By Sree Sreenivasan
DNAinfo Contributing Editor
Whatever you think of Google, you have to admit the folks there think big.
Digitize all the world's books? Check. Give everyone free, unlimited e-mail? Check. Ambitious motto ("Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful")? Check.
And if along the way there's controversy, that's just the price of thinking big.
So while Google's latest project, announced this weekend, is shocking in some ways, it shouldn't be surprising.
Google's new goal: Cars that can drive themselves. And, it turns out, the tech giant has already been testing several of the cars in traffic ("1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control,” according to a detailed New York Times story).
Here's how Sebastian Thrun, a Google scientist, explained the philosophy behind the project in a Saturday blog post:
Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] founded Google because they wanted to help solve really big problems using technology. And one of the big problems we’re working on today is car safety and efficiency. Our goal is to help prevent traffic accidents, free up people’s time and reduce carbon emissions by fundamentally changing car use.
Thrun's explanation on how it works:
Our automated cars use video cameras, radar sensors and a laser range finder to “see” other traffic, as well as detailed maps (which we collect using manually driven vehicles) to navigate the road ahead. This is all made possible by Google’s data centers, which can process the enormous amounts of information gathered by our cars when mapping their terrain.
Safety has been our first priority in this project. Our cars are never unmanned. We always have a trained safety driver behind the wheel who can take over as easily as one disengages cruise control. And we also have a trained software operator in the passenger seat to monitor the software. Any test begins by sending out a driver in a conventionally driven car to map the route and road conditions. By mapping features like lane markers and traffic signs, the software in the car becomes familiar with the environment and its characteristics in advance. And we’ve briefed local police on our work.
According to the company, the one accident the cars were involved in during this test period was when another car rear-ended a Google car while it was stopped at a traffic light.
Thrun goes on to say that this technology has the potential to reduce by half the number of traffic fatalities each year, saving more than half-a-million lives.
That idea, while another grand and worthy Google goal, is, I bet, decades away from reality. The amount of legal, technological and human obstacles in the way are staggering. Everything from insurance issues to worldwide infrastructure to simple reluctance to trust your life to a machine are going to slow things down. No matter how many lives it saves, all the benefits will be obscured by the first death it causes.
And wait till a Google car tries to deal with the unique chaos that is Manhattan traffic.
Buried deep in the blog post is the reason why — beyond having a big idea — Google is involved in this project:
In terms of time efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that people spend on average 52 minutes each working day commuting. Imagine being able to spend that time more productively.
Yes, just imagine. Time driving and paying attention to the road is time spent, I hope, away from the web and your smartphone. That's also time away from Google and all its products. Millions of drivers with an hour of extra web time a day can potentially mean a lot to Google, its partners and its shareholders.
Despite my skepticism that this is going to be beneficial in the long run, I have to admit that it is pretty cool stuff (back in 2006, I was impressed by the merely self-parking Lexus).
As someone who doesn't like driving, I'd benefit enormously from this technology. But I have a feeling it's my kids and perhaps their kids who'll likely be driving these cars.
What do you think? Post your comments below or on Twitter @sreenet.
Every week, DNAinfo contributing editor Sree Sreenivasan, a Columbia journalism professor, shares his observations about the changing media landscape.
