• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Self-driving Vehicles

Should prototype vehicles that drive themselves be allowed on public roads?


  • Total voters
    17

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I wonder when this technology will be released to the public?

Google Has A Secret Fleet Of Automated Toyota Priuses; 140,000 Miles Logged So Far.

As they’ve revealed on their blog today, Google has developed a technology for cars to drive themselves. And they haven’t done it on a computer, or in some controlled lab, they’ve been out on California roads testing this out. “Our automated cars, manned by trained operators, just drove from our Mountain View campus to our Santa Monica office and on to Hollywood Boulevard. They’ve driven down Lombard Street, crossed the Golden Gate bridge, navigated the Pacific Coast Highway, and even made it all the way around Lake Tahoe. All in all, our self-driving cars have logged over 140,000 miles. We think this is a first in robotics research,” Google engineer Sebastian Thrun (the brainchild of the project who also heads the Stanford AI lab and co-invented Street View as well) writes.

Further, The New York Times, which has a bit more, says a total of seven cars have driven 1,000 miles without any human intervention (the 140,000 mile number includes occasional human control, apparently). These cars are a modified version of the Toyota Prius — and there is one Audi TT, as well.

So how does this work? The automated cars use video cameras, radar sensors, and a laser range finder to locate everything around them (these are mounted on the roof). And, of course, they use Google’s own maps. But the key?

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.​

Google says it gathered the best engineers from the DARPA Challenges (an autonomous vehicle race that the government puts on) to work on this project. They also note that these cars never drive around unmanned in the interest of safety. A driver is always on hand to take over in case something goes wrong, and an engineer is always on hand in the car to monitor the software. Google also says they’ve notified local police about the project.

Car spotted on the road (with videos):
Google’s Self-Driving Car Spotted On The Highway Almost A Year Ago (Oh, And Scoble) [Video]


Would you trust a vehicle to drive itself?

I can't wait for this technology to be released for mass use. As long as every single bug has been worked out of course. Still, for the first 6 months to a year I'd be watching the road while the car drives itself to ensure it's working fine. After that I might be OK with taking my eyes off the road.

But I'd NEVER let it drive itself in harsh weather.


I'm OK with them testing this on the roads as long as someone is in the driver's seat. But if it ever got into an accident with someone I expect Google would face huge public criticism.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,723
Reaction score
16,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No. For the simple fact it is a prototype. If accidents occur it should be due to human error not mechanical error. And definately not because some scientists decided to use motorists as Guinea pigs.

Personally I worry that some scumbag in office would mandate that all vehicles be "self-driving" thus taking away people's freedom to drive however and where ever they want within legal limits.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. For the simple fact it is a prototype. If accidents occur it should be due to human error not mechanical error. And definately not because some scientists decided to use motorists as Guinea pigs.

Well, everything is a prototype before it is a finished product. DARPA has been testing these under controlled conditions for years; at some point, you NEED to test it on actual roads to make sure that it's plausible. Obviously at this point, they aren't good enough to drive unsupervised, which is why they have someone behind the wheel (just like driving instructors typically can control cars when student drivers do something dumb.)

I completely disagree that "accidents should be due to human error not mechanical error." If these are safer than human drivers (as they eventually will be), then it would be foolish not to allow them. Eventually, this has the potential to almost completely eliminate traffic fatalities, among other great benefits to society. I envision a future where humans are banned from driving because it's too dangerous, since they aren't as capable as computers...and that would be a great thing.

Jucon said:
I wonder when this technology will be released to the public?

GM, Ford, and Toyota are all aiming for about 2017/2018. With unexpected roadblocks, I think 2020ish is a more reasonable estimate.

Jucon said:
But I'd NEVER let it drive itself in harsh weather.

Actually I think that would be one of the conditions where they'd be the most superior to human drivers. Humans tend to be terrible judges of how dangerous conditions are. Computers could closely monitor road/weather conditions and have precise algorithms for how quickly they need to apply the brakes and how much distance to keep.

Jucon said:
But if it ever got into an accident with someone I expect Google would face huge public criticism.

Sadly, you're probably right...which would be really unfair to Google. So far they've logged 140,000 miles with only one minor accident (which wasn't their fault). That's already better than the average human driver. Ultimately, I think we're really going to need to reform our liability laws in this country, before self-driving cars really catch on. If they reduced the total number of auto fatalities from 40,000 per year to 10,000 per year, but those 10,000 were all due to computer error rather than human error, the manufacturers could lose their shirts even though the roads would be much safer. We're really going to need to change those laws in the near future.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,723
Reaction score
16,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Well, everything is a prototype before it is a finished product. DARPA has been testing these under controlled conditions for years; at some point, you NEED to test it on actual roads to make sure that it's plausible. Obviously at this point, they aren't good enough to drive unsupervised, which is why they have someone behind the wheel (just like driving instructors typically can control cars when student drivers do something dumb.)

Computers can sometimes mess up,get hacked or something else to cause it to improperly work.

I envision a future where humans are banned from driving because it's too dangerous, since they aren't as capable as computers...and that would be a great thing.

A good reason to be against self-driving vehicles. I want the ability to be able to drive where ever the hell I want and I want my kids and grandkids to have that same ability.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Computers can sometimes mess up,get hacked or something else to cause it to improperly work.

Sure, that's why there's a human sitting there who is able to override the system until the bugs get worked out. But eventually that won't be necessary. Let's not forget that humans can also sometimes mess up. Pretty often, in fact.

jamesrage said:
A good reason to be against self-driving vehicles. I want the ability to be able to drive where ever the hell I want and I want my kids and grandkids to have that same ability.

Why? For most people, driving is the most dangerous activity that we do. If not for the massive advantages that being able to drive provides us, there is no WAY that we'd be allowed to do something so dangerous that it kills 40,000 people a year. If robotic cars were able to provide us with those same massive advantages without the danger, why would you be opposed to that? Wanting the freedom to do something that seriously endangers others (while providing no benefit that couldn't be achieved in some other way) is selfish, and is equivalent to wanting the freedom to throw bricks off the overpass just because it looks fun.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Look at it this way James, with a self-driving car, you can get as drunk as you want, and let the car drive you home
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How does the car read stop signs, speed limits, construction zones ect? Today's optical recognition software can't reliably read the hundreds of different signs in different lightning conditions, fog, weird angles ect. How does the car react to someone on a bike giving a hand signal or people jaywalking in an urban area?

I think that his technology should be used primarily on freeways and highways. Freeways have far less variables than street driving, making it much easier for a computer to handle. I can envision a system where you drive your car onto the on-ramp, punch in your exit, and let the car drive until you reach the on ramp. Even better would be networking all the cars so they work in concert, letting everyone travel at optimal speed and minimizing traffic. Street driving is probably better done by humans who can better handle its chaotic nature.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,723
Reaction score
16,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Look at it this way James, with a self-driving car, you can get as drunk as you want, and let the car drive you home

There is this service where you call someone to pick you up and they drive you where ever you want for money,its called a taxi.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How does the car read stop signs, speed limits, construction zones ect? Today's optical recognition software can't reliably read the hundreds of different signs in different lightning conditions, fog, weird angles ect. How does the car react to someone on a bike giving a hand signal or people jaywalking in an urban area?
Stop signs and speed limits are easy enough, RFID transmitters or pre-programmed maps with the pertinent areas mapped out ahead of time will easily suffice.

Visual sensors could detect the prescience of something in the roadway that was not supposed to be there and make the car react accordingly or we could go the opposite route, embedding sensor networks into our roads to make them able to detect such things and transmit that data to vehicles on the road.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,723
Reaction score
16,418
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Sure, that's why there's a human sitting there who is able to override the system until the bugs get worked out. But eventually that won't be necessary. Let's not forget that humans can also sometimes mess up. Pretty often, in fact.

Better a human messing up than a machine. You can sue a human.


Why? For most people, driving is the most dangerous activity that we do. If not for the massive advantages that being able to drive provides us, there is no WAY that we'd be allowed to do something so dangerous that it kills 40,000 people a year.
It does not justify stripping people of their ability to drive.There are millions of people a day who do not die from accidents.


