One of the advantages of autonomous vehicles that automakers often tout is the ability to convert the time one would usually spend driving into relaxation or leisure time. AV occupants could do all sorts of activities while en-route to their destination, from sleep to exercise and more, so the folks at GM Design are exploring how this might play a role in the interior design of its self-driving products.
The GM Design Instagram page recently shared a design sketch for an AV with a theater-like seating layout that is perfect for gaming and watching movies. The interior features two upright bucket seats, a center console with an integrated tablet screen and cupholders and, most importantly, a high-resolution widescreen display. A small parcel shelf also sits below the screen, giving occupants a place to put their bags and belongings while traveling.
“Who else would love to be able to game on a long road trip?” the description for the post reads. “There are so many possibilities with autonomous interiors. How would you use your commute time differently if you didn’t have to be behind the wheel?”
Interior of the Cruise Origin – an almost production-ready AV product.
We’ve seen other automakers toy with the idea of integrating all sorts of absurd things into their autonomous vehicles, from sleep pods to succulent gardens, so this design is actually somewhat feasible compared to other AV design studies out there. That said, we imagine automakers will run into some hurdles marketing vehicles as sleep pods or gaming cafes on wheels, even if they are fully autonomous. If something were to go wrong in one of these AVs, the optics of marketing them as what equates to a hotel room on wheels could potentially be problematic.
Let us know what you think about this thought-provoking autonomous car design in the comments below.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM autonomous vehicle news, GM design news and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
The media profile of AVs has been going backwards now for more than a year. This should not be happening because AVs are going to make the World better for everyone. GM is hugely positive about AVs but this thinking needs to be more effectively translated to the public. Public appreciation of AVs will grow as the public gains a better understanding of AVs.
I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in ever riding in one of these drones. The reason why hype is going down for AVs is that few have any interest whatsoever in them and – aside from geofencing- it will take decades to come up with an AV that can handle all the traffic scenarios that a human driver would face.
Since Cruise has no interest in selling to consumers, but merely offer cab services, the geofence is not a problem. I agree that in consumer vehicles, autonomy is just a suite of drivers aids, and that is how everyone who is not Tesla is marketing them. Only Elon is lying and telling people that adaptive cruise control with lane keeping will give them a robotaxi and make their car an appreciating asset. Tesla fans like to mock SuperCruise because it only works on highways without realising that highways are the only place that it is desirable. On it’s intended use, SuperCruise performs far better than Autopilot.
The reputation of AV is eroding because of Elon constantly making promises in that area that Tesla cannot keep. Meanwhile, Waymo and Cruise are both quietly offering actual driverless taxi services.
Some cities such as New York have closed streets for pedestrian traffic only, but that works only for people who can walk easily. These AVs will be best for those same streets to carry people around safely and comfortably at low speeds. Regular piloted vehicles have to be prohibited to prevent any accidents.
If I had a dollar for every promise Elon Bust hasn’t kept, I could start my own car company.
As I see it, the legal issues may be one of the largest barriers to the widespread adoption of AV technologies. We, as society are comfortable with the idea of liability, where the operator/driver at fault in an accident has limited responsibility provided by legally mandated level of insurance. After that there is only the nominally rather shallow pockets of the driver. Not normally worth the effort except in exceptional or criminal cases. Not so when the case is a multimillion doller corporation essencially being the driver. Accidents will happen, they may be at rates orders of magnitude lower than our current levels, but how will the GMs and Teslas of the world deal with the exposure to litigation?
Quick google search says average wrongful death lawsuit is about $500k. But, I have also been told by my insurance agent people often just sue for whatever your insurance limit is. So is $500k a standard value courts can use as precedent, or will people be able to collect higher payouts due to OEM’s ability to pay more? My guess is it wouldn’t increase too much, but I am in no way a lawyer. Gets hairy when you essentially have to assign a dollar value to someone’s life.
Also interesting to wonder how many crashes an OEM might be able to be held responsible for. Maybe….10-20/year tops?? I’m sure their legal teams will be well prepared for this so I imagine it would be very tough to win. They mainly just need to avoid any major flaws, where 25 people crash in a day after a software update and all the sudden you have a giant class action lawsuit. I don’t think individual cases would have a big effect on the OEMs.
whatever happened to tesla’s army of robo-taxis? weren’t they supposed to be out last year?
I’m from the old school…if you don’t want to drive, call Uber!
“AV” tech reeks of the advanced surveillance state. Neato video games in the transit pod are yet another distraction with which they dumb sheeple down even more (if that were even possible) chipping away at our autonomy while asserting ever greater control over every aspect of our lives and privacy.