# GM Drops the Steering Wheel and Gives Robot Driver Control



## llort (Oct 7, 2016)

Next year, General Motors Co. will no longer need an engineer in the front seat babysitting the robot brain that controls its self-driving Chevrolet Bolt. The steering wheel and pedals will be gone, giving total control to the machine.

When GM starts testing its autonomous electric sedan in San Francisco ride-sharing fleets, it'll likely be the first production-ready car on the roads without the tools to let a human assume control. The announcement Friday is the first sign from a major carmaker that engineers have enough confidence in self-driving cars to let them truly go it alone.

"What's really special about this is if you look back 20 years from now, it's the first car without a steering wheel and pedals," said Kyle Vogt, chief executive officer of Cruise Automation, the San Francisco-based unit developing the software for GM's self-driving cars.

GM shares rose as much as 1.1 percent at 9:36 a.m. in New York to $44.68, the highest intraday trading level since Nov. 29.

*Pedal-Free Rides*
GM will run the cars in a test batch for a ride-sharing program starting in 2019, and they won't be without a safety net. The vehicles will travel on a fixed route controlled by their mapping system, and the Detroit-based automaker is applying for federal permission to run the test cars without a driver.

Vogt said the self-driving Bolt has redundant systems built in to back up the driving systems. If there's a problem, the car will slow down, pull over to the roadside and stop.

GM's experiment will be a significant step forward for self-driving cars. The automaker and companies including Alphabet Inc.'s Waymo unit and startup Zoox Inc. have demonstrated cars that can drive with so-called Level 4 autonomy. As defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers, cars at that level can drive without human intervention but only in certain geographic areas.

EXCERPT Read More:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ring-wheel-and-gives-the-robot-driver-control


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

https://twitter.com/andyjayhawk/status/951842538402598912?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://jalopnik.com/ajax/inset/iframe?id=twitter-951842538402598912&autosize=1
(this car has mirrors.... Why?)

For as much hype as GM's 'production ready' driverless, control-free car has gotten, both from GM themselves and the media, you'd think they'd have bothered to make something that looks like they, you know, thought about it for more than an afternoon. Sure, the tech is impressive, but the design is terrible, and hopefully will not be a sign of things to come for autonomous vehicles.

First, try to be clear about what GM is actually showing here, because I don't actually think it is all that clear. Fundamentally, it's an autonomous Bolt, designed without any provision for human control, much like Google's now-dead koala-like autonomous vehicle from 2014.

According to communication we've had with GM, the car is not a concept, but rather a 'production-intent' vehicle. It's the vehicle GM intends to build when/if NHTSA accepts the safety petition GM submitted.

So, according to GM, the design we're seeing here is what they're planning to build in some sort of quantity-that number is unknown as well.

So, this is sort of a test vehicle, except we've been told what we're seeing is what they'll make, so it's really a pre-production vehicle, I suppose. It's clearly not a concept, because concept cars have something this doesn't: a _concept_.

This is literally a Bolt with a bunch of sensors, electronics, and without the steering wheel and pedals. The interior design is only a half-step better than if they just took off the steering wheel and stuck a plastic blanking plate over the hole.

My problem with GM's design here is that it doesn't seem like any effort was spent into designing an interior that makes sense for a car with no controls.

And, I know the lack of controls are a Big Deal, because people keep telling me that.
















Look, that one even has the little clappy hands and everything, so I better pay attention.

Okay, so, if this is such a big deal, GM should have really re-worked the interior, because what they're showing now is terrible. I understand that for cost and production reasons, they likely did not want to design a new interior, but that's an excuse for why this interior sucks, not an argument against it.

The dash design is one that hinges on bilateral symmetry, yet because it's just a re-work of the normal, control-enabled Bolt dashboard, it's annoyingly asymmetrical and off-center in all sorts of ways that are irritating.

But that's just annoying; the real problem is that by retaining a legacy design from a human-driven car, you're both not taking full advantage of what an autonomous car can allow, and you're setting up the passengers-especially the one in the left front seat-for an uncomfortable experience.

View attachment 194436

So much of how we perceive new technology has to do with gut-level feelings, memories, and learned behaviors. If you sit in the "driver's" seat of this AV Bolt, all the visual, spatial, positional, and tactile cues are going to be triggering every "I'm driving" part of your brain.

