Google's Self-Driving Cars Gain Momentum – Should Your State Legalize Them?

The company says its driverless cars are the future, but what are their potential repercussions on local governments and economies?

screen grab from Youtube
screen grab from Youtube

By Melinda Carstensen

In Google’s latest announcement, the search engine giant has introduced a new model of its self-driving automobile — without the traditional bells and whistles of a car. 

The company has started producing about 100 of the electric-powered vehicles that don’t have steering wheels, gas pedals, brakes and gear shifts, the New York Times reported.

Google’s previous self-driving car had allowed the driver to take over in the event of an emergency, but developers now say that function isn’t practical, as drivers could be sleeping or reading at the wheel if an emergency occurred.

“We saw stuff that made us a little nervous,” Christopher Urmson, director of Google’s self-driving car project, told the Times.

In Google’s new self-driving car, there’s a start button and an emergency stop button that passengers can press.

Urmson announced in April that the previous model, run on a Lexus SUV, had logged 700,000 accident-free miles since 2009, when the project launched in Mountain View, Calif. The new car looks boxier, and passengers can beckon it with a smartphone app. Drivers then can select their destination on the app, and the car will drive there autonomously.

Its technology includes robotics and sensors that detect hundreds of objects at once, including railroad crossing barriers, cyclists and speed limit changes. Those features aim to make up for any potential human error, which contributes to more than 90 percent of traffic accidents.

“A self-driving vehicle can pay attention to all of these things in a way that a human physically can’t — and it never gets tired or distracted,” Urmson said in the April blog post.

While other car companies, like Volvo, BMW and GM, have made strides in the self-driving car space, Google’s model is the first to eliminate the driver entirely. That technology is called Traffic Jam Assist, and it’s at the core of Google’s new driverless car prototype, which maxes out at 25 mph.

Jaron Lanier, a computer scientist who popularized the term “virtual reality,” extrapolated about self-driving cars in an Edge.org article and said that humans are “terrible drivers.”

"We kill each other in car accidents so frequently,” Lanier said, "that car accidents are a much more serious problem than wars, terrorism, a great many diseases."

Google predicts its technology could reduce the annual 30,000 road fatalities and 2 million injuries in the U.S. by up to 90 percent. Those accidents — plus the road congestion they cause in the 99 biggest urban areas of the country — cost about $300 billion per year, according to a 2011 study by the American Automobile Association.

But as driverless cars become more popular, lawmakers must answer some tough questions, like how DUIs would be addressed with driverless cars, whether drivers would need to be in vehicles while they’re driven, and whether the driver or the technology maker would be liable for damages in the event of a traffic accident.

California, Nevada, Florida, Michigan, and the District of Columbia have addressed driverless car laws, and experts say it’s a matter of time before other states follow suit.

Beyond safety concerns, Lanier also considered how automated cars could affect local economies: “If you look at the labor prospects of the middle classes, a whole lot of middle class people are behind a wheel. There's a whole bunch of cabbies, and truck drivers, et cetera, and we're talking about throwing all of those people out of work … what do all those people do?”

Do you think that self-driving cars are safe and potentially good for the economy? And how would you feel about your local government legalizing them?

Wm Thomas Capps June 05, 2014 at 03:06 PM
no way
J June 06, 2014 at 07:38 AM
I would never trust a driverless vehicle. Computers are great and they make our lives easier in many ways, but systems get hacked. Thieves can easily bypass the security systems in brand new high end cars like BMW's etc. I think some hackers would try to hack the system just for $@!&% and giggles, like you set your vehicle to go to Disneyland and end up at the Mexican border or something like that. I can also imagine there being more sinister reasons to hack the systems. IE: Someone carrying large amounts of cash....hack the system to drive them to a dark alley and rob them. Pharmaceutical delivery vehicle with controlled substances....again a dark alley. This would be a nightmare waiting to happen.
el producer June 06, 2014 at 11:07 AM
Regardless of what everyone's ne thinks, this is going to be the future. There are many computer controlled systems that we depend on everyday. I think after every change to computer controlled, you same ppl were against that as well. Bank accounts and airline auto pilots for example. PS, remote controlled aircraft technology has been around long before 9/11, imagine that!
TT June 06, 2014 at 11:36 PM
Actually, one aspect to the future is not having to go anywhere. Just click on the correct virtual reality location, and you're there. And to fill in the gaps for the places that VR won't cover, just send a drone!
sej June 09, 2014 at 11:03 AM
So el producer, what are you suggesting? That 9/11 actually involved remote-controlled planes? Hmmmmmm. But, but! Dick Cheney keeps telling us they hate us for our freedom, blah blah. So he couldn't possibly be lying to us, could he?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »