The ideal market would be inner city/urban core but how is this better then a bus or just walking? How does it handle jaywalkers and bicyclists??
In more suburban and rural areas, you need higher top speed, but that complicates the inputs (the main reason the top speed in the US is 70mph is that is what the roads are design for. The reason roads are designed for 70 mph is because at higher speeds the time needed for a driver to adjust to ordinary problems of driving is less then the time between when a driver sees the normal problem and the vehicle reaching the point of the problem i.e. you "see" the accident after it has happened. Thus interstates are designed to minimize anything other then other cars on the road thus are the safest roads for they minimize anything that is not "Normal" for driving).
Please note, I use the term "ordinary problems" I mean like a car going slower then you are NOT something more, like a car crossing the yellow line into your lane, or a car coming to a complete stop.
Computer driven vehicles have been used on various interstates for years, I read about them in the 1990s. Interstates are the roads with the best accident records for they restrict what is on them, right down to fences to keep animals off the interstates. The problem is with other roads, such as suburban roads with NO sidewalks. People tend to forget that it is still legal for pedestrians to walk on such roads.
Remember the law, if there is a conflict between Pedestrians and Vehicles it is the Vehicles that must be banned. People have a constitutional right to "Freedom of Movement" but the courts have said that is the Freedom to walk not drive. Unless some sort of FREE transportation is provided, you can NOT ban Pedestrians on any road that had been open to pedestrians. Thus Interstates can ban Pedestrians for they are built for exclusive use of vehicles and have NEVER been opened to Pedestrians for day to day travel but if the Interstate was built on top of another road that had been opened to the public the Highway Department MUST provide an alternative means for Pedestrians.
Thus the interactions of these vehicles with pedestrians on roads without sidewalks is what I would like to see. Worse, Pedestrians walking on the left (as is required in all States) and stepping onto the road bed where they think it is safe, and stepping off the pavement when they think that is what is needed to be done to be safe AND adjustments for areas when such side stepping is impossible thus pedestrians must stay on the pavement even as the car approaches.
My point is this vehicle, right now, has so many restrictions as to speed as to be excluded from use on the safest roads, the Interstates, AND I have not seen how it handles pedestrians walking down the middle of the road. How can you increase the speed AND how it handles slower users of the road are the big questions on the usability of such a vehicle. This article does not address either issue,
I have read other articles about this Google project and it seems to be driven more by ego then "economic need". i.e. Google thinks it can do this, thus is doing this. On the other hand, the actual "Demand" or "Need" (as those terms are used in Marketing) is questionable. These vehicles, if they do work in urban environments (can interact with pedestrians) would solve a problem with modern automobiles, where to park them (such vehicles are parked elsewhere and sent to a rider when it is called for, thus no parking issue). On the other hand, can it do this in a way that is profitable? i.e take people from their homes to where they shop or work? If it can handle large numbers of pedestrians and everything is within the urban core or older suburbs this is doable with this design, but it is NOT doable if the roads are more "Suburban" in nature, i.e. speeds in excess of 25 mph (Which includes a lot of older, pre WWII suburbs AND some post WWII suburbs).
In Rural Areas, Google will have to address the 25 mph limit.
I suspect these problem are insurmountable. Dealing with a lot of Pedestrians, many who are jaywalking, may be to much for the system. i.e. refuses to move for there is no clear path do to pedestrians. This is a major problems in most urban areas (In Pittsburgh for example, Pedestrians are given the cross signal, at the same time turns are permitted in the same intersections, the cars are to wait for the Pedestrians to cross, or push through the Pedestrians, how would a google car handle that situation?).
In Rural Areas how do you handle someone walking TOWARDS the Vehicle in the left lane (as he or she is legally obligated to do) and there is no room on the other side of the road to move to for another vehicle is coming to you in the right lane (As vehicles must by law do)?
I suspect this is designed for modern suburbs with few or no pedestrians but speeds below 25 mphs for they are NOT to be used on Interstates. These are the same suburbs where parking is rarely a problem thus the main advantage of using such a system does not exist (i.e. No lack of parking). Thus it is solution to a problem that does not exist (or the famous observation, a solution looking for a problem to solve). It is technology driven, not driven by any need that it can do better i.e. is it better then a bus in an urban area with heavy pedestrian traffic? Is it better then a car in a rural area with no parking shortage? The more I look at this, it becomes more and more a solution looking for a problem to solve and that may be why it will survive for the next 20-30 years before people finally discover the alternatives are a better solution to the problems this can address (i.e. people movers on their own right of way, elevated to be above pedestrians, while stopping on ever corner, providing fast enough movement in urban areas for most people).
= new reply since forum marked as read
