GM plans to have driverless cars on the road by 2018

There's certainly no shortage of folks working to developed driverless vehicles, but GM now looks set to make itself one of the biggest players and, judging from its targets, one of the most ambitious. As the AP reports. GM bigwig Rick Wagoner will devote at least part of his speech at CES on Tuesday to the technology, with testing of the vehicles reportedly planned as soon as 2015 and the first cars on the road expected "around 2018." As you might expect, those goals have left some slightly skeptical, with DARPA Urban Challenge competitor Sebastian Thrun telling the AP that while it's "technically attainable," he's hardly confident that he'll see driverless cars on the roads within a decade, saying that there are "some very fundamental, basic regulations in the way of that vision in many countries." For it's part, GM sees the technology initially being used for highway driving only, with you still responsible for controlling the vehicle around local streets -- except for parking, of course.

[Pierce @ Apr 13th 2008 5:32PM]

Real men drive American-made cars.

[C Martin @ Jan 7th 2008 12:56PM]

Wow, I hope Microsoft doesn't do the software for future self-driven cars. Can you imagine the confusion in traffic accident investigation? M$ will flatly deny their cars were in any wrecks, despite twisted metal and blood on the pavement.

[michael @ Jan 7th 2008 6:37PM]

Hmm.

1) This article has NOTHING to do with Microsoft.
2) You must be very low to be bashing about a company who has nothing to do with this article, and making up junk.

I mean really, you have to wonder why people buy any crap from MS if it really is so awful. Obviously, because most people aren't silly fanboys like you and aren't the type to go around bashing left and right.

[C Martin @ Jan 8th 2008 8:42AM]

Michael, or shall I call you Bill?

I find it humorous that GM is claiming they'll have cars "on the road" that are self-driving. I think they'll be on the road, off the road, in people's houses, on curbs, etc. etc.

And when it comes to cars and computers, M$ has been pushing their SYNC in car system quite heavily lately. True, that's with Ford, but really, who is M$' competitor?

Who else will make the software for GM? Software that, like Vista, probably won't work right, will be rushed to market and then will have all kinds of problems. Unfortunately, software problems on a self-driven car will be a lot different from the current woes of Vista and Xbox Live. No one dies if I can't log on Xbox Live. Laptops, while they do crash, don't careen out of control and plow through a crowd of kids at a bus stop.

Cars are big pieces of metal more than capable of killing. And given the many failures of electronics and software we read about on sites liek this one, are we so sure self-driven cars is such a good idea?

And who's the fanboy, Michaelsoft?

[nano @ Jan 7th 2008 12:55PM]

Bwahahaha. GM should "plan" to stay alive by 2018. With Toyota taking the second spot in US sales and having been shipping hybrids for better part of a decade, GM may fall on hard times soon. I, for one, never even consider GM when buying a car.

[Sam_Smith @ Jan 7th 2008 4:36PM]

GM won't be around in 2018

[Perrey Z. @ Jan 7th 2008 7:21PM]

maybe is the other way around. Is not the Japs (Thank G*D!) who created the marvelous Escalade, Solstice, Enclave and Acadia. Toyotas are simply second grade vehicles, dispossable cars for disposable people.

[James @ Jan 9th 2008 1:06PM]

Hey Perrey, I'm a "Jap" and you're probably Caucasian. Does that mean I can call you a "cauc"? Just asking.

Also, maybe I'm just "dispossable" but I don't even know what a Enclave or a Acadia is. But I can tell you they probably won't be around in a few years when GM needs to meet the new fuel efficiency regulations.

Just read this article: http://www.wheels.ca/newsFeatures/article/50268

Oh and Thank G*D!

[BigD145 @ Jan 9th 2008 2:30PM]

@James
No, but you can call him a 'honky'.

@Perrey
Japanese made cars use more American parts than any Detroit outfit. In the words of the almighty honky, "Suck it."

