Talk:Google driverless car

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Robotics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Google driverless car is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page (Talk), where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Nevada law[edit]

How could the state of Nevada pass a law that applies to both Nevada and California? 90.210.82.161 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Concerned


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)

Speed?[edit]

How fast does Googles driverless car go? 10 km/h? 20 km/h? Fabbe (talk) 09:21, 13 August 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)

Driverless?[edit]

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 27.32.141.11 (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 66.249.80.203 (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: 70.39.231.187. 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 70.39.231.187 (talkcontribs)
Ok, I see what you're saying. But do you have any sources to back up what you're saying? Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what sources say about a topic, we are not supposed to insert our own original ideas. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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.[1][2][3] 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)

Contradictory info[edit]

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)

Good catch. Andrew327 20:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism[edit]

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)