Talk:Google driverless car
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Google driverless car appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 18 October 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
The Nevada law did not authorize driverless car operation in Nevada; rather, it specifically forbade it.
What the law did is to charge the DOT to come up with regulations regarding the operation of driverless cars in Nevada, and to authorize cars that comply with such to be driven on Nevada highways.
Until such time as the regulations are made and approved, no driverless car can comply with them. You can't comply with something that doesn't exist. This may, in fact, have the opposite effect of raising the issues of whether a self-parallel-parking car can legally be operated, since it is not regulated or approved. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- As fast as normal cars, I think. --Stryn (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- From article: The system drives at the speed limit it has stored on its maps and maintains its distance from other vehicles using its system of sensors. --Stryn (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Unless the car is operating itself 100% it isn't a driverless car - even if a person was to give it a destination only, they have operated the car and therefore are the driver. --ZhuLien 2:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk)
- Perhaps they were "driving" the car for the millisecond when they chose the destination. The industry-accepted definition is that choosing the final destination doesn't count as driving.Owen214 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- and when I'm driving and decide to stop while the car is still moving and use my mobile phone and the car crashes I can claim I'm not the driver for that moment I wasn't driving. ZhuLien 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- And, more importantly, when I get in the back of my limousine and tell my chauffeur where we are to go, I am not driving in any way shape or form. I suggest you take a quick course on common sense, in your world there would be a factory producing driverless cars that could not be moved, even off the production line for fear of you declassifying them! :) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Self-Driving Misnomer section has been removed twice already by ColinClark and Mdann52, and reinstated both times by the original contributor: 184.108.40.206. The section tries to make the case that the labels "driverless" and "self-driving" are incorrect, and that the cars are (or could become) network controlled. The section is vague ('suggests an increase in autonomy') and incoherent ('under the control of persons other than' the occupants), and appeals to future possible developments rather than the actual technology. The cited articles and video don't substantiate the claim that the names are incorrect. Removing this section (once again). Oliver Crow (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
- The car has a driver and is therefore not driverless. The driver is the "system," which is not autonomous (or self-driving) because it depends on external networked systems such as the GPS network besides others. The nomer "driverless" or "self-driving" are just wrong because the car is neither driverless, nor does it drive itself, and ironically it will effectively prohibit a person from driving the car themselves (or being "self-driven") because it is under the control of the "system" and the human occupant has been reduced to a "supplicant" of the system and those who actually control how it automates transportation.
- The profound significance of this is how centralized/network-system control of the transportation system is critical to "turnkey tyranny." I won't explain turnkey tyranny -- just look it up. If "driverless cars" are presented to the public conscious as "autonomous" or "self-driving" meaning they're independently controlled, then there's no concern, no alarm. But if in fact they have the ability to be and are in fact centrally-controlled, then their prevalence that comes about under the guise of "safety" is nothing less than the subjugation of a civilization's entire transportation system to a central authority that can at any moment decide to use that power to oppress the people, squash dissent, and render any resistance immobile.
- The bottom line is if you allow this car to be called "driverless" or "self-driving" (suggesting it drives itself) then you are complicit with the conspiracy to fool the public into conceding power over the transportation system to a malevolent driver under the guise of technology and safety. Mark my word, these cars have a driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs)
The car is officially a "Google self-driving car." "Self-driving car" is exclusively the language used by Google. It's on the side of every vehicle. It's in all their official communications. I think the title of the article should be changed to what Google uses. Why should it not be? Pdxuser (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
How can Google have a dozen autonomous cars on the roads at any given time, if (like the article states two paragraphs earlier) they've "outfitted ten" cars in total ? I guess the two numbers are just from different points in time, but it's confusing. --Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Earlier today, User:Maclean12 submitted three revisions to the article, which were obviously vandalism. I undid the edits. Is this all I do, or can I report this user? Thanks in advance! ArturGhostmancer (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)