Google's Driverless Car and the Logic of Safety

mikejuk writes "Google's driverless car could save more than 1 million deaths per year and tens of millions of injuries. It is an impressive achievement, but will we allow it to take over the wheel? Sebastian Thrun puts the case for it in a persuasive TED Talk video. However it may be OK for human drivers to kill millions of people each year but one human fatality might be enough to finish the driverless car project — in fact it might not even take a death as an injury might cause the same backlash. Robot drivers might kill far fewer people than a human driver but it remains to be seen if we can be logical enough to accept the occasional failure of algorithm or hardware. Put simply we might have all seen too many 'evil robot' movies."

Comments

Automobiles are just dangerous

[h00manist]

Brings into the light the numbers on just how dangerous automobiles are. Few activities have these huge numbers of deaths, accidents, and property loss and damages.

Will we?

[Dogers]

but will we allow it to take over the wheel?

As I don't live in a country that's very sue-happy (yet, we're heading that way), yes! Please take the wheel! A snooze on the way to/from work would be excellent, thanks.

Re:Will we?

[st0rmshad0w]

Which doesn't go where I need to be, when I need to be there or leave there.

In fact, they cut the bus line that went near my workplace. Never mind that the public transport route from home to the job involves 3 transfers and takes 2+ hours while the drive is 25 minutes. And I can go out for lunch or run errands. Or basically be something more productive than a cog in a machine.

Re:Will we?

[LordNacho]

This is a good point. When I've visited the US (minus NYC) it's always seemed like the cities were built with the assumption of car ownership. There's even houses you can't walk to because there's no sidewalk. "Going to buy some groceries" seems to mandate getting in a car and driving a good few minutes, which often means buying a huge amount of stuff each time is clever. When I was living in London, you could just walk out the door and be at a shop within a minute, buy a couple of things, and be back.

More tolerent of human error

[merchant_x]

People are obviously much more tolerant of human error than machine error. Machines in life safety areas are expected to be perfect.

Also who is liable in a fatal accident caused by a machine? People want a human scapegoat.

Re:More tolerent of human error

[rhsanborn]

US courts won't hold the owner of the vehicle responsible unless the owner knew there was something wrong and it would be considered reasonable that the owner should have prevented the accident. The manufacturer of the vehicle would be more likely to be held liable, but they'd have to be shown negligent. A more sane solution would be for the government to take a role in this. It's in the nations best interest to prevent 35k deaths a year from auto-accidents. They could handle payouts to victims or create a non-profit that would handle it and pay for it either through a surcharge placed on such vehicles or a surcharge placed on auto-insurance. This would avoid forcing victims, who are likely not to have a lot of money, to have to go up against the legal teams of large auto manufacturers.

Re:can't take revenge against a computer

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what people fear. It's the perceived lack of control, even if automated driving is statistically more safe. Same with nuclear energy paranoia.

The slef-driving car is inevitable

[h00manist]

I would venture to say the self driving car is simply inevitable, as the economic forces behind it are huge. Millions of people will buy additional cars, to replace theirs as well as to get extra ones to take their kids to work without them, create truck and taxi fleets with no drivers, etc. After cars become self-driving, they will become smaller, as they will really almost always carry one person and be used within city limits. That will be basically the same as PRT systems, which exist already. --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit --- Personal rapid transit (PRT), also called personal automated transport (PAT) or podcar, is a public transportation mode featuring small automated vehicles operating on a network of specially-built guide ways. PRT is a type of automated guideway transit (AGT), which also includes systems with larger vehicles, all the way to small subway systems.

Re:I'm fine with this

[rhsanborn]

You may have to accept personal liability for any accident you are involved in if you are manually driving a car once this technology become more commonplace. That could be a very steep price to pay. You'll also likely have increased insurance rates as your risk relative to the drivers who use the technology will be higher.

Re:can't take revenge against a computer

[CastrTroy]

I've been saying the same thing for years. The driverless car will never catch on because people want to be in control. I'm still amazed we have autopilots landing aircraft. Granted the pilot is paying attention at all times (or should be) and is ready to take control in case of a malfunction. For driverless cars the dream is that you can read the newspaper while going to work. But the reality is, that even if your car is driving itself, you should still be there to take over in case something malfunctions. If you have to pay attention anyway, you might as well be driving.

Re:Agreed... but there's more.

[$RANDOMLUSER]

...until Apple makes the iCar...

I just threw up in my mouth a little. But then I imagined Microsoft's response:

You have successfully changed your radio station.
You must restart your car for the changes to take effect.
Do you want to restart your car now?

Re:Agreed... but there's more.

[BasilBrush]

The iCar will have two settings: Destination and an option of "Get me there as soon as possible" or "I want to enjoy the sights".

The competitor will have an option for "GT mode", "Super Sport", "Cruise launch", "Eco-boost" and "Rally" that no one understands.

I LOVE driving

[c.r.o.c.o]

I drive manual transmission cars, I ride motorcycles, and I love going to the racetrack and testing the limits of both myself and my vehicles. Never had an at fault accident, but in the interest of disclosure I was rear-ended while waiting at red lights TWICE.

So while I have a personal problem relinquishing control of my car to a computer because I enjoy driving it myself, I can see the benefits of computer aided driving especially on public roads. But I believe an in between system would vastly improve safety while leaving people in control. Instead of the computer having absolute control, have it perform the same analysis and assist in collision avoidance.

Approaching a red light at a speed beyond safety margins? Apply the brakes. Start fishtailing on the highway? Apply corrective steering measures. Changing lanes into another vehicle, cyclist or turning into the path of another vehicle? Sound warnings, apply brakes, etc.

The trick is setting the thresholds to a level where people are completely in control up to the point where they are somewhat close to having an accident. Because if you believe computer driven cars will remove ALL collisions, you're deluded. All it takes if for a child to run out between two parked cars in the path of another car, and all the computer systems in the world will not counter its kinetic energy.

And it would be VERY important for the vehicle to be usable with the computer systems disabled, for several reasons.

First, because many people enjoy driving. Short of banning every single existing car on the road, people like me will always be able to purchase and drive a non-computerized vehicle. Even today I can buy a functioning Ford Model T. Think about that for a second, and you'll realize it could take a hundred years before the last current car stops being available, short of outlawing them. But just like with cigarettes and alcohol, I doubt that will ever happen. Can you imagine the lobby all the wealthy car collectors will mount?

Second, because computer systems fail and sometimes they cannot be inexpensively repaired. A current car can still run with many of its electrical systems disabled (power seats, windows, navigation system, even alternator and starter) for a while. Having worked with cars and motorcycles for a long time, I can tell you I'd rather rebuild an engine than diagnose an electrical problem. A cold solder on a PCB can ruin a while weekend trying to figure out why your car will not start in hot weather, but works fine in cold (I'm looking at you Honda Main Relay!!!) The complexity of a computer that can drive a car is beyond anything we have available today ANYWHERE, and it has thousands of failure points. Sensors, cameras, gps, servo motors, switches, wires, PCBs and only lastly the main CPU. The fact it runs in testing is great, but these systems have to last 10+ years of abuse WITHOUT FAILURE.

Lastly, having fully computer driven cars will make people even more dependent on technology, which is NOT a good thing. I've had my GPS tell me to go down a railway track once. I looked at it, smiled, and found the real route myself. But people HAVE driven on railway tracks, into lakes or in remote areas where they died of hypothermia. Imagine if you program your car to drive you, without any input, and it makes such a mistake?

Apparently the Same Thing With Energy Generation

[rubycodez]

It's ok for coal to have killed and maimed thousands directly and more than a million indirectly, but a nuclear incident that gives a few workers a dose over limit.....

They Already Have Driverless Cars

[Hoi Polloi]

Judging from the number of cars I see with drivers blabbing on cells phones while drifting around on the road, people stuffing their faces, digging around the passenger seat, etc I'd say we've had driverless cars for some time now.

Re:We all have different limits

[Soilworker]

Quick we need a car analogy... oh wait...

Wait until the "manual" insurance preium bites

[petes_PoV]

As soon as it is proven that computers cause fewer accidents than people do, the rates for manual insurance will rocket. Just like it's now impossible for a teenage man (and when the non sex discrimination rules kick in, teenage women, too) to get any insured for less than several thousand £££'s, so it will be for drivers who wish to be in control, themselves. SO while the law may allow people to drive, it will soon be impractical for reasons of cost. Shortly after that it will become socially irresponsible and after that people will start to wonder why anyone would ever want to. It'll take a decade ot two, but sooner or later the only place people will be allowed to control cars themselves will be on private race-tracks next door to hospitals - provided you can afford the medical care.