If robotic cars were able to provide us with those same massive advantages without the danger, why would you be opposed to that? Wanting the freedom to do something that seriously endangers others (while providing no benefit that couldn't be achieved in some other way) is selfish, and is equivalent to wanting the freedom to throw bricks off the overpass just because it looks fun.


Not even comparable.Tossing bricks off the overpass is a deliberate act to hurt or murder someone. You driving your car to work is just you driving your car to work.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stop signs and speed limits are easy enough, RFID transmitters or pre-programmed maps with the pertinent areas mapped out ahead of time will easily suffice.

I was wondering how the prototype handles signs, as it doesn't have any infrastructure built to support it.

Visual sensors could detect the prescience of something in the roadway that was not supposed to be there and make the car react accordingly or we could go the opposite route, embedding sensor networks into our roads to make them able to detect such things and transmit that data to vehicles on the road.

That might work in some areas, but there are 2 major problems. The first in that city driving in urban areas is beyond the ability on sensors to handle. Safe driving techniques require societal knowledge of how other cars will operate and reading the body language of pedestrians. The second is that maintaining millions of senors is both expensive and inevitable failures will be a problem. Staying limited to highways is much more practical if you want a controlled environment.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I was wondering how the prototype handles signs, as it doesn't have any infrastructure built to support it.
You'd have to build up infrastructure around it, but that shouldnt be too much of a problem. Our transportation infrastructure is constantly being replaced and repaired and it wouldnt be terribly difficult to slip in this new layer. With things like stop signs and signals, RFID transmitters could be added long after the sign was in place by simply tacking it onto the back of the sign.

That might work in some areas, but there are 2 major problems. The first in that city driving in urban areas is beyond the ability on sensors to handle. Safe driving techniques require societal knowledge of how other cars will operate and reading the body language of pedestrians. The second is that maintaining millions of senors is both expensive and inevitable failures will be a problem. Staying limited to highways is much more practical if you want a controlled environment.
I agree it's a difficult proposition, but I havent seen indications that it's impossible yet.

I think the better choice would be to have something similar to how slot cars and cable cars work, a GridLink kind of system where cars are driven automatically by signals sent to them by the network already embedded in the roads. If our power generation capabilities go high enough, we might be able even to run our cars off of that system the way cable cars draw their power from overhead lines. This system would be far more preferable because the biggest modification is to the roadway itself. All modern cars have a basic computer system in them already and it wouldnt be (in my opinion) terribly difficult to add on after-market modifications to make them compatible with such a system.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How does the car read stop signs, speed limits, construction zones ect? Today's optical recognition software can't reliably read the hundreds of different signs in different lightning conditions, fog, weird angles ect.

Actually, it can. Object-recognition technology is quite good. It can literally "read" text as long as it isn't in some weird font...and aside from that, it can recognize the shape and design of common road signs anyway.

rathi said:
How does the car react to someone on a bike giving a hand signal or people jaywalking in an urban area?

These are the hardest part, and the reason that it still won't be commercially available for a few years. But the basic principles have already been established: Recognize any potentially dangerous objects (like a human, a car, or a large animal) and avoid running into them. Even here the computers do reasonably well right now...MOST of the time, they'll notice kids running out into traffic and hit the brakes. But obviously, most of the time isn't good enough. They'll get there in a few more years. The technology has already progressed immensely in just the last three years, since the DARPA Urban Challenge.

rathi said:
I think that his technology should be used primarily on freeways and highways. Freeways have far less variables than street driving, making it much easier for a computer to handle. I can envision a system where you drive your car onto the on-ramp, punch in your exit, and let the car drive until you reach the on ramp. Even better would be networking all the cars so they work in concert, letting everyone travel at optimal speed and minimizing traffic.

I agree with this. Eventually there will be computers in every car, and they will be able to alert each other to traffic jams and accidents.

rathi said:
Street driving is probably better done by humans who can better handle its chaotic nature.

For now, yes. But the fact that these cars have already been so successful in street driving offers a powerful glimpse of the future.
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There is this service where you call someone to pick you up and they drive you where ever you want for money,its called a taxi.

