Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Self Driving Car Crashes

Posted by timothy on from the had-to-happen-one-day dept.

datapharmer writes "We've all read previous stories on slashdot about Google's driverless car, and some have even pondered if a crash would bring the end to robotic cars. For better or for worse, we will all find out soon, as the inevitable has occurred. The question remains, who is to blame. A Google spokesperson told Business Insider that 'Safety is our top priority. One of our goals is to prevent fender-benders like this one, which occurred while a person was manually driving the car.'"

17 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Johnny Cab by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The door opened, you got in!"

    1. Re:Johnny Cab by pinkj · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wish I had mod points.

      Johnnycab: The fare is 18 credits, please.
      [Quaid gets out]
      Douglas Quaid: Sue me, dickhead!
      [cab tries to run him down, crashes, and explodes]
      Johnnycab: We hope you enjoyed the ride!

  2. Summary is sensationalistic by ELitwin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The car crashed while being driven by a person.

    Nothing to see here - move along please.

    1. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 4, Funny

      The car crashed while being driven by a person.

      Maybe he was looking at the GPS and not paying attention to the road.

    2. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by Dice · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The car crashed while being driven by a person.

      According to a Google spokesperson. If I were in that car, and it crashed while the software was driving, I would claim that I had been driving it too. Any public crash that could be blamed on the software would put the project in serious jeopardy.

    3. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by 101010_or_0x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      9/11 was an inside job because man never landed on the moon.

    4. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by tibman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I did some quick research.

      According to California officials, there are no laws that would bar Google from testing such models, as long as there's a human behind the wheel who would be responsible should something go wrong.

      Taken from here: http://jalopnik.com/5661240/are-googles-driverless-cars-legal which was linked in the article from the summary.

      However i would say that there is a difference from operating the car and manually driving the car. The google spokesperson used the phrase, manually driving.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    5. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ah yes, the epiphany of epitome.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Summary is sensationalistic by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

      The article has an update, which says the incident forced a chain-collision among 3 Priuses (Preii?) and an Accord.

      So it appears that only one car was affected.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  3. Wildly misleading headline by Bovius · · Score: 5, Informative

    Relevant quote: "...occurred while a person was manually driving the car."

    Headline should be: "Human damages Google car by operating it with his own slow, meaty appendages"

    1. Re:Wildly misleading headline by emurphy42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TFAs are largely about questioning whether
      (a) it was indeed the human's fault
      (b) the robot effed up first, then the human took over and attempted (unsuccessfully) to recover

  4. 100% reliability not needed by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've posted this before and I'll post it again.

    Robot cars don't have to be 100% reliable. As long as they're more reliable than the jerks who normally scare the bejesus out of me by cutting across three lanes of traffic, driving 90 MPH, weaving in and out, running red lights, etc., then I'm all for a robot car-driven society. I'm willing to put up with the computer glitches that, on very rare occasions, cause crashes if I don't have to put up with the human glitches that call themselves licensed drivers.

    1. Re:100% reliability not needed by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good for you, but unfortunately that only means you are more sane then a lawmaker, the lobbyists etc... The problem is if there is a single fatality, or even minor accidents, a large group will rise up screaming about how unsafe the cars are, and they will be disallowed from driving on public roads. Even if the average rate of accidents and fatalities is 1/16th of human rates. Most laws can be stopped by focusing on the 1% of the time something is worse and completely ignoring the 99% of the time they were better.

    2. Re:100% reliability not needed by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      you say this now, but wait until the smartcar you're in gets caught in an infinite loop!

      So you get lost around the Apple campus. What's the big deal?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Does Everyone on CA own a Prius or Accord? by adisakp · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: Google's Prius struck another Prius, which then struck her Honda Accord that her brother was driving. That Accord then struck another Honda Accord, and the second Accord hit a separate, non-Google-owned Prius.

    1. Re:Does Everyone on CA own a Prius or Accord? by itchythebear · · Score: 4, Funny

      That would explain that cloud of smug that has been collecting over California.

      --
      If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
  6. Re:This is Slashdot. by sneakyimp · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man Crashes Car? That's no story. CAR CRASHES MAN!!! Now *that's* a story.