Re:We all have different limits

[Bill Dog]

Right, the logic expressed in TFS was reasonable, but only from the collectivist POV. That is, a system where some people are sacrificed for The Greater Good(TM), in this case for likely a significant increase in highway safety, vs. a system where the individual has a large amount (albeit not complete) control over his or her own life. This is just one particular case in the timeless struggle between two conflicting general philosophies.

Re:Humans are just dangerous

[MachDelta]

I don't think people realize just how automated their vehicles already are. Sure, it's nice to be able to point to something and go "It parks itself! Ohmigawd!" but if you dig deeper you'll realize that the beginning of the "cars driving themselves" era has already passed us by. Thirty years ago when you mashed the brakes in your car, it pushed on a hydraulic, vacuum-assisted cylinder, and forced a fluid down to the brakes. That's it.

Now when you nail the brakes, a computer is deciding that the "rapid engagement of the brakes" is really a request for 100% braking power and fully actuates the master cylinder by itself regardless of your exact input. Some cars will even adjust your steering inputs for you. Meanwhile another computer is looking at the rotating speed of each wheel, comparing them, and reducing and/or modulating the pressure to keep them from locking up. Another computer (or maybe the same one) is checking the speed of all four wheels versus the angle of the steering wheel versus roll/pitch/yaw sensors, and further adjusting the brakes and engine torque split to ensure that the vehicle isn't spinning or attempting to roll. Yet another computer is seeing that a massive load is being placed on the front suspension and actuates a set of valves or magnets to firm up the front shocks to reduce braking dive. Meanwhile a front facing sensor is comparing your rate of deceleration with the speed at which you're approaching an object, and when the check fails it weighs each occupant and primes a series of airbags for them, fires the seatbelt pretensioners, unlocks the doors, brings the seats upright, rolls up the windows, closes the sunroof, disables non-essential electrical systems, and basically does it's best to prepare the cabin for a crash. Some cars even have microphones tuned to listen for the sound of impact as a queue for firing the airbags! And how many cars these days phone home (OnStar, etc) when you're in an accident? You smash into a tree and before the fog clears from your eyes there's a friendly sounding lady on the phone going "We've detected a crash. Sir, are you alright?"

Cars already drive themselves. We just point them in the direction we want to go. One day we won't even have to do that, we'll just say "take me home" and it will figure out the rest. Why that is so much more terrifying than our present state is largely a matter of perception.

Re:can't take revenge against a computer

[c.r.o.c.o]

I've been saying the same thing for years. The driverless car will never catch on because people want to be in control. I'm still amazed we have autopilots landing aircraft. Granted the pilot is paying attention at all times (or should be) and is ready to take control in case of a malfunction. For driverless cars the dream is that you can read the newspaper while going to work. But the reality is, that even if your car is driving itself, you should still be there to take over in case something malfunctions. If you have to pay attention anyway, you might as well be driving.

Autopilot landing is EASY. You have a stationary runway, known wind, ground velocity, altitude, weather conditions,etc. Also the airplane is in the air, surrounded by nothing for miles unless the air traffic controller messes up. Even autopilot landing a fighter jet on a carrier in choppy seas is more predictable than driving a car in traffic.

A car is surrounded by obstacles on all sides, some stationary others in motion, it has to obey laws, traffic signals, and must adapt to unknown weather and road conditions. Most people don't give it a second thought in a car, but I can promise you nothing ruins a bright, warm day of motorcycle riding faster than hitting gravel in a turn.

This push towards automating driving is yet another attempt to nerf the entire world. Doomed to failure, but that won't stop the "visionaries." They should instead of focusing on having much better driving schools, much more stringent driving exams and recurring examinations. I find it ridiculous that having passed two laughable exams, I can now drive my car and ride my bike FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE (or at least for the next 50 years) without any retest.

Granted, some people will fail more difficult driving exams, and I'm ok with that even if I fail myself. They lack the hand-eye coordination required to be in control of a multi tonne vehicle, and should not be on the road. They can ride the bus, take a cab or walk. I'm not being facetious, I truly mean it. The day I fail a driving exam is the day I stop driving, at least until I can successfully retake it (and there should be a limit on retests too). :)))

Re:Humans are just dangerous

[SJS]

Bah. You aren't driving, you're just riding in a box. You don't even need to own it -- you can just rent it for you trip.