It feels like you're sitting in a normal car, but all your means of control are gone. That's not a comfortable place to start, even if you know, intellectually, that there's a machine driving you around.

Plus, there's just no reason to keep these rigid interior design rules when you're not required (or able) to drive! Why is everyone sitting in two forward-facing rows? There should at least be an option to swivel the front seats around, or allow the seats to all face inwardly. There should be fold-out tables, the means to recline seats for sleeping, and so on.

None of this is new; the possibilities of self-driving-car-as-mobile room have been considered long before the technology was available. We've all seen these fanciful 1950s drawings, right?








and








View attachment 194438

This new GM car is essentially the realization of these dreams, yet these 50+ year-old imaginings make more sense than what GM is showing us today.

We already ride in vehicles with rear and/or side-facing seats: buses, airport shuttles, old Land Rover rear seats, Tesla Model S jump seats, and so on. Making seating like that safe is something that's already being done, and such flexible seating will absolutely be part of the autonomous future.

I don't think GM really needed to do all that much, really, but I do think they needed to do _something_, which, beyond lopping off the steering wheel, they didn't.

I don't even care about the clunky exterior design, the total lack of interest in integrating the various cameras and sensors into some sort of coherent design, because, fundamentally, an autonomous vehicle is something you design from the inside out.

Weird, sure, this Honda 1999 design makes more sense for a car you can't drive








Now, this won't be GMs only crack at an autonomous car design by a long shot. And I'm sure they have designers and researchers and stylists coming up with remarkable autonomous car designs that address everything I've mentioned.

I'm also sure that GM decided to make minimal changes to the basic Bolt platform to get this to production as quickly and cheaply as possible. I understand the reasoning entirely.

But that doesn't mean this doesn't feel like a half-assed effort, and it doesn't mean that we can't call it out as just that.

If this really is the first production, Level 5 autonomous car that will be sold to...the public? Fleet companies? Who knows. Regardless, if this really will be that first car, it seems like it would be worth more effort regarding the key part that will ultimately decide the future of autonomous vehicles: the experience of the riders.

People need to feel comfortable in autonomous vehicles, and they need it to be just different enough to alter their expectations that are based on decades of human-driven cars, and to give them some extra enticement to realize how much better an autonomous vehicle could be for them.

A stripped down Bolt, I don't think, is quite enough.

https://jalopnik.com/gm-really-phoned-it-in-for-the-design-of-their-driverle-1822029166


----------



## 7Miles (Dec 17, 2014)

Completely autonomous electric car
So far it's just a model






I said Chevy Bolt because it is based on Chevy Bolt. 
How long do we have left as drivers ?


----------



## Grahamcracker (Nov 2, 2016)

Driver's still have years but not forever. If I relied on this gig to pay bill, I would be looking for something else and just drive for extra $$$. 

What? Too many $$$. Ok maybe just $$ or $ or for some -$$$


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

We have a long long time


----------



## RedANT (Aug 9, 2016)

Self driving cars are nothing but a millennial wet dream that geeks insist is coming, but that won't ever actually take hold and gain widespread acceptance. They'll follow in the footsteps of tech hits like Jetson's style flying cars and Google Glass. 

Autonomous vehicles are incompatible with driver controlled vehicles, and you'll never get the majority of people to give up their cars.


----------



## SEAL Team 5 (Dec 19, 2015)

7Miles said:


> How long do we have left as drivers ?


Until everyone born before 1980 dies.


----------



## Blatherskite (Nov 30, 2016)

Yay, I'll be dead!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> https://twitter.com/andyjayhawk/status/951842538402598912?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://jalopnik.com/ajax/inset/iframe?id=twitter-951842538402598912&autosize=1
> (this car has mirrors.... Why?)
> 
> For as much hype as GM's 'production ready' driverless, control-free car has gotten, both from GM themselves and the media, you'd think they'd have bothered to make something that looks like they, you know, thought about it for more than an afternoon. Sure, the tech is impressive, but the design is terrible, and hopefully will not be a sign of things to come for autonomous vehicles.
> ...


When all you have left to biotch about is the dash design, you've become a parody.