Yes, but they aren't available in most non-urban areas, and they cost a lot of money. Self-driving cars would eliminate the need for most people to own cars at all (greatly reducing traffic, pollution, and commute times...while increasing consumer purchasing power to spend on other items). You could just summon a car on your smartphone to pick you up whenever you needed one...and without the high costs associated with taxis.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Better a human messing up than a machine. You can sue a human.

I'm more concerned about what is best for society, rather than who I can sue. I would gladly support giving immunity to auto manufacturers for these kind of lawsuits, if it reduced the number of auto fatalities. And that isn't even considering the wealth of other societal benefits that self-driving cars will bring: Reduction in commute times, reduction in pollution, increase in parking space, eliminating the need for personal car ownership for most people, and a complete paradigm shift in the way that we design cities. That is HUGE, and is vastly more important than you being able to sue someone.

jamesrage said:
It does not justify stripping people of their ability to drive.There are millions of people a day who do not die from accidents.

40,000 people die each year, and many hundreds of thousands more are seriously injured. That's over a dozen 9/11s every year that self-driving cars will eventually be able to prevent.

jamesrage said:
Not even comparable.Tossing bricks off the overpass is a deliberate act to hurt or murder someone. You driving your car to work is just you driving your car to work.

What I meant was that tossing bricks off the overpass displays a callous disregard of the safety of others, rather than an intentional act of wrongdoing. Substitute some other form of reckless endangerment if you like...say, driving 100 miles per hour down a city street while intoxicated. Maybe you don't INTEND to hurt anyone, but you'd be showing a reckless disregard for their well-being. That's how I think that human driving will be viewed once the technology reaches the point where self-driving cars almost never make avoidable mistakes. Once most people have made the switchover to robotic cars, I think they'll question why the few holdouts are still allowed to drive, threatening the safety of everyone.
 
Last edited:

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, it can. Object-recognition technology is quite good. It can literally "read" text as long as it isn't in some weird font...and aside from that, it can recognize the shape and design of common road signs anyway.

No it can't. Too many uncontrolled variables prevent such a system from working reliably enough to drive on. Graffiti on the sign, odd shadows, weird angles faded paint, reflected sunlight, fog, obscuring branches all are serious obstacles. Even worse, the system has to figure out the difference between writing that is traffic information and other signs along the road. To top it off, this all has to be done in real time. Maybe in the future it could be done, but not with the technology that exists right now.


These are the hardest part, and the reason that it still won't be commercially available for a few years. But the basic principles have already been established: Recognize any potentially dangerous objects (like a human, a car, or a large animal) and avoid running into them. Even here the computers do reasonably well right now...MOST of the time, they'll notice kids running out into traffic and hit the brakes. But obviously, most of the time isn't good enough. They'll get there in a few more years. The technology has already progressed immensely in just the last three years, since the DARPA Urban Challenge.

The problem with writing software is that it can only handle variables that have been anticipated and planned for. In an urban environment, that isn't likely ever to be possible. What happens when the car in front of you has engine failure at a traffic light and the only way around is to do something that is normally a bad idea like reversing or driving into the opposite lane? With collision avoidance software you can probably avoid accidents even in strange circumstances, but you still need a human who knows how to drive to navigate your way out.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is this service where you call someone to pick you up and they drive you where ever you want for money,its called a taxi.

Yeah, as you said, it costs money. If the norm is cars that drive themselves, you just get into your car, and go home. And no offense to any taxi drivers, but I wouldn't entrust my well-being to them if I was drunk
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Kandahar, while I do agree that the technology is exciting, I have to side somewhat with rathi on this.

To my knowledge, there has not yet been a proof-of-concept run that demonstrates we have software capable of successfully navigating city streets without incident or with a minimum of incidents. If we can get that far, then we can look at this idea a little bit more fully. Until then, I dont see that the benefits would outweigh the costs.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Another issue is that the car doesn't actually know precisely where you want to go. It can't figure out which parking space you want, nor can it tell which house the party you are attending is. Manual control is always going to be required unless we develop AI capable of truly understanding what we want.
 

