I worked at Google for 3 years and GM for 5 years (including engineering in Cadillac) so when I see news about the companies, my ears tend to perk up.<p>A few things should be set straight. Google was not (and by a long shot) the first to think of and try to develop self driving technology. I'm disappointed to see technical people in silicon valley not think a bit more critically. All OEMs and many tier 1 suppliers have thought about and (especially larger players) tried to build self driving cars. When you're a company like Denso or Bosch, this is a massive opportunity and not to aim a few people of your hundreds of thousands of employees to the problem is hard to imagine even if you know nothing about automotive. To be clear when I worked at Bosch from 2004-06, this tech was in development.<p>Secondly, the HN crowd specifically is notably biased. Check out Google self driving announcements vs GM (or any news about automotive manufactures other than Tesla). Having worked at both companies in product and engineering - yes they are of course different. But not nearly as much as you think. The single most notable difference is that Google is a very margin rich business. That allows the company to attract and retain top talent but it doesn't mean engineers that doesn't work at Google are bozos.<p>Thirdly, the technology that traditional OEMs have tried to develop is around 2 axis - cost and safety. Google is approaching the problem differently. Google's approach of a $x0,000 LiDAR system might prove to work if LiDar costs fall but thats a big risk. Also, Google admits that their cars don't work in things like rain. I'm not saying Google won't win this space - the contrary, I think they have a great shot. What i'm saying is this is significantly complex tech and its complexity is hard to understate. There can and will be different solutions that work.<p>Lastly, GM and Google are not the only ones in the game. Nissan and Mercedes have announced they will have cars with similar tech in 2017/18. Ever single automotive player is investing huge amounts of resources.
Anyone remember reading an old article about the relationship between safety equipment and risky behavior? The idea was that the more safe you feel, the more likely you are to engage in unsafe behavior. The example given was that cyclists with helmets were much less cautious of traffic than bicyclists without helmets.<p>So I'm not sure if this has to do with cars feeling more safe or just the prevalence of smart phones, but driving down the interstate and paying close attention to what other cars are doing is terrifying. Literally every day I see a number of people driving 70+ MPH and slightly drifting over the lines or driving with their phones perched in front of them on the steering wheel. And it is not just teens or other classes of people typically associated with risky behavior, it is everyone.<p>This transition from smart-cars to self-driving cars is scary. As the cars become more attentive it seems we get less attentive.
>>"The roads will be equipped with sensors and cameras that enable roads to communicate with cars to alert drivers to hazards and congestion. The technology, to be deployed along stretches of Detroit’s busiest freeways, will monitor vehicle speed and position, though that information will be anonymous and police won’t use it to ticket drivers, Lauckner said."<p>Call me skeptical, but I highly doubt that this type of tech would not be used by police
I wonder if the "vehicle-to-vehicle" technology could be implemented faster if it was included in GPS mapping apps. Sure, your GPS can't slam on your brakes but it could warn you of hazards, and your data might be used to slam on the brakes of the car behind you (and prevent you getting rear-ended!)
Actual news about this will tell us how the system deals with distracted or sleeping drivers.<p>Right now we assume a computer driven car can handle the highway. How it handles its human occupants is the real question.