The lunar lander was awful too, huh?


----------



## heynow321 (Sep 3, 2015)

really grasping there greg...


----------



## llort (Oct 7, 2016)

7Miles said:


> Completely autonomous electric car
> So far it's just a model


That front interior scares the hell out of me. Its the same feeling that I got when I was strapped into the zip line at the Rio, 500' up and nothing to hold on to. I think most riders would find this car to be terrifying to ride in. I'm feeling queasy after that 30 second video.


----------



## jeanocelot (Sep 2, 2016)

jocker12 said:


> https://twitter.com/andyjayhawk/status/951842538402598912?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://jalopnik.com/ajax/inset/iframe?id=twitter-951842538402598912&autosize=1
> (this car has mirrors.... Why?)
> 
> For as much hype as GM's 'production ready' driverless, control-free car has gotten, both from GM themselves and the media, you'd think they'd have bothered to make something that looks like they, you know, thought about it for more than an afternoon. Sure, the tech is impressive, but the design is terrible, and hopefully will not be a sign of things to come for autonomous vehicles.
> ...


Love the way that Dad is always wearing a suit & tie.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> When all you have left to biotch about is the dash design, you've become a parody.
> 
> The lunar lander was awful too, huh?
> 
> View attachment 194499


The Lunar Lander's form, followed its function. A Bauhaus principle that stands true today.

The point jocker12 was making that your narrow intellect can't grasp, is that cars carry out more roles than just getting to point B. The freedom from having vehicle controls should allow greater design freedoms to fulfil its many roles.

I look forward to SD cars and the choices they will allow. I'd hate to live in a world built on such narrow views and understanding that you display.



jeanocelot said:


> Love the way that Dad is always wearing a suit & tie.


I thought it looked like a happy robotic dolphin!


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> cars carry out more roles than just getting to point B


That is the consumers choice, but obviously the self "destructing" cars enthusiasts hope their narrow point of view is universal.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> https://twitter.com/andyjayhawk/status/951842538402598912?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=https://jalopnik.com/ajax/inset/iframe?id=twitter-951842538402598912&autosize=1
> (this car has mirrors.... Why?)
> 
> For as much hype as GM's 'production ready' driverless, control-free car has gotten, both from GM themselves and the media, you'd think they'd have bothered to make something that looks like they, you know, thought about it for more than an afternoon. Sure, the tech is impressive, but the design is terrible, and hopefully will not be a sign of things to come for autonomous vehicles.
> ...


G.M. stock will become toilet paper AGain.

If you hold the Certificates.

No more TAX PAYER BAILOUTS !



llort said:


> That front interior scares the hell out of me. Its the same feeling that I got when I was strapped into the zip line at the Rio, 500' up and nothing to hold on to. I think most riders would find this car to be terrifying to ride in. I'm feeling queasy after that 30 second video.


FREE RANGE CARNIVAL RIDES .



jeanocelot said:


> Love the way that Dad is always wearing a suit & tie.


After the Globalists finish off the working class . . .

The REAL question is

Will we get " TAIL FINS " back ?

Even Capt. Kirk " DROVE" from the Captains Bridge.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Why have a directional car at all? By that, I mean, why not have it be able to go forward and backwards just the same? All wheel drive and wheels that all turn, rather than "front" and "rear"? Heck, why not allow any direction, not just forward and back? 

That would enhance maneuverability and make it symmetrical front and back, OR all around.

Take a cue from Roomba, just without the bumping into chair legs.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> G.M. stock will become toilet paper AGain.
> 
> If you hold the Certificates.
> 
> No more TAX PAYER BAILOUTS !


This is not their only product at this point. They try to play it smart and develop different projects (hybrid, full electric, self driving) in order to see which one gains momentum. They are like playing roulette and betting on every number, color, odds, evens... everything. If that goes into a "Russian" roulette and they end up with a bullet in the head, it will be very, very hard to recover. Again. To me, having GM involved in this, the way they rush into it with no vision and no sense, they probably will be the main reason consumers will hate the self driving cars idea.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> This is not their only product at this point. They try to play it smart and develop different projects (hybrid, full electric, self driving) in order to see which one gains momentum. They are like playing roulette and betting on every number, color, odds, evens... everything. If that goes into a "Russian" roulette and they end up with a bullet in the head, it will be very, very hard to recover. Again. To me, having GM involved in this, the way they rush into it with no vision and no sense, they probably will be the main reason consumers will hate the self driving cars idea.