We already have that. We call them "cabs".

And they're sometimes useful.

Which may be the way to sell this, more than "it's a car you don't have to drive!". Why bother? The *point* of owning a car is to drive it. Driving is *fun*.

(And if it isn't, please, please, please take the bus, train, or trolley. If you don't enjoy driving, you're not going to be paying attention, which, frankly, makes you part of the problem.)

The problem with driverless cars is not that they're going to be unsafe, but that they're basically useless. We HAVE means of transporting people so that they don't have to pay attention already.

And yet we still own cars. Why? Because they're _fun_. Who's going to drop US$50,000 on a car that they don't get to drive?

Re:We all have different limits

[ATMAvatar]

Do not ignore those who are killed by no fault of their own. How many are killed in accidents caused by someone else?

Unfortunately, this is precisely the point. People are illogical. 600k die every year to heart disease and no one flinches, but it a one-time, ~3000 death event caused a massive response. 24k deaths each year can be attributed to coal power plants, but clearly it's nuclear power that's the major threat. After all, you never know when your local nuclear reactor might be hit by a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami.

1.2 million, actually.

[Jason Pollock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision

Worldwide it was estimated in 2004 that 1.2 million people were killed (2.2% of all deaths) and 50 million more were injured in motor vehicle collisions.[1][39] India leads with 105,000 traffic deaths in a year, compared with over 96,000 in China.[40] This makes motor vehicle collisions the leading cause of injury death among children worldwide 10 – 19 years old (260,000 children die a year, 10 million are injured) [41] and the sixth leading preventable cause of death in the United States[42] (45,800 people died and 2.4 million were injured in 2005).[43] In Canada they are the cause of 48% of severe injuries.[44]

Complete with references.

Re:can't take revenge against a computer

[Kjella]

This push towards automating driving is yet another attempt to nerf the entire world. Doomed to failure, but that won't stop the "visionaries." They should instead of focusing on having much better driving schools, much more stringent driving exams and recurring examinations. (...) Granted, some people will fail more difficult driving exams, and I'm ok with that even if I fail myself. They lack the hand-eye coordination required to be in control of a multi tonne vehicle, and should not be on the road. They can ride the bus, take a cab or walk. I'm not being facetious, I truly mean it.

Bus? Not available.
Cab? Too expensive.
Walk? Too far.

Let's face it, many people are completely dependent on having a car. Even if you tell them to rewrite their lives to be car free - possibly abandoning childhood homes, neighbors and local communities - there are many things that are completely dependent on having a car. There'll never be any public transport to take you up to your mountain cabin for the weekend and the taxi driver would charge you a small fortune for it. You can of course say "don't do those things" but that's a really crappy solution to the people you want to take it away from. Particularly for many elderly the car is a lifeline for getting around, losing their license and being "stuck" in their apartment is one of the saddest day in their sunset years. Given the alternatives, I can understand the "You can pry it from my cold, dead fingers" attitude many have to their driver's license.

If there is to be a change of tune, I think it will come from these people. People that know that maaaaaaaybe they shouldn't actually be driving, but they don't feel they have a choice. People that could say "hey, this is enough for me to let me get my groceries and visit my grandkids", who don't give a crap about any loss of manual control - they never really asked for it in the first place. Like a cab, without the cost of a cab and that is your personal space. And commuters, honestly who thinks that is fun driving? Just get in, tell it to go to the office and spend the time doing something else while the computer limps after the tail lights ahead of you. Or just people that don't care, it's a tool to get from A to B and as long as the computer gets you there in roughly the same time that's fine.

Not to mention, driverless cars also enable passengerless cars. The implications of that could be great, like I get off and the car parks itself. I call it and it comes to pick me up - perhaps not even in the same place, I don't need to return to where I parked it. I could drive myself to the airport and it'll go park itself. Or even drive home and wait for me to schedule a pickup. Also things like people that aren't old enough to drive. Deliver your kid to soccer practice? Put him/her in the car, tell it to go drop him off. If they're old enough, maybe even pick them up on their own. Or when you're drunk and can't drive yourself, no more need for "designated drivers" - which nobody wants to be in my experience.

Seriously, driverless cars would be the solution to so many problems that only skilled drivers would never solve and which is pretty much a pipe dream anyway. Most people are just average and the great majority is not going to "throw out" themselves.