The Elusive Dream of the Driverless Car

In “Driven,” author Alex Davies chronicles the evolution of autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles race in the California desert as part of the DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) challenge in 2004. David McNew/ Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This story was originally published by Undark and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Deep in the Mojave Desert, 60 miles from the city of Barstow, is the Slash X Ranch Cafe, a former ranch where dirt bike riders and ATV adventurers can drink beer and eat burgers with fellow daredevils speeding across the desert. Displayed on a wall alongside trucker caps and taxidermy is a plaque that memorializes the 2004 DARPA Grand Challenge, a 142-mile race whose starting point was at Slash X Ranch Cafe.

It was the first race in the world without human drivers. Instead, it featured the fever-dream inventions — robotic motorcycles, monster Humvees — of a handful of software engineers who were hellbent on creating fully autonomous vehicles and winning the million-dollar prize offered by the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

In “Driven: The Race to Create the Autonomous Car,” journalist Alex Davies mines court documents and interviews the original participants of the DARPA race to chronicle the heady early days of autonomous vehicle technology and its subsequent evolution into a billion-dollar race between corporate behemoths like Google, Uber, and Detroit automakers to be the first to put autonomous vehicles on the nation’s roads.

“Driven: The Race to Create the Autonomous Car” by Alex Davies

Simon and Schuster

These corporations have long promised the American public that self-driving car technology is not only imminent but will change the world for the better — reducing urban congestion, combating greenhouse gas emissions, and saving the lives of some of the roughly 40,000 people who die each year in automobile accidents. The reality is that the self-driving car has yet to deliver on its promise. Nearly two decades after the first DARPA race, no one will read “Driven” while riding in a fully autonomous vehicle.

Davies is a former editor at Wired magazine who now writes on the transportation beat for Business Insider. “Driven” is his debut book and he gives readers a fast-paced, scandal-laced story of the people and ideas that animate the history of autonomous vehicles. It is an entertaining and pithy account by a seriously knowledgeable journalist. Davies captures how the driverless car became such a persistent and beguiling fantasy, one that has held the public imagination for a century. “The dream of a vehicle that drives itself dates back to the early days of the automobile,” he writes, “as people abandoned sentient horses for machines that punished any lapse in attention.”

With tens of millions of cars clogging America’s roads at the end of the 20th century, the human-driven car was an environmental disaster (that also happened to cause countless deaths). Davies compares the daily gridlock of the San Francisco Bay Bridge, for example, to “18th-century urbanites emptying chamber pots from upper story windows, a quotidian sort of insanity.”

California was the site of the earliest self-driving prototype vehicle, a simple cart built 60 years ago by a Stanford University mechanical engineering graduate student, that once redesigned by the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab could travel autonomously at about a mile per hour by 1971. But getting from that cart to the mass adoption of driverless cars in our cities and streets is akin to the difference between first flight and traveling to the moon.

As Davies writes, the act of driving is extremely complicated, maybe the most complicated task humans undertake. To truly eliminate the need for a person in the driver’s seat, an autonomous vehicle can’t just connect a human to a remote vehicle, like a drone does; it needs to do everything a human does behind the wheel. In essence, an autonomous vehicle requires senses and a brain.

Davies documents how the director of DARPA, Tony Tether, understood these technological challenges. The agency was created in the heat of the Cold War to compete with the Soviets after they launched Sputnik, and Tether took the helm in June 2001. The terrorist attacks of September 11 shifted the agency’s fortunes, elevating its post-Cold War backwater status and increasing its budget by 50 percent.

One of its mandates, issued by Congress, was to create an unmanned aircraft and combat vehicle fleet. Tether, a lover of science fiction, likened DARPA to Disneyland, a place of “dreams and fantasy becoming reality” and he launched the Grand Challenge to harness the brainpower and ambition of engineers across the country in the service of creating autonomous vehicles.

Davies writes that Tether drew inspiration from the 18th-century race to invent a solution to finding longitude at sea that resulted in the chronometer. The best parts of “Driven” are its account of the sleepless nights, setbacks, and breakthroughs along the way to the starting line of the DARPA Grand Challenge.

Ultimately, though, the first race in 2004 was a massive failure, what Davies colorfully describes as a “convulsing funeral pyre.” “Every vehicle looked like it had crashed into a RadioShack,” Davies writes. No vehicle completed the course (the farthest one went was 7.4 miles). The race was held again in 2005 and has since then taken on a variety of different iterations, including a subterranean challenge in recent years. Many of the race’s early participants, such as Chris Urmson, Sebastian Thrun, and Anthony Levandowski, went on to pioneer Silicon Valley’s big bet on self-driving technology at places like Google and Uber.

To his credit, Davies does not shy away from calling out the failures of the industry to deliver on its promises, writing that even after nearly two decades of research, “where autonomy wasn’t dangerous, it felt disappointing.” Most of the hundreds of companies generating autonomous technology would end up failing.

Davies describes the careers of those who dedicated themselves to driverless cars as “nasty, brutish, and long.” The most dramatic example is Levandowski, who pleaded guilty in 2020 to stealing trade secrets from his former employer, Waymo, and was sentenced to a year and a half in prison before being pardoned by then-President Donald J. Trump.

Davies also points to the tragic fact that seven years after the first DARPA race, the owner of Slash X Ranch Cafe, Brian Lynn, died in a head-on collision on nearby Highway 247 when another driver drifted into the southbound lane in which Lynn was driving with his wife. It is precisely the kind of human-error caused accident that autonomous vehicle technology was supposedly going to prevent. As Davies points out, Slash X Ranch Cafe played a role in “boosting the technology that would come too late to save him.”

By the end of “Driven,” readers may feel they have just read a powerful fable of technological hubris. But Davies doesn’t delve too deeply into criticism of the underlying ideas that may have contributed to this outcome. There’s no mention, for instance, of what journalist Meredith Broussard calls technochauvinism — the problematic belief that technology is always the solution to society’s problems and one she credits with so many of the failures that plague the self-driving automobile industry.

Intriguingly, Davies hints that the same technologies at work in autonomous vehicles might lead to higher forms of artificial intelligence. He mentions that Levandowski even created a church dedicated to the idea that artificial intelligence would allow machines to rule over humans. But what are the consequences for a society of men — and they are mostly men — who hold these utopic ideas and wield their power to influence policy? “Driven” doesn’t weigh in.

After the original Grand Challenge, one technology site wrote, “The reality of the event does not come close to meeting the hype surrounding it.” The same might be said of the dream of self-driving cars. Davies is slightly more optimistic, ending his fable this way: “The ignominious end of the 2004 Grand Challenge was just the start of a much greater race. No one has reached the finish line yet; no one is sure where it lies, exactly. But many are racing forward, toward it. Someday, somehow, some of them will get there.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate