The State Of Michigan Just Made Self-Driving-Car History

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Michigan is allowing for the testing of self-driving cars without a steering wheel, brake pedal, or human in the front seat. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing but I sure wouldn't want to be on the roads in Michigan right about now. ;) Thanks to cageymaru for the link.

Michigan just became the first state to establish regulations for the testing, use, and eventual sale of self-driving cars. Gov. Rick Snyder signed legislation at the Automotive Hall of Fame on Friday allowing for the testing of self-driving cars without a steering wheel, brake pedal, or human in the front seat. The law also allows companies to use self-driving cars for ride-sharing services. The law will also allow self-driving cars to be sold to the public once the tech is tested and certified.
 
Yet its illegal to buy (from the manufacturer), test drive, or have serviced, the best autonomous vehicle currently on the road (i.e. Tesla) in Michigan. Snyder is a moron.
 
The article says Google is really pushing to eliminate the human element from driving completely. I wonder why.

Why is it so important to create vehicles which can only drive themselves and can not be driven by a human at all?

There has to be a vision here, and it has to involve money.

Do any of you see the angle here?

All I see is money from technology patents.

Conversely, the greatest roadblock to autonomous cars that I know of is inclement weather. I have yet to see a successful demonstration of a robot car being able to negotiate an icy road.

So yes, Michigan is fit for pioneering the future, their roads are certainly up for the challenge.
 
Last edited:
Heart attacks and respiratory diseases make sense. #2 being malignant neoplasms though? Who in their right mind would let another person who is clearly dying from cancer be driving around in a car? How do they even still have a license?

As far as the OP goes, this worries me. Being in an accident doesn't always mean you're at fault, nor could you have always avoided it. Sometimes people who are the cause for accidents are never themselves involved. (For all those people who claim they've never been in an accident. That doesn't mean you've not been responsible for one).

Before purely automated, they need to allow some human intervention. Driverless should be an addition to prevent accidents first and foremost, rather than the only option.
 
The article says Google is really pushing to eliminate the human element from driving completely. I wonder why.

Why is it so important to create vehicles which can only drive themselves and can not be driven by a human at all?

There has to be a vision here, and it has to involve money.

Do any of you see the angle here?

All I see is money from technology patents.

Conversely, the greatest roadblock to autonomous cars that I know of is inclement weather. I have yet to see a successful demonstration of a robot car being able to negotiate an icy road.

So yes, Michigan is fit for pioneering the future, their roads are certainly up for the challenge.


Google is going to take advantage of the time we waste in traffic. Since the riders are not "driving", they get to watch ads on the touch screen devices that will proliferate within the vehicle. One can buy music, videos, books, etc.
 
Google is going to take advantage of the time we waste in traffic. Since the riders are not "driving", they get to watch ads on the touch screen devices that will proliferate within the vehicle. One can buy music, videos, books, etc.

Not to mention track the whereabouts of everyone in said vehicles.
 
Google is going to take advantage of the time we waste in traffic. Since the riders are not "driving", they get to watch ads on the touch screen devices that will proliferate within the vehicle. One can buy music, videos, books, etc.


I'm sure you are correct in as far as this is a benefit they see ripe for the picking.

I should dust off my crystal ball.


"Today in the news, a class action has been filed in Topeka Kansas against Google Corp, (ABCD), alleging that the tech giant has intentionally modified the navigation firmware of the Autonomous Driving systems which are the primary system used by auto manufacturers, so that the cars are "taking the long way home" and otherwise deliberately lengthening the commute and travel time for passengers. The action claims that by extending the time that passengers spend in their vehicles Google is cashing in on ISP connection charges and other ancillary internet activity."
 
Seems kind of incremental, and contingent on regulations to be written in the future (testing and certification). "The law will also allow self-driving cars to be sold to the public once the tech is tested and certified." Once the fully automated "tech" has been "tested and certified", years from now, pretty much all states will have similar laws. There's not going to be different fully driverless vehicles designed for each state.

I'm not sure why this is a such big deal. It allows "testing", but doesn't seem to allow testing on public roads like other states do. The criticism in other articles seem to be that it's a very protectionist set of bills that lock out smaller competitors (Google, Apple, Uber, etc) from deploying automated vehicles for services since they don't meet the specific criteria for auto manufacturers, despite, uh, manufacturing vehicles.
 
The article says Google is really pushing to eliminate the human element from driving completely. I wonder why.

Why is it so important to create vehicles which can only drive themselves and can not be driven by a human at all?

There has to be a vision here, and it has to involve money.

Do any of you see the angle here?

All I see is money from technology patents.

Conversely, the greatest roadblock to autonomous cars that I know of is inclement weather. I have yet to see a successful demonstration of a robot car being able to negotiate an icy road.

So yes, Michigan is fit for pioneering the future, their roads are certainly up for the challenge.
Don't forget the obscene potholes and year round construction. The real reason people don't want to be on the road in Michigan even without autonomous vehicles.

As for inclement weather, we go above and beyond, most down see county plows or salt. Usually we run out of salt and only hit the intersections and some highways.
 
I just know these self driving cars better be submissive as hell or keep up with traffic.
Our speed limit here on the highways is 70MPH but everyone does 80-90MPH.

The only time traffic follows the speed limit around here is if it's rush hour and everyone is trying to get home. It's actually faster taking the back roads and driving whatever speed you want then trying to take a highway between 5-6pm.
At least that's how it is in Grand Rapids.
 
I just know these self driving cars better be submissive as hell or keep up with traffic.
Our speed limit here on the highways is 70MPH but everyone does 80-90MPH.

