Driving Vehicle," didn't mention why their exciting vehicle had such a kawaii face-like appearance, but our Core77 readers knew why: people are never comfortable with radical shifts. What we don't understand, we fear, and driving is dangerous enough already, thank you very much.

Forumite c4b7 believes that the launch video and surprising design is a "way to make a drastic societal change simple and intuitive." Another user, Cyberdemon elaborates, "Given the amount of scary lasers, cameras and sensors, if it looked like an F117 Stealth Fighter it may be cooler, but probably scare the crap out of people." I completely agree.

We needed the awkward and hybrid Prius before an extremely cool, sleek, and fast Tesla could take hold in the market. This type of transitioning of new technology into public acceptability is usually mitigated by distance and the price tag. Usually nobody but a few wealthy organizations can afford to experiment with new technologies at first. We only catch glimpses of the latest robots from DARPA through YouTube where we can safely watch them at a distance. If they were being tested first on our streets we'd freak out.

The problem (and the excitement) with Google is that their product is only really impressive if it can share the same roads as everyone else. To do that, Google has to get us comfortable with that idea first, even if the technology works perfectly well. This is a similar problem Google faced with Glass, and it seems like they're learning from their missteps.

To investigate this problem further, I color coded Google's recent article, to help reveal the underlying logic behind the short post and design. Unsurprisingly, the post mirrors what our commenters saw, Google emphasizes that this is still very much a test, and safety, above all else, is of the utmost importance. (Of course, if this car is anything like my Android phone, it's going to give new meaning to the word "crash.")

Interestingly, Google is also attempting to rebrand the self-driving car as offering an entirely new driving experiences—which it does—by dismissing driving as an entirely unenjoyable task. The self-driving car, Google claims, will transform mobility by offering a newfound freedom and comfort. The first paragraph even uses the term, "burden of driving;" a hard sell, considering that Americans love driving. The irony is that one of the biggest burdens associated with driving is a case in which you aren't driving or in control: traffic congestion. Even as gas prices soar and we are more cognizant of global warming, we still love to cruise around in our cars.

Michael DiTullo (yo) seems to want it both ways: "I've sat in LA traffic for 2-3 hours... sitting in that I'd much rather be sitting back reading or doing some email." But at the end of the day, he still wants "a 350+ hp beast that I can flip into full manual mode when there is no traffic... and not have it report my driving data." The strong sense of freedom and agency associated with cars is in complete opposition to a self-driving and constantly surveilled vehicle.

Meanwhile, Google does little to say how transformative this self-driving car could be. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that 32,367 people were killed in car accidents in 2011, making them more deadly than guns, but to suggest that that might change with this new car may possibly be too futuristic for us to handle. As discussion board member BUSHBY points out, "This is an exposure exercise not a product launch, the removal of the steering wheel is a big enough of a change to freak most people out. Everything is designed to put the general public at ease as much as possible..."

Whether a self-driving car is the answer to congestion and dangerous roads remains to be seen, and it's fascinating to see Google tiptoe around the fact at the heart of the debate. Instead, I see a company trying to awkwardly rebrand one of America's favorite activities (driving) as a burden; promising safety through experimentation (on your roads); and the glimpses of the first Stack to add a car to their long list of wares. We can debate the merits of this all we want, and I hope we do, yet watching radically new technology slowly slips into our range of acceptability is a fascinating lesson for any R&D team. What past science fiction writer would have created the future of today so weird and yet so normal?

o

Favorite This
Q
4

Comment

Comments

jia

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

"We needed the awkward and hybrid Prius before an extremely cool, sleek, and fast Tesla could take hold in the market."

I respectfully disagree with this statement. Tesla is as cool and sleek as any well designed cool and sleek sedan. That's the exactly the point, a car with non-conventional drive train doesn't have to have a non-conventional look. Prius may have had a better initial sale, had Toyota used a more conventional exterior design. Not to mention the unnecessarily large "zero" printed on some of the models.
!Report as spam
jeff

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

I would argue Google missed the mark. If they wanted to make a self driving vehicle that would be easily acceptable by the general public they should make something that goes out of its way to be VERY safe, something that does not leave anyone with any lingering doubts as to the validity of the product and technology. Currently their tech only has 700,000mi on public roads, mostly in mild weather, this is actually not nearly enough. 700,000mi is how much an automaker will put on a car while testing it, For this type of vehicle they need millions possibly tens of millions of mile in ALL conditions.

1. They need something that goes over 25mph (current limit of vehicle), right now what they have is technically not a car but a golf cart.
2. This means they will need airbags, I would add a lot of them double what anyone else has. Just to make people feel safe, along with other features.
3. The car looks and is too small. Google's tech may be bullet proof (no such tech exists). They need something that has more road presence. This adds to perceived safety- purely psychological.
4. Controls - until the day every car is self driving and fully connected we will need controls. Purely for safety. I am sorry I would love for them to go but no regulator would every approve of this.
5. Total miss on interior design mark. The EV configuration with minimized (or at least stow away) controls allows for a complete reconfiguration of the interior space. All we see currently is 2 seats side by side. A failed opportunity to innovate based on the advantages their tech offers. (based on pt4 i still feel u will need a driver/captain chair)
6. Just something to think about. Many core FMVSS rules were passed in the mid 1970s, The EU and US cant even standardize to a global regulatory standard. Congress cant even agree what time it is (democrat or republican time?) Changing the legislation and rules to get these cars on the road will be an uphill task, DESPITE google having hired a former NHTSA administrator and having billions in the bank.
!Report as spam
Maeve

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

This article doesn't take into account the need for self-driving cars for people with disabilities, who cannot drive, who currently have to either get other people to drive them everywhere (which isn't always possible), or take public transportation. I, personally, don't know how to drive. I've tried to learn, and just am terrified of it, and can't do it, so I have to take buses everywhere, which is a real pain, and a huge time waster. I can't ever leave the town I live in, unless someone is willing to drive me, which usually doesn't happen. And it's even harder for people who either don't drive because of fears, or disabilities, or whatever other reason, who live in the country or somewhere that doesn't have public transportation. This article states that Americans love to drive, which isn't true. Maybe most of them do, but not all. It isn't taking people like me into account. Self-driving cars would completely change my life for the better, and make things incredibly easier and more convenient for me.
!Report as spam
sthgrau

10 years ago

Z

Z

Reply

What if you added a driving game to this? Presumably, the car could evaluate whether or not it is safe to make a maneuver and only execute the game commands that are safe, perhaps resulting in penalties if you try something that is not safe..

In conjunction with other Google cars, you could presumably have multiplayer modes where you try to tag your opponents cars.
!Report as spam