Remember " SATURN"
The NEW. Car company ?

" EDSEL - the car of the Future "!

Yup . . . the Chinese WILL buy Buick.
They Love Buick.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

tohunt4me said:


> Remember " SATURN"
> The NEW. Car company ?
> 
> " EDSEL - the car of the Future "!
> ...


Yup. These guys are old fashioned car business people, frozen in their own limitations, suddenly pretending they are visionaries and big lovers of technology and progress. Phony idiots trying to dangerously dance on a thin and fragile wire, hyping the masses to trust what they are saying. There is a circus in town....


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Why have a directional car at all? By that, I mean, why not have it be able to go forward and backwards just the same? All wheel drive and wheels that all turn, rather than "front" and "rear"? Heck, why not allow any direction, not just forward and back?
> 
> That would enhance maneuverability and make it symmetrical for t and bavk, OR all around.
> 
> Take a cue from Roomba, just without the bumping into chair legs.


All excellent ideas. But Roomba Rideshare has already been done


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

GM
Just as Washington DC

OUT OF TOUCH WITH WHAT PEOPLE WANT.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Sydney Uber said:


> All excellent ideas. But Roomba Rideshare has already been done


Yup.
Even " Service Animals".

( you brought it up. I HAD to run with it)


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

heynow321 said:


> really grasping there greg...


Can one of you please explain what's wrong with this dash design?



Sydney Uber said:


> The point jocker12 was making that your narrow intellect can't grasp, is that cars carry out more roles than just getting to point B. The freedom from having vehicle controls should allow greater design freedoms to fulfil its many roles.


Jockey was biotching just to biotch, cause everything Jockey says ends up being totally wrong. Please explain what's wrong with this design. The passenger's side has the exact same design as the other passenger's side.


----------



## Sydney Uber (Apr 15, 2014)

tomatopaste said:


> Can one of you please explain what's wrong with this dash design?
> 
> Jockey was biotching just to biotch, cause everything Jockey says ends up being totally wrong. Please explain what's wrong with this design. The passenger's side has the exact same design as the other passenger's side.


Why is there a need for forward facing seats? Why have glass? Any interaction with the outside world distracts riders from the filtered lives corporation want them to live through their digital devices. The outside world is redundant for this App controlled generation.

What need is there for any passenger / vehicle control interface? Why no talk of on-board screen mirroring from pax devices, to increase work and play.

Those vacuum operated air con switches are totally redundant in the new world of SD taxis. The SD car "recognises" you as you approach to authorise entry and bill your account. Be it facial recognition or near field contact with your phone. By the time you get in, your profile is loaded that sets the AirCon, ride quality, radio/music - all of which you can override via your phone.

It's so expensive to build ANY switches in a car, especially when a ECU /solid state interface can so cheaply be controlled by a networked device with an app. Cost of SD car "PRODUCTION" will plummet increasing profit margins to manufacturers - once R & D costs are covered.

So that Whole front control binnacle area could be put aside for a large format screen to assail riders with pop-up internet ads between mindless social media surfing. The front windscreen turned opaque to improve the viewing experience

You surprise me TP, with your narrow view of SD cars. But maybe not, the supplicant willing to accept what the corporations feed you and your generation - a menu designed to remove choice a personal freedom to the young generations



tohunt4me said:


> Yup.
> Even " Service Animals".
> 
> ( you brought it up. I HAD to run with it)


The cat in the Shark suit is a classic!!


----------



## tomatopaste (Apr 11, 2017)

Sydney Uber said:


> Why is there a need for forward facing seats? Why have glass? Any interaction with the outside world distracts riders from the filtered lives corporation want them to live through their digital devices. The outside world is redundant for this App controlled generation.
> 
> What need is there for any passenger / vehicle control interface? Why no talk of on-board screen mirroring from pax devices, to increase work and play.
> 
> ...


Jesus Freakin' Christ, it's built off the existing Chevy Bolt. They're not going to design an entirely new car from the ground up on version 1.0


----------

