Hacker News Reader

Comment by nichodges | Hacker News Reader

My initial reaction was dismay that Google seemingly didn't consult any decent auto designers on this. But then I wonder if that's actually fine.

My kids will likely be baffled by the idea that we attached so much of our own identity to our cars. The financial investment in cars to make a statement about ourselves (over and above getting us from A to B) is immensely irrational.

With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear, and be replaced with time sharing. At that point the connection between our view of ourselves, and the car we ride in disappears.

I'm not sure that completely excuses the lack of modern car aesthetic here, but it could go some way to explaining it.

View on HN

Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.

I am somewhat anxious to see how this plays out financially and economically otherwise. Will these cars cost the same as a car that every person now buys for themselves with maybe a little higher cost of maintenance and operation (M&O)? Will there essentially be one manufacturer because one vehicle can support 10 people and we don't need millions of these things pumped out? And will the collapse of competition mean that there will be a monopoly (dare I say it, Über) that over-charges all of humanity after they have essentially captured the market in the exact way that an evil empire like Über would?

An even bigger question I have, will this kind of development essentially mean the doom for anonymous movements? We can all imagine that there will essentially be no way that you will be able to ride in one of these without identifying yourself and at some point manual vehicles will be banned; very likely in most of our lifetimes. At which point you, the guy who rides his bike or walks will be highly suspect if you are even able to at all, since you must be hiding something since you don't want to use the government tracker transporter.

> Forget your kids... I'm baffled. I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it. If you think about it I'm sure you pay tens of thousands of dollars on a thing that moves you around but ultimately, sits around way more than not.

It's a status symbol. If you don't understand them or why cars function as such...you probably don't understand people :)

> I'm baffled that people are willing to squander so much money on cars, especially people who have relatively little of it.

Yes, but if you have to have a car, and some people do (to commute to work, etc) then what a car costs is what you have to pay. It's not squandered money if there aren't any other options.

If you pay too little, chances are you end up with a lemon that will just die on you after a week, and then where are you?

All possessions are fundamentally irrational. I'm baffled why people would collect vinyl, buy overpriced designer clothing, pay for expensive tickets to sport, buy expensive kitchen implements - and on and on and on.

I like cars. I like driving. There are some cars I'd be happy to own, even if they didn't go. I spend money on buying, maintaining and driving cars because it's something I like doing.

This is no more or less irrational than any number of other discretionary spends. So you shouldn't be baffled anymore.

The oatmeal wrote about it:

| Google's new fleet was intentionally designed to look adorable... By turning self-driving cars into an adorable Skynet Marshmallow Bumper Bots, Google hopes to spiritually disarm other drivers. I also suspect the cuteness is used to quell some of the road rage that might emerge from being stuck behind one of these things. They're intended as moderate-distance couriers, not open-road warriors, so their max speed is 25 miles per hour.

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/google_self_driving_car

Is the 25mph limit a US thing? In the UK the normal minimum (aside from select residential zones where the neighbours complain) is 30mph. Many people would be very annoyed to sit behind a car doing 5 below the speed limit.

35mph is the normal minimum in the US, outside of some neighborhoods where it gets as low as 20-25mph.

The 25mph speed is a hack around US auto regulations, which are far less strict if the vehicle's max speed is 25mph or less.

> 35mph is the normal minimum in the US

In California, the default speed limit in business or residential districts is 25 mph, this is also the default speed limit for school zones.

35mph is closer to the norm- I don't think a 25mph car would work (even in cities).

The speed limit on about 90% of New York City's roads is now 25 mph. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/things-to-know-...

Many people in the US are very annoying to sit behind someone doing 5 above the speed limit in many places (and I don't mean just highways, where the speed limit is just an unlimited police funding scheme through being able to ticket anyone whenever you want).

I imagine they did 25mph because its slow enough to appease representatives in letting them put the car on the road. Nobody with the ability to actually make this happen is rational or knowledgeable about this, and will behave like psychotic monkeys when confronted with autos, so Google is using every trick in the book to make these look innocent, including Grandma grade speed limits.

A lot of golf cart like vehicles operate at this speed. We had a few dozen at the university and all of the "street legal" ones had a limit stamped on them of 25mph.

It varies from state to state. In California, where the testing is taking place, it happens to be 25. In Texas, it's 30.

25 miles per hour classifies it as a slow moving vehicle which is much less regulated. It also puts it in the same class as bicycles, golf carts, tractors, etc, which are all perfectly road legal.

> With self driving cars ownership will likely disappear

That's a bold statement. It might become more of a luxury, i.e. something you buy when you reach a certain income, rather than something you need to live. But disappear, no, it won't.

As anecdote, I can bring the experience of European life. In a lot of European towns and cities, you can live quite comfortably without a car, today -- after all, they were built for people and horses. Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.

In London, a lot of people simply use cabs to move around most of the time; but sure enough, if they have a decent income, they'll buy a car and park it somewhere, ready to be driven during their countryside weekends.

Already today, car ownership has very little to do with convenience; it's mostly about ownership and individualism, something that is completely opposite to the concept of sharing. My wife is absolutely horrified at the thought of sharing anything ("germs! ruined things!" etc etc), and that will not change because of Google or Uber.

> Rich people (or people who want to be seen as wealthy) still buy huge SUVs -- and then struggle to park them, because they're not as thin as a horse.

Do Europeans really by SUVs like that? I was under the impression a sports car like a Porsche (or even Ferrari) would be the grander status symbol?

Don't underestimate the influence of US culture; SUVs are the new "estate Mercedes" over here.

Sports car are really quite gauche, the realm of sheiks, footballers and crass salesmen. Old Money, industrialists, politicians and affluent professionals will buy SUVs for the day-to-day.

In London I know a fair few people that earn over £100,000. None of them own cars. Aside from the fact that the tube or a bike is generally far faster for A-B the drinking culture means that people really don't want to be stuck having to drive a car home.

I often wonder how much of it is a human trait. Transportation has many sides, it's a psycho-physiological wonder (push a pedal while sitting, and move faster than running), it's a moving private space, a technical and aesthetic source of pleasure, obviously a social status sign also. Were people as attached to their horses, boats ? was it a rite of passage or just a mundane thing ?

I don't want to own a self-driving car. I want the self-driving equivalent of a taxi or Uber. Press a button on my phone, the closest one shows up, drives me where I want to go, and then hangs out nearby for the next person or goes back to the closest designated parking location.

These self-driving cars will be cheaper than even UberX/Lyft/whatever, as there is no driver to have to pay. They can be smaller than a cab, taking up much less parking room (they can park too close for their doors to open, and they don't need to including seating for a driver), which can actually be a fairly significant cost in the city, where convenient parking spaces can sell for as much as a house does elsewhere.

Good points but some people just enjoy the act of driving and take a lot of pride in customizing their cars to match their tastes. A fundamentally human trait that will of course adjust to changing technology, but won't go away as staunchly as you think.

so we'll use our "driver's cars" on scenic roads and racetracks. I don't think many people enjoy driving through heavy city traffic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com