|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from Waymo 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
|Text and/or other creative content from Google self-driving car was copied or moved into Autonomous car with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. The former page's talk page can be accessed at Talk:Google self-driving car.|
- 1 Outdated Limitations?
- 2 Driverless?
- 3 Incorrect and/or Outdated Information
- 4 Own design?
- 5 Style ought to be cleaned up
- 6 Page name
- 7 Not comparable to cruise control!
- 8 Are drivers required?
- 9 Waymo
- 10 Requested move 13 December 2016
- 11 Legislation in the intro
- 12 Licensing vs. Transportation as a service
- 13 Technology equipment out of date
- 14 Level 5 of SAE automated vehicle classification
- 15 Monthly Crash Reports
- 16 Bad page move
- 17 Possible spin-off
- 18 Not a credible source for 2020 date
The Limitations section is based on an article from Aug. 2014. It mentions temporary traffic lights and identifying police officers as imitations. However, a Mar. 2015 TED talk by Chris Urmson shows how the car can identify both situations https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2015 (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 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (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: 188.8.131.52. 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 184.108.40.206 (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)
Incorrect and/or Outdated Information
The $150,000 figure for the cost of 'equipment' is wrong. "The cluster of radars and lasers that sits above the car costs about $75,000 today" http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sees-self-drive-car-on-road-within-five-years-1421267677 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Sebastian Thrun is no longer leading the project and does not work at Google anymore. Chris Urmson is the new project lead, which you can see on his LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-urmson/3/227/539 The following change is recommended:
Replace: The project is currently being led by Google engineer Sebastian Thrun, former director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory and co-inventor of Google Street View. Thrun's team at Stanford created the robotic vehicle Stanley which won the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge and its US$2 million prize from the United States Department of Defense. The team developing the system consisted of 15 engineers working for Google, including Chris Urmson, Mike Montemerlo, and Anthony Levandowski who had worked on the DARPA Grand and Urban Challenges.
With: The project is currently being led by Google engineer Chris Urmson, former professor at the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, where his research focused on motion planning and perception for robotic vehicles. During his time at Carnegie Mellon, Urmson served as the Director of Technology for the team that won the 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2007)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:5E02:8CC1:21DD:CF77:906F (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
After the sentence beginning "In May 2014..." suggest adding: In June 2015 Google announced that they had begun testing the prototype on Mountain View public roads. [source: http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2015/06/25/the-robo-car-revolution-hits-mountain-view-streets]
Regarding the sentence: "Google plans to make these cars available to the public in 2020."
The 2020 date has not been confirmed. Here are two sources for information on the timeline: http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-09/google-self-driving-car and http://recode.net/2015/03/17/google-self-driving-car-chief-wants-tech-on-the-market-within-five-years/
Suggest changing text to the following: In September 2012 at a ceremony where Governor Jerry Brown signed California's self-driving-car bill into law, Google co-founder Sergey Brin said "you can count on one hand the number of years until ordinary people can experience this." When asked about the timeline more recently, Chris Urmson has said that his team is committed to making sure his son, who is 11 years old, doesn’t have to get his driver’s license.
Regarding the sentence: "Google has also developed their own custom vehicle, which is assembled by Roush Enterprises and uses equipment from Bosch, ZF Lenksysteme, LG, and Continental."
This makes it sound like Google is only working with them, but in fact they have many other partners. Suggest adding "among others" at the end of the sentence.
Regarding the sentence: "Google's robotic cars have about $150,000 in equipment including a $70,000 LIDAR system."
This citation does not confirm the total amount of equipment, nor has Google ever confirmed it. Suggest removing.
Regarding the sentence: "Google's vehicles have traversed San Francisco's Lombard Street, famed for its steep hairpin turns, and through city traffic."
It's important to clarify that these are Google's Lexus vehicles, since their new prototype vehicles have not done this.
Regarding the sentence: "The system provides an override that allows a human driver to take control of the car by stepping on the brake or turning the wheel, similar to cruise control systems already found in many cars today."
It's important to clarify that this system is for Google's Lexus vehicles, since the new prototype is not designed to have a steering wheel and pedals.
Regarding the sentence: "As of June 2015, Google's 23 self-driving cars have been involved in 12 minor traffic accidents on public roads..."
It should be changed to "As of July 2015, Google's 23 self-driving cars have been involved in 14 minor traffic accidents on public roads..." per Google's monthly reports: http://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/reports/
Regarding the sentence: "Google has partnered with suppliers including Bosch, ZF Lenksysteme, LG, Continental, and Roush, and has contacted manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Daimler and Volkswagen."
Google has not confirmed this. It would be more accurate to say: "Google has partnered with suppliers including Bosch, ZF Lenksysteme, LG, Continental, and Roush, and news reports have speculated that Google has contacted manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Daimler and Volkswagen."
Regarding the sentence: "The second bill will provide an exemption from the ban on distracted driving to permit occupants to send text messages while sitting behind the wheel."
It's important to clarify that this bill was about texting while sitting in a self-driving car, not texting while driving. Suggest changing to: "The second bill will an exemption from the ban on distracted driving to permit occupants to send text messages while sitting behind the wheel of a self-driving car."
Regarding the sentence: "In August 2013, news reports surfaced about Robo-Taxi, a driverless vehicle from Google. These reports re-appeared again in early 2014."
It's important to clarify that these were speculations; Google never confirmed this. Suggest changing to: "In August 2013, news reports speculated about Robo-Taxi, a driverless vehicle from Google. These speculations re-appeared again in early 2014."