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
More and more, it sounds we need to develop infrastructure to complement self-driven cars. We'd probably need to network all cars, and stoplights together, so the cars' systems could figure out which way is faster for a particular route, and would know how many other cars are going to be on that same route, etc, etc.
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How does the car read stop signs, speed limits, construction zones ect? Today's optical recognition software can't reliably read the hundreds of different signs in different lightning conditions, fog, weird angles ect. How does the car react to someone on a bike giving a hand signal or people jaywalking in an urban area?

I think that his technology should be used primarily on freeways and highways. Freeways have far less variables than street driving, making it much easier for a computer to handle. I can envision a system where you drive your car onto the on-ramp, punch in your exit, and let the car drive until you reach the on ramp. Even better would be networking all the cars so they work in concert, letting everyone travel at optimal speed and minimizing traffic. Street driving is probably better done by humans who can better handle its chaotic nature.

You bring up some good questions.

Google maps are programed into the system, so it can't be that difficult to program in where a stop sign or light is, or what the speed limit is. I can't really think of any signs the car would need to "read", as long as everything programmed within the system and the vehicle is linked to a larger network somehow. This type of vehicle would of course require good integration to function safely.

As for the jaywalking pedestrian, even a properly educated child can learn to look both ways before crossing the street. If a person steps in front of a moving vehicle while jaywalking that is their own fault. We have crosswalks for a reason.

The biker on the road and certain weather conditions could be tricky issues to solve.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No it can't. Too many uncontrolled variables prevent such a system from working reliably enough to drive on. Graffiti on the sign, odd shadows, weird angles faded paint, reflected sunlight, fog, obscuring branches all are serious obstacles. Even worse, the system has to figure out the difference between writing that is traffic information and other signs along the road. To top it off, this all has to be done in real time. Maybe in the future it could be done, but not with the technology that exists right now.

The technology for this is pretty decent even on my Android phone right now. I imagine that it's considerably better in a robotic car...and in any case, it will be several years before these cars hit the markets. There are many technological obstacles that still need to be overcome before self-driving cars go public, but I really don't see this as being one of them.

rathi said:
The problem with writing software is that it can only handle variables that have been anticipated and planned for. In an urban environment, that isn't likely ever to be possible. What happens when the car in front of you has engine failure at a traffic light and the only way around is to do something that is normally a bad idea like reversing or driving into the opposite lane? With collision avoidance software you can probably avoid accidents even in strange circumstances, but you still need a human who knows how to drive to navigate your way out.

I don't see what is so impossible about that. First you have the car avoid the collision, then you have the car to drive around the obstacle when it's safe to do so. Furthermore, you don't need to program every possible circumstance into the car. You can have it observe human drivers under a wide range of circumstances and deduce how a normal person would handle the situation.

Obviously the technology isn't all the way there yet, but it almost certainly will be in a few more years. Here's a video showing where the technology stood in 2007...pretty good, and it's much, much better than this today.

 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I voted no. I don't think a prototype self driven care should be allowed on public roads. And a legal question rises. If individuals need a license to drive, what about a license to auto-drive? Should there not be tests and inspections for an automatic car to be allowed to legally pilot itself? I fear that this technology could be dangerous with cars being able to be "hacked" to do dangerous things. Not only that, but there is always the error of glitching or something going wrong (car overheating and frying a cord that makes it go out of control. Technology is good, but we shouldn't rely on it too much.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar, while I do agree that the technology is exciting, I have to side somewhat with rathi on this.

To my knowledge, there has not yet been a proof-of-concept run that demonstrates we have software capable of successfully navigating city streets without incident or with a minimum of incidents. If we can get that far, then we can look at this idea a little bit more fully. Until then, I dont see that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

I think these Google Cars ARE the proof-of-concept you're looking for. They aren't perfect yet, but they demonstrate the concept quite well.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Another issue is that the car doesn't actually know precisely where you want to go. It can't figure out which parking space you want, nor can it tell which house the party you are attending is. Manual control is always going to be required unless we develop AI capable of truly understanding what we want.

The GPS in my phone is accurate to 4 feet, and there are GPS systems even more accurate. Self-parking cars already exist and do a good job; the hard part is the actual driving. And the car knows which house you're going to, assuming you told it the address. ;)
 
Top Bottom