GM Says Driverless Cars Will Be Ready By 2018

Gregor Stipicic writes "Cars that drive themselves — even parking at their destination — could be ready for sale within a decade, General Motors Corp. executives say. 'This is not science fiction,' Larry Burns, GM's vice president for research and development, said in a recent interview. GM plans to use an inexpensive computer chip and an antenna to link vehicles equipped with driverless technologies. The first use likely would be on highways; people would have the option to choose a driverless mode while they still would control the vehicle on local streets, Burns said. He said the company plans to test driverless car technology by 2015 and have cars on the road around 2018."

Good

[_PimpDaddy7_]

I'm sure the AI will drive much better than some of the people on these roads in Boston LOL

But the big question is...

[brown-eyed slug]

... but will they fly?

The possibilities are endless!

[geminidomino]

Just imagine the crossover deals this will open up.

"Drive to Pathmark"

"Pathmark is overrated. Destination modified to Walmart." *doors lock*

Too bad...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Too bad others have predicted the world will come to an end in 2012.

Sounds about right.

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't driven a GM car in years. So yeah I can see GM cars becoming driverless within my lifetime.

Re:The possibilities are endless!

[Lord Ender]

Eventually, GOOG will use it's huge market cap to move in to the Auto space. They will begin offering free, advertising-sponsored cars. They will monitor your driving habits and steer you near relevant businesses, showing ads for the businesses in the HUD.

Re:The possibilities are endless!

[geminidomino]

Gods, I hope my girlfriend isn't in the car when I pass Cindy's [Topless] Steakhouse!

Really?

[ddrichardson]

Apparently there'll be a copy of Duke Nukem Forever in the glove box.

Re:The possibilities are endless!

[kilo_foxtrot84]

And, diabolically enough, Google can escape any blame for accidents because it will likely only be a beta.

Re:But the big question is...

[sm62704]

but will they fly?

They might if Microsoft writes the software and they try to exit from the wrong off ramp. There are people dying in flying cars all the time!

Re:Good

[zippthorne]

Computer drives your car, leaving YOU free to man the turret. If Phone-y McSoccerMom gets too close, Blast her with a holosonic warning, "quit emailing movies of jr. or quit putting on makeup. Better yet, Both! Also, pay attention to the road. Unsevered necks don't grow on trees, you know." Then take a picture on your iiiPhone and email it to traffic control.

Further, what makes you think you can react to road dangers faster than a radar-equipped mesh-networking auto-bot?

Obligatory...

[slazzy]

wow homers got one of those robot cars!
(crash!)
one of those AMERICAN robot cars...

Re:But the big question is...

[Kenoli]

I'm still waiting for Lavos to pop out of the ground, in 1999.

Re:Good

[Rei]

Why do they need a new chip for this? There are already perfectly good navigation algorithms. They should license use of the Roomba's navigation system from iRobot and install that on cars. Sure, they'll need front bumper sensors and a cliff sensor, but that's pretty trivial.

Re:GM assumes liability for driverless car acciden

[UbuntuDupe]

It ends the problem of drunk driving only if the automated system is 100% in control portal-to-portal and 100% reliable portal-to-portal. The drunk will be making the initial decision to take to the roads.

Yes, which is why the problem is greatly curtailed -- drunk merely has to be able to say, "God damn I'm wasted. Car, take me home." I'm willing to bet that most drunk people who get in a car will gladly take this option in preference to risking a DUI.

You are correct, of course, that part of the problem is simply not giving a damn how your driving affects others. To the extent that that is the problem, I agree that technology and laws are largely ineffective. For example, when someone tries to use a cell phone while making a difficult driving maneuver, the problem is not that he overestimates his skill, or that he deems the potential punishment small enough. It's that he's just not putting in the effort to be a safe driver, and no law or technology will change that.

Obligatory

[januth]

In Soviet Russia, CAR drives YOU! Wait a sec...

priorities, priorities

[themushroom]

Driverless cars by 2018. Like there aren't enough of those out there.

Slightly better fuel efficiency by 2020, only 30 years after it was first proposed.

Government actually requiring that cars not be totally dependant upon gasoline, which would be practical? Crystal ball can't see that far ahead.

Re:And monkeys might fly out of my butt

[ScentCone]

There will not be a mass-produced flying car though. That simply requires too much energy and we have a large enough energy problem as it is. Unless you want to use a derigible there is drag induced just by the act of flying which causes an additional amount of energy to be consumed as opposed to staying on the ground.

You don't read enough. There already exists a perfectly good sky car [moller.com]. 20mpg on pure, clean-burning ethanol, and completely safe computerized navigation and flight control. And it's quiet. And it goes well over 200mph, and can take off and land vertically, right in your yard. I can't believe you don't know about this vehicle. It's even red!

Re:Obligatory

[greeze]

In Soviet Russia, YOU drive CAR?

Number 1 use

[inverselimit]

I guarantee the number one application in cities will be telling your car to circle so you don't have to find parking. Traffic will get way worse, then this will be outlawed.

Re:Obligatory

[Roger W Moore]

No: In Soviet Russia, YOU drive CZAR (out).

Re:The possibilities are endless!

[ishmaelflood]

Why, is she vegetarian?

Re:Independence

[darthflo]

[...] get into the driverless vehicle and set it to random for the destination.

With most cars it's gonna be an option to do that. With the Apple iCar Shuffle, however, every trip's a surprise!