[Homeboy @ Jan 7th 2008 12:59PM]

How about focusing to get cars people want to buy, out on the roads by 2010. The GM stock is crumbling.

[friendlyner @ Jan 7th 2008 12:57PM]

I kind of feel like GM should focus on cars with drivers that drivers want to buy. Like, the kind that don't break down all the time or aim for what the Japanese did 10 years ago.

[Dan Z @ Jan 7th 2008 1:04PM]

As soon as it gets to the technology of cars in Minority Report, then we'll be set.

[rv @ Jan 7th 2008 2:23PM]

No more traffic accidents. One less thing to worry about.

[Jonathan Bergeron @ Jan 7th 2008 1:13PM]

What a freakin joke. GM can't make a quality vehicle with decent gas mileage' and they expect driverless cars??

Maybe GM thinks if they make ludicrous statements, like this, they'll become profitable again. Cause, Lord knows, they gave up on making quality vehicles a long time ago.

[gary @ Jan 7th 2008 1:16PM]

Full automation WILL eventually overtake transportation, even if it's not GM doing it. My own feeling is that rails are needed to insure reliability and permit fully electric vehicles without all the batteries. Like this...

http://www.PRTProject.com

gary

[moder @ Jan 7th 2008 1:19PM]

Wow! That puts them only about 13 years behind Honda:

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/08/04/a-look-at-hondas-lane-holding-cruise-control/

Honda is already selling an autodrive feature for highways which monitors traffic around you and keeps you in your lane, though it will disengage if you take your hands off the steering wheel. The GM plan for highways may be a bit wider scope than that, but they're not exactly being bold.

As Thrun notes the regulatory landscape in the US isn't the best for this, so I expect to see this elsewhere first. Once they've had a few years to work out the kinks and legal status it will come here.

This has great potential to reduce highway fatalities and injuries. I don't know how we as a society tolerate the more than 40,000 Americans dieing on our roads every year and hundreds of thousands more being injured.

[josh @ Jan 7th 2008 1:22PM]

Seeing how certain GM SUV drivers behave on the road I actually look forward to the prospects of a car driving for them (at least some entity in the vehicle would be paying attention to the road again).

[James Cameron @ Jan 7th 2008 1:28PM]

So who do we sue when the cars gets into an accident?

[Joe @ Jan 7th 2008 1:30PM]

Guess GM has figured out that they can't sell cars to drivers, so why not try selling to ... uh, err ... hmm, so if drivers buy driven cars, then who will buy driver-less cars?

[szamot @ Jan 7th 2008 1:51PM]

That's a good thing too, because if the continue at their current course making this shit there will be on one to buy and drive they brutal vehicles....by 2018 although I doubt it will take that long.

[alan.estes @ Jan 7th 2008 1:35PM]

I guess the auto industry has given up on flying cars?

[Larry @ Jan 7th 2008 1:38PM]

On the positive side. If these cars become popular there could be less drunk driving accidents.

[newgalactic @ Jan 7th 2008 2:31PM]

...and it'll still get 28 MPG (at best).

[shecks @ Jan 7th 2008 2:51PM]

At least there will be short lines in the DMV...

[Brent @ Jan 7th 2008 3:21PM]

Oh the rant this sends me on. No existing technology could save more lives in the US than robotic driven cars. Quite certainly the technology does exist today. It may be expensive technology, but given a government mandate to car companies, followed by a hefty subsidy it could be fully implemented within 5 years.

This is where it gets me really mad though. As has been pointed out the regulation in this country would make it almost impossible even in the next 10 years as is pointed out. Sure, laws can be changed, but simply put, won't.

Car insurance is a hundred billion dollar industry with a GOVERNMENT MANDATE to anyone with a car. No imagine that personal responsibility is completely removed. There would be no need for car insurance, essentially ending overnight one of the most profitable segments of American business. There's simply no way the insurance companies would allow it. They employ more lobbyists than any other industry. They make the tobacco, alcohol and gun industries combined look like amateurs.