This isn't mentioned in the article at all. How much is known about these? I cannot imagine they developed the entire car completely in-house, they must have an automotive industry partner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- @18.104.22.168: Have you seen a picture of their own design? They may have had a manufacturing partner, but I doubt it was anyone in the automotive industry. It's not hard to build a small car - college students do it all the time. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Style ought to be cleaned up
Several times the laws passed by states are repeated with citations. This is a little repetitive but is probably the just result of people only working on sections and not reading the entire article for clarity. Some cleanup should be done.--Varkman (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Google self-driving car more accurately describes the content and is the more commonly searched term. I propose dropping the Project and removing the capitalisation in order to make it less like a corporate PR title and more like a description of a thing. Any objections or thoughts? Btljs (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Just realised that this page redirects here. Propose swapping Google Self-Driving Car Project to redirect to Google self-driving car instead of vice versa. Btljs (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Not comparable to cruise control!
The statement that "an override ...allows a human driver to take control of the car ... similar to cruise control systems already found in many cars today" is wrong. Cruise control only maintain speed, and in some cases distance. It is in no way a self-drive system, nor is overriding cruise control in any way comparable to intervening when a self-drive car needs correction.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Are drivers required?
Billed as "self-driving" cars, these autonomous cars always have a human being at the controls when on public roads. I sometimes see newspaper articles calling such cars are driverless; one article even implied that the car itself was given a ticket because it was driving itself (i.e., with no human in the driver's seat). That sells newspapers - or generates web page hits.
I'd like to see a more precise terminology. Perhaps we could use America's NHTSA classification scheme), unless some would object on internationalization grounds. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Waymo is now a division of Alphabet, solely centred around the subject of this article. Should this page be moved and modified to become an article about Waymo, or should a new page be started? Opinions? --Natural RX 19:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- I believe, moving forward, that it makes the most sense to describe it as "Waymo, formerly the Google Self-Driving Car Project" or something of the like. However, I'm confused about whether the project and company share the same name. Is this the Waymo Self-Driving Car by Waymo, Inc. ? Does Waymo, Inc. get their own Wikipedia page to talk about the operations of the company aside from the project? Do we have any precedent for articles about projects that evolve into companies? --Metropantograph (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- From what I've read it is not described as a division but rather as a separate company that is currently owned by alphabet. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 13 December 2016
Legislation in the intro
The paragraph is very poor. It doesn't take into accounts States that do no forbid driverless cars, like Arizona and Texas, as shown by Google currently operating in those regions. I suggestion moving that contact from intro to a legislation section. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Licensing vs. Transportation as a service
The opening of the article states:
This move represents a pivot of sorts as Google moves to license its self-driving technology to third-party companies including automakers and ride-hailing firms as opposed to building their own transportation as a service company.
What is the citation for this? In the today's blog post from the CEO, it is stated that "We can see our technology being useful in personal vehicles, ridesharing, logistics, or solving last mile problems for public transport" but also that "Our next step as Waymo will be to let people use our vehicles to do everyday things like run errands, commute to work, or get safely home after a night on the town." From what I can see, there's equal reasoning to guess either a licensing or first-party approach, and there has not been any official statement for which route Waymo will be taking. -Metropantograph (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence, as this was an uncited claim into their business strategy, and I have been unable to find a citation. I will continue to look for one, and the original author is, of course, welcome to revert the edit given they can find a citation. -Metropantograph (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Technology equipment out of date
The technology section is out of date. The newer cars can be seen with black domes on top, under which is, according to this source, at least two lasers and several cameras: http://www.recode.net/2016/10/3/13154350/google-self-driving-car-fb-live-dmitry-dolgov The lasers do not appear to be the Velodyne 64 unit that was originally used. If nobody takes this when I get some time, I'll try to fill in the article with as much as has been publicly released about the technology their cars are equipped with, but if someone wants to take it before me, please do so. The current information in the article is at least two years old. -Metropantograph (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Much of the article is out of date. Everything should have a date, or deleted, and or moved to a history section. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Level 5 of SAE automated vehicle classification
businessinsider.de reports in Here's the biggest thing Google got wrong about self-driving cars that "Waymo is still committed to Level 5 autonomy". Therefore I think there should be mentioning of Autonomous_car#Classification in the article. I wouldn't know in which section to add because this is not my field of expertise. --Manorainjan (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Monthly Crash Reports
The citation/link for the monthly crash reports is now incorrect, it leads to a Waymo landing page. I don't know if Google/Waymo will continue to publish the reports and if they do, where they'll be located. Either way, the Crashes section needs updating. --SnowmanJames (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Bad page move
I don't like the page move, because this article is not about the company (compare Tesla) but about its one and only project: trying to build an autonomous car that doesn't require a driver. Can we please split this article into two parts:
- Waymo, about the company itself
- Google Self-Driving Car Project, about Google/Alphabet's efforts to field a completely self-driving car
One of my concerns is that the press almost always refers to Google's semi-autonomous test vehicles as "self-driving", although they all carry a test driver and are actually being driven by a human up to 20% of the time. The article and its title should reflect this fact - not hide it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost all of this article is about Waymo's Self-driving car project. And nearly all of that project was carried on when the project was a unit of Google.
I'd like to divide the article into
Not a credible source for 2020 date
 The source says Google says, but doesn't state context. There are other contradictory references, for example on Waymo fact it says the following:
- Our next step will be to let people trial fully self-driving cars to do everyday things like run errands or commute to work.
- Thomas Halleck (15 January 2015). "Google Inc. Says Self-Driving Car Will Be Ready By 2020". International Business Times.