Why federal government needs to invest in this? I mean, when people say "government support is necessary for fundamental research which can not be financed by private means", ok, there's an argument there. But companies like Google - not exactly short of money - already investing into this. Why feds need to intervene? Of course, every company would gladly take gifts from feds to advance their private research - but why do it? There are a lot of fields that could use $4B and are not a focus of attention of a half-trillion-dollar corporations.<p>Also, they claim simultaneously that self-riving cars are safer <i>and</i> that they would be exempt from safety rules. How that works? If they are already safer, they should be able to satisfy more safety rules, not less?
"Roughly 3,000 Americans have lost their lives to terrorist attacks in the last decade. This averages out to a loss of 300 people a year...[compared to average annual deaths by] vehicular accidents at 40,000."<p><a href="http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/" rel="nofollow">http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism...</a><p>"Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert...estimates that the U.S. spends at least $100 billion a year on counter-terrorism efforts."<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fighting-terrorism/" rel="nofollow">http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/economy/cost-of-fightin...</a>
Among the many things the federal could fund, one would be an organization that would develop a uniform legal code governing self-driving cars for adoption across federal/state/local levels. This would harmonize definitions, requirements, liability, insurance, penalties, etc. across all legal jurisdictions.
If the point of this money was to develop a unified approach to self-driving cars, then it could be a very good thing. Assuming the choice of unified approach makes sense.<p>Variably-autonomous cars operating in swarms (and thus requiring standard communication and sensor packages) seem to be superior than having dozens of car and tech companies each striving for full autonomy. In swarms, the degree of autonomy would be directly proportional to the size of the swarm a vehicle belongs to. Those on the edge of the swarm would contribute sensor input while the interior vehicles would contribute processing power. Thus achieving greater ability than a solitary vehicle, whether autonomous or not.<p>The advantage of variable-autonomy is that there's much less need to specially-modify roads, change the way we view liability, or have to get all the way to full autonomy.<p>I wrote more on the topic here: <a href="https://medium.com/@SteveHazel/let-s-do-semi-autonomous-cars-instead-10e1f93c20f4" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@SteveHazel/let-s-do-semi-autonomous-cars...</a><p>If the $4 billion was spent on developing the standard communication and sensor packages, and promoting them amongst manufacturers, and promoting the development of compact-form-factor vehicles, it might have significant impact.
Is there any talk of installing some kind of guideline along existing roads that would help navigation or vision? Something like a bright line or a buried magnetic (or radio?) 'rail' for the cars to follow? I've read that vision is still a big challenge in poor conditions.
This is great news. Over 30,000 people die annually due to motor vehicles in the United States alone [0] and the number would be far greater without the steady improvements to vehicular safety over the years.<p>To reduce that number to as close to 0 as is possible absolutely should be a top priority for our nation as a whole.<p>The technology is there, much of the infrastructure is there, and the rest is on the way.<p>Autonomous cars promise to revolutionize the way humans use cities in a positive way. Here in NYC where automobile traffic is quite a bit more abundant than anyone could particularly desire I yearn for the day when we can reclaim all that parking space for green and pedestrian use.<p>I anticipate the lack of diesel fumes, the reduction in engine and siren noise, and the ready availability of autonomous vehicles to take me to my destination, probably with a quick action to my smart watch, phone, etc.<p>Autonomous electric vehicles can stay in use for extremely long durations of time thus reducing the overall numbers of cars on the roads at any given time. To reduce emissions will reduce incidences of asthmatic and respiratory illnesses in urban centers.<p>To park themselves outside of major urban areas during non peak hours allows for repairs, and the reclamation of space I mentioned.<p>To run with electric engines means far fewer maintenance costs in general due to much fewer moving parts than traditional combustion engines.<p>To coordinate flows of traffic ensures traffic moves more efficiently, and the loud sirens and flashing lights of emergency vehicles can be a thing of the past.<p>And of course there are the wonderful cartoons from thw New Yorker in which a police man is at the window of a civilians car<p>"Does your car know why my car pulled it over?"<p>If this is done right it will be one of the greatest achievements of our modern era and will truly usher us into a new world of clean air, reclaimed public spaces, silenter cities, and tremendous mobility.<p>What an exciting time to be alive!
So at the start of the Obama administration, tax payers paid for a multi-billion dollar bailout of the American auto industry, which paid off for taxpayers but was not without significant risk. Now at the end of the Obama administration, tax payers are putting $4B towards self-driving cars that, depending on who the winners are, could potentially destroy the same industry that was bailed out just a few years ago?
This is unnecessarily dangerous. Investing in "pilot programs" might artificially push self-driving technology through quicker than it's ready for and might result, not only in death and accidents, but damaging the image of self driving cars and pushing the technology back even further. Just because you want something doesn't mean you should artificially push it faster than it can be produced. That's like injecting your children with steroids because you "want them to grow fast so they can be happy quicker and get a head start".<p>Government is great at creating incentives and opportunities through laws and letting the business, creators, investors compete for the top stop. But choosing winners, artificially jump-starting pilot projects that would under normal market conditions not be created, is not what governments are meant for. We've talked about this on HN before during the Solyndra bankruptcy.<p>If they really want to help, give a tax cut for companies doing research, and sit down with all the parties interested in self-driving cars and ask them what laws or regulations are holding them back.<p>Plus we don't want this to turn into another Solyndra. <a href="http://www.dailytech.com/500+Million+Wasted+on+Bankrupt+Solar+Panel+Company+White+House+was+Warned/article22735.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailytech.com/500+Million+Wasted+on+Bankrupt+Sola...</a>
We need to consider that the potential for abuse on the part of the government is also great. When the car communicates with roadside electronics, you can easily be tracked, your car can be told where you can and cannot go, and (if you do not comply with state) your vehicle may not be driveable at all.
And if the next big thing in technology never occurs like countless other next-big-things before it? This is part of why command economies fail so miserably.
Roving mini-prisons that record and report on their surroundings and occupants? Why wouldn't power invest? They want their killswitches.<p>krapp has it right: "Self-driving cars are potentially the greatest threat to human freedom since the advent of the internet." <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6982537" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6982537</a>
I really hope companies like Lockheed Martin do not get into the autonomous infrastructure or self-driving vehicle business. LM already has their tentacles into federal/state governments with traffic monitoring programs, 911 operations, etc.<p>Since silicon valley got into the SDV game much early on, I hope they, rather than defense companies, also provide solutions for the infrastructure.
They seem a little late coming to the game. 4B is not much compared to how much money and effort are already going into autonomous cars. Seems pointless.<p>But it seems there's also willngness to discuss future rules and ethics for self-driving cars, which is good.
Too much federal money goes to subsidizing the automobile/roads as a means of transportation. Drivers should bare more of the cost of driving, then a real market could emerge in mass transit. This would also eliminate an immense amount of energy usage
Just give the money to the NSF instead. Why spend $4 billion on this (pointless, worthless) technology that Silicon Valley is already running headlong to create?
Want to help? Forget subsidies and test programs. Just pass sweeping national legislation (eg. tie state programs to federal incentives) that makes roads autonomous car friendly and that don't pander to "jobs, jobs, jobs." Otherwise, states (like California) are going to make unfriendly laws, like the recent DMV draft proposal:<p>> At issue is the requirement that DMV-certified “autonomous vehicle operators” are “required to be present inside the vehicle and be capable of taking control in the event of a technology failure or other emergency.” In other words, driverless cars will not be allowed on California roads for the foreseeable future.<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2015/12/18/california-slams-the-brakes-on-googles-driverless-car/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2015/12/18/california-...</a>