The only time traffic follows the speed limit around here is if it's rush hour and everyone is trying to get home. It's actually faster taking the back roads and driving whatever speed you want then trying to take a highway between 5-6pm.
At least that's how it is in Grand Rapids.
Same in the Monroe area. I always try and take back roads, but the road conditions are so bad that unpaved roads are often smoother rides.
 
This is where the joke from Knight Rider 2000 fits... I really don't remember much of the movie I think it was straight to video, but he is driving around with the old computer and the car is eighty miles an hour and a deer is in the road and he has to serve because the computer decided the best course was to run into the deer and let the armored chassis and windshield take the hit. The guy from the TV show the hoff was in the screen and freaks out leading into getting the old computer back.

The point is what happens when there is something in the road. Does the car slam to stop throwing all the passengers through the windshield since none of them are paying attention, does it serve off the road and end up rolling side over side, does it thread lock trying to make a decision? I like the idea of getting in my car when I am tired and saying drive there... but not if there is no way to correct for issues the computer is not programmed for. Like hail the size of dinner plates... or running into a grizzly that weighs the same thing the car does... though I kinda have to agree hitting the deer with a car was a bad option.
 
I'm sure you are correct in as far as this is a benefit they see ripe for the picking.

I should dust off my crystal ball.


"Today in the news, a class action has been filed in Topeka Kansas against Google Corp, (ABCD), alleging that the tech giant has intentionally modified the navigation firmware of the Autonomous Driving systems which are the primary system used by auto manufacturers, so that the cars are "taking the long way home" and otherwise deliberately lengthening the commute and travel time for passengers. The action claims that by extending the time that passengers spend in their vehicles Google is cashing in on ISP connection charges and other ancillary internet activity."

Then when you tell your car to go to "insert location" the car will recommend other places depending on whoever pays the highest for google-car search results. Businesses will have to fall inline, all paying google for higher ad placement or risk going under because the car gently redirects traffic towards paying companies 1st.

The cynical among us would call it not so much Alphabet(a-z) as more Cradle-to-Grave
 
Google is going to take advantage of the time we waste in traffic. Since the riders are not "driving", they get to watch ads on the touch screen devices that will proliferate within the vehicle. One can buy music, videos, books, etc.
You're thinking small. Google will route you past billboards and stores like they are paid ads. If you ask or it suspects you need to go to a hardware store. It will route you past Lowe's or Home Depot depending on who paid the most.
 
I don't know why people worry so much about self driving cars. Even if the possibility exists that they can cause an accident or injury, I'm absolutely certainly it is a hell of a lot less likely than any driver on the road. Why do these things need to be 100% infallible to be deemed better than having a bunch of shitty, distracted drivers on the road?
 
I bet there is some expensive damn grease behind this one.

Just wait until the first innocent person gets killed.
 
Michigan Transportation Director Kirk Steudle concedes that there will be crashes and probably a fatality involving autonomous cars.

But they get to test in snow so that makes it all better. Lawsuits in 3-2-1
 
I don't know why people worry so much about self driving cars. Even if the possibility exists that they can cause an accident or injury, I'm absolutely certainly it is a hell of a lot less likely than any driver on the road. Why do these things need to be 100% infallible to be deemed better than having a bunch of shitty, distracted drivers on the road?

Because it's still going to be the owner paying the insurance and unless you can prove defect, carry the responsibility when the damn machine fucks up.
 
I don't know why people worry so much about self driving cars. Even if the possibility exists that they can cause an accident or injury, I'm absolutely certainly it is a hell of a lot less likely than any driver on the road. Why do these things need to be 100% infallible to be deemed better than having a bunch of shitty, distracted drivers on the road?

I kinda understand where you're coming from, but I think it's simply the idea that you're in control (obviously not of other drivers) and it sucks when you're in an accident not because of your own mistake but because some engineers messed up. I mean accidents suck either way, but I think people feel safer when they're in control rather than someone is in control of them, especially when someone's been driving for decades and now they're supposed to trust that "others" (engineers and algorithms) will be doing it in their place. It's probably the inevitable future, though.
 
You're thinking small. Google will route you past billboards and stores like they are paid ads. If you ask or it suspects you need to go to a hardware store. It will route you past Lowe's or Home Depot depending on who paid the most.

Only if you're not familiar with the area. Ppl know their areas well, so if google tries to route you sub-optimally, ppl will catch on very quickly and that scheme will die quickly.
 
You're thinking small. Google will route you past billboards and stores like they are paid ads. If you ask or it suspects you need to go to a hardware store. It will route you past Lowe's or Home Depot depending on who paid the most.

Now that you say that, I wouldn't be surprised if the self-driving car windows are the actual touchscreens. That way, one would be looking at the Google screens instead of the actual world outside. The billboards won't even be seen by the occupants of the car.
 
Now that you say that, I wouldn't be surprised if the self-driving car windows are the actual touchscreens. That way, one would be looking at the Google screens instead of the actual world outside. The billboards won't even be seen by the occupants of the car.

Why let windows get in the way of a remarkable VR experience, Your car will look like this;

Eggy.jpg
 
Why let windows get in the way of a remarkable VR experience, Your car will look like this;

Eggy.jpg

Not enough airbags, it would be solid with a display so that way you can see a BSOD before you die.
 
So here we are, brainstorming a development path for autonomously driven vehicles with little or no engineering knowledge behind it.

I think we have a better chance of coming up with the best possible target, then we just need to let the engineers figure out how to make the damn thing work.

Nothing difficult there.
 
Back
Top