The other thing is that it could save gas.

If you line up the vehicles and "draft" each other -- the amount gas savings for those in the rear could end up being substantial.

Doesn't a taxi serve the same purpose?

Sounds better than high-speed rail. Good idea. And it would save fuel, it would seem.

A blind man wrote this emotional post about his first experiences using a new app on an iPhone. http://behindthecurtain.us/2010/06/12/my-first-week-with-the-iphone/

Doesn't a taxi serve the same purpose?

My thought is that you'd have a private, driverless car that you could push a button to order -- or order off your phone the way I program alerts on my iPhone.

Great story, Jason.

I actually did some work on this back in the early '90s, as part of a grad school project. The system we were working on was limited; it would only work on highways that had guidance systems built in. But yes, it would have saved fuel and eased congestion by allowing cars to follow very closely. It also would have (eventually) lowered shipping costs by extending the hours that a trucker could drive each day.

But Ted Frank is absolutely right; it will never see the light of day because the liability is unlimited. Under the current liability regime, aviation could never have developed in the U.S. After Thomas Selfridge's family got done suing the Wright brothers for every penny they had, that would have been the end of it.

"Doesn't a taxi serve the same purpose?" - NicoleK

Yes, but you have to pay the driver. Slashdot posted this yesterday, and one of the people posted a link to a guy who thought it would transform how we think of cars. I agree with him. A company could run a fleet of electric cars as taxis that would be cheaper for people than owning their own cars and still be about as convenient.

I think it will see light of day, though not as soon as it should. The U.S.A. may wait till they're widely adopted in other countries and the accident rates in those countries plummet before it changes the law, but it will eventually happen. Not long after that, it will probably be illegal for a human to drive.

I see the legal problems - but it doesn't stop me wanting one. Just to make the necessity for a designated driver or the expense of taxis a thing of the past...

Their progress is impressive if it works as well as they say.

Oh, and top of my wish list - teleportation. Now that would trigger huge changes to society - no need for cities anymore if you can live anywhere in the world and commute in seconds.

Google is in no way a pioneer in this field. For several years now there's been an annual event called the DARPA Challenge. It's quite fascinating the different approaches used by the various teams.

Thank God it's not Microsoft developing this. Imagine "Windows GT" and the blue (wind)screen of death.

I would HATE a car that drove me. We would just replace that moment with some artificial one, like DVD players or internet access.

Driving has been a great pleasure in my life, especially with the top down. Then again, if it got some dumb S.O.B. who wants to go 70mph through Glacier National Park off my ass, it might be worth it. I would love to drive across Canada in an old jalopy if it weren't for the rest of humanity.

Robert, the guy heading the Google effort was involved in the Darpa Challenge too.

No matter how safe this is supposed to be, I'd be afraid of getting killed by a computer bug.

I occasionally wonder if we're heading for some grand reckoning on the liability thing. But maybe I'm crazy.

My high-tech wish item is a nanotech implant that would protect my skin from the sun without the need for sunscreen. (Got the idea from David Weber.) That wouldn't bring about world peace, but I prefer to think small in these matters...

I'm a bit with KrisL. It's like how all bathrooms are automatic... and the toilets flush when you sit on them and don't when you get up. Then you try to wash your hands and the soap won't dispense and the water won't come on. Automatic bathrooms that don't work are gross. Automatic cars that don't work would be disasterous...

I'm still waiting for my flying car like I was promised in the 60's! And I think that this concept will go the same route. Bits of this technology are already being introduced into current car models (lane avoidance, auto braking in emergencies, adaptive cruise control, etc.) and it will continue to do so, but we will never have fully robotic cars.

IMHO, communication advances and immersive technologies (3D displays, tactile simulation, etc.) will remove much of the need for personal transportation in the future.

Jim P, those in the front will pay for the gas those in the rear save. With computers and GPS allowing us to know who was where, when, it should be fairly simple for those in front to bill the parasites in the rear.

If this concept could be extended to the economy, I think a lot would change. Most Federal employees would be paying to go to work, for starters.

I think the cost of including a reasonable amount of fail-safes will be what keeps it from being implemented sooner rather than later. I wouldn't trust it unless it had a fail-safe plan similar to the Space Shuttle, in which there are 3 (I think, could be 5) independent systems making the decisions, then comparing the results, and raising a notification if one of the results start to diverge, with the two others taking over, and then if those start to go out, requiring the human to take over, or else pull off the road.

Sweet. I'll be able to kick back, have a beer and send some text messages on my drive home from work!

I think we are asking the worng question here. Why do we need to travel? Ask yourself that question with an open mind, and there are lots of technologies that may occur to you that would change the need for it. I have an older school bossman who wants to see my face every day, else, I'd telecommute. When I am close to his age, my employees WILL telecommute, becuase it is way cheaper for me to pay their phone and that, then to rent office space for them. Suddenly the cost benifit for me even having a car changes.

THAT is when public transport starts making sense. I'd be barking mad to take it everyday now, but if I was only using it once or twice a month? Then it makes sense.

Natually this wont work for everyone, but some large fraction of people could work from home, or regionally clustered offices, if home wont work out.

On the other hand, there are times that I drive for the pleasure of doing so, so I'd like the option of that.

The key with Amy's driverless car, is to make it so she doesn't need one at all. Having most things delivered to your door, and working from home facilitates this. Then all you need is to hoof it to the local starbucks or bistro.

it's not bending the spoon, it's relizing that the spoon isn't there...

very fantasy.. nice car to have.. maybe i can buy it as christmas gift for her

^ ^
I spam, spam, spam, oh what wounderful SPAM!!! I

or not.

While I would not trust a driverless car, I think the technology would be very useful in emergency situations. If the driver falls asleep or dies of a heart attack, the system could kick in, turn on the emergency flashers, and take the car off the road to a safe area, possibly even alerting 911. But I certainly wouldn't trust it to do the driving for me.

While I would not trust a driverless car, [...] But I certainly wouldn't trust it to do the driving for me.

Why not? It's a lead pipe cinch that the computer is a better driver than you are. (Or me, or anybody else.)

I trust computer drivers more than I trust human drivers.

Natually this wont work for everyone, but some large fraction of people could work from home, or regionally clustered offices, if home wont work out.

I very much look forward to when telecommuting is the norm. I am so much more productive from home.

Jim P, those in the front will pay for the gas those in the rear save. With computers and GPS allowing us to know who was where, when, it should be fairly simple for those in front to bill the parasites in the rear.

That is only if you are the front person everyday. Day 1 you are the lead -- day 2-3 you are the drafter - day 5 you are the lead. Can I bill you for not being a lead five days a week -- especially when you drive an SUV and I drive a Volt/Prius/etc?

Actually the front car benefits from the draft too. It's all about reducing the difference in dynamic pressure between the nose of the car and the tail. If the rear car is following closely enough, its presence fills in some of the low-pressure area behind the front car and reduces that pressure differential, which means the front car encounters less drag. That's way two race cars in a draft can be faster than either one of the two cars running by itself.