So, the end result is and industry getting rich on 40,000+ deaths a year and a government that not only won't take real action to lower that number, but in fact forbids real change.

[sila332 @ Jan 7th 2008 4:32PM]

Government regulation won't stop this, or insurance company self interest. The economic advantages of driverless vehicles, especially commercial vehicles, will motivate companies like UPS and Wall Mart so powerfully that this technology will move as rapidly across the economic landscape as rail did in the 19th century. All we need to do is get state governments to turn over a bit of their highway shoulders and a few miles of carpool lanes to the experiment.

[SimbaDogg @ Jan 7th 2008 3:50PM]

Its funny that w/ GMs big hopes and aspirations, they get nothing but flak from all the above posters. If Honda and Toyota were to release a statement stating the same intentions, they'd be regarded as revolutionary. This is the EXACT thing that GM needs to make their cars worth purchasing again, something thats revolutionary and something you wont find in the competition. They're not going to get ahead of the competition by copying them.

[TC @ Jan 7th 2008 4:52PM]

Driverless cars = paperless office. They will arrive at about the same time.

[Perrey Z. @ Jan 7th 2008 7:21PM]

Wow! what a bunch of anti-Americans posting in here no wonder this country is so screw up. GM is currently offering the top wanted most popular vehicles ever. They are the worldwide leaders., GM's warranty can't be beat 5-years/100,000 miles. Try to top that with your cheap weak recycle aluminum, Toyo!

Just a reminders of what's hot:

the all-new 2008 Cadillac CTS, Escalade, ESV, and EXT. The upcoming 2009 CTS-Sport, 2009 Escalade Sport and the 2008 ESV Platinum edition.

Buick Enclave.

GMC Acadia, Yukon Denali, Yukon XL Denali.

Pontiac Solstice, and the upcoming G8.

Saturn, Sky and The Red Line models.

Chevrolet Malibu, and the upcoming Camaro for 2009.

[GMack @ Jan 8th 2008 3:39AM]

My freshman year in engineering school, I had to attend a doctoral thesis presentation by a grad-student that was doing his research on this very subject. This was back in 1996 and he was piggy-backing on over 30 years of research at that point.

Long story short, this is a very attainable goal. Over 10 years ago, they already had 8 miles of test road somewhere out in California (too lazy to Google it) and had succesful demonstrations of a convoy of 10 cars traveling at 120mph, spaced only 3' apart.

The jist of this system is simple - a special set of lanes (seperated from the normal lanes) would be put into place. You enter your where you want to get out of these lanes (now, I assume just enter your destination in your GPS). When you enter the special lanes, the car takes over. It merges you into traffic and does your driving, follow embeded sensors in the road, radar, vision and communication with the other cars around you. When a hazard is detected, the vehicle will avoid it and also transmit this information to all the vehicles following it. Basically, the convoy moves like a flock of birds or school of fish.

Once you reach your destination, the car pulls out of the lane you take over again. They even thought of sleeping (or dead) drivers - as you approach your off-ramp, the car requires a manual input. If you don't respond in time it merges you out of traffic and alerts authorites that something is wrong.

Again, I really simplified the system.

And even back in 1996, the equipment and technology existed. There were two main hurdles that had to be overcome - 1) Sell price and 2) Infrastructure. Research has shown that the most people will pay for an "option" on a vehicle, even as great as this, is no more than $3,000. I believe the system they had at that time was somewhere in the $10,000 range. As for infrastructure, it's not really clear who would pay for the advanced traffic control system that would have to be put in place, as well as the construction costs to embed the sensors.

Of course, the best way would be to devolp a system that didn't need either of these and with the advances in machine vision and detection technologies, I believe this will be the way GM goes.

So, this is not as far fetched as it seems. Of course, what everyone else says about the regulatory nature of the US is true, so that will be the biggest hurdle.