Slashdot Mirror
Google's Self-Driving Cars: 300,000 Miles Logged, Not a Single Accident
An anonymous reader writes "The automated cars are slowly building a driving record that's better than that of your average American. From the article: 'Ever since Google began designing its self-driving cars, they've wanted to build cars that go beyond the capabilities of human-piloted vehicles, cars that are much, much safer. When Sebastian Thrun announced the project in 2010, he wrote, "According to the World Health Organization, more than 1.2 million lives are lost every year in road traffic accidents. We believe our technology has the potential to cut that number, perhaps by as much as half."
New data indicate that Google's on the right path. Earlier this week the company announced that the self-driving cars have now logged some 300,000 miles and "there hasn't been a single accident under computer control." (The New York Times did note in a 2010 article that a self-driving car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light, so Google must not be counting the incidents that were the fault of flawed humans.)'"
I want to know about interference between cars. I've only see one self-driving car tested at a time. If there's hundreds within visual range of each other are their radar and laser sensors going to have much more noise?
The little experience I have with robots is that laser range finders like to bounce off things and skew readings. How do the cars deal with that?
My understanding is that it cannot read signs, or deal with many types of unusual conditions like detours, nor can deal with a location without maps. Does anyone know about the limits of the Google car?
So far I've never seen an explanation, but all these situations have occurred to me within the last year:
(1) Construction zone, worker standing with a temporary "slow/stop" sign indicating when cars can proceed on a one-lane section shared between both directions alternately.
(2) Baseball rolls out into street in residential area, followed soon by child who was initially invisible behind a parked minivan. I knew ball might be followed by someone, and slowed way down so this wasn't a problem. At normal speed, it would have been.
(3) Nearly invisible ice around curve, one other car had slid off road. I knew to greatly reduce speed even below normal winter operating conditions.
(4) Two lanes in each direction road. Noticed other car weaving around unpredictably, and later noticed driver occupied with cell phone. I then knew not to drive next to this vehicle even though that would have been fine in other conditions.
How would google's car handle these situations?
It's hard to imagine being found at-fault when you are stopped and rear-ended.
There's no shame in being involved in an accident if it's not your fault.
We trust others all around us every day to avoid smashing into us. Even the best drivers get hit.
The best drivers DO NOT trust others around them to avoid smashing into us. If we did, we'd be the not-at-fault person in a lot more accidents.
I believe it to be incorrect to compare the GoogeDrive cars to average drivers. They should be compared to professional drivers for two reasons:
-What will Google's car do if it gets a flat tire on the road?
-What will it do in case of an accident?
-Can it back itself into the garage?
-Can it parallel park?
-Can it park itself at a commercial parking lot or structure?
-Can it go through alleys?
-Can it go where there are no roads?
-Does it have to have a human on board?
-Can I call it on my cell phone and tell it to pick me up at the airport?
-Can vision-impaired grandma take it for a visit the doctor?
-Can the kids use it to go to school?
There are more but you get the picture.
I live in Reno, and Google's Self Driving cars are legal on road here (complete with cool plates with infinity logo: http://www.jumpthecurve.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/18164996_BG1.jpg)
A few things:
1) Has google partnered at all with any manufacturers to have this ability on a future car I can buy?
2) or as an upgrade to existing cars?
I'm hoping they don't get stuck in red tape legal limbo hell, and that more states other than my own Nevada jump on board. I regularly make 3.5 - 4 hour drive to friends in California. If I could just jump in the car, pop in an address, and take a nap, play on my iPad, or whatever while the car drove that'd be awesome. Or a ride home from a bar if I've been drinking and don't want to taxi and leave the car behind.
Or imagine a friend asks for a ride someplace? No problem, I send the car over on its own, and he can just tell it to come back to my house afterwards.
There are tons of ideas I can think of where this would be very damned useful.
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
GoogleDrive will only be affordable (at any time in the next couple decades) to rich people to replace professional, expert drivers.
Remarkably stupid if Google does this. They'll go the way of the "electric" car and all the other fancy cars targeted at, well, Beverly Hills. A few rich celebs will buy one and pose for the cameras, and then they will be forgotten. No, Google needs to bite the bullet and take an example from Henry Ford. Make pennies on the unit, but make millions and millions of units.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Ha ha ha... classic...
Did you know 93% of drivers consider themselves better than average?
It is entirley possible that the 93 % are right, if the worst 7 % are REALLY BAD drivers.
Not even really bad. For instance, if 93% of drivers are 1% above the average in driving skill, then the remaining 7% of drivers only need to be 13.3% below average in driving skill. I've had to avoid drivers who are a lot worse than that. My memory (or confirmation bias) suggests that the worst drivers are found in Audis and invariably have a cellphone stuck to their ear, whether in North America or in Europe.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Considering that fact, it would be near impossible to rid the road of all idiots, therefore, it would make sense for the automated car to have some sort of collision avoidance algorithm for rear enders that also doesn't put other drivers or pedestrians at risk.
With 300,000 miles without "a single accident under computer control." it has a collision avoidance algorithm that is far better than yours. Therefore it would make sense that you wouldn't be allowed to manually override a far superior driver.
I used to agree with that, then I realized that since we regularly inspect cars and since it would be easy enough to scan the software of every car that is involved in an accident, this is a crime that wouldn't go unnoticed. I like modding, but I'd probably be cautious if I knew that in an accident situation my crime could be upgraded from "manual operation of vehicle outside of my abilities" or whatever to "reckless endangerment" or in cases where someone was actually killed, it could easily be upgraded from "manslaughter" to "murder", or whatever the terms would be in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Sure, some people would still tamper... and the cops would likely have scanners scanning your software on routine stops, maybe even getting feedback from it remotely.
But you know what'll really kill it? Predictability.
If your car is driven by a program that will under no circumstances go above the speed limit, then if you go above the speed limit it's reasonable suspicion that you've tampered with your program. The car is impounded, and if it's found to be tampered with, lost.
Since the kind of people who really love to mod their cars are also the kind of people who really love their cars, this kind of thing is a fairly easily enforceable and not too harsh punishment that would likely make them think twice. And their hobby isn't outlawed, no, just moved to fenced trackways. If they want to race, feel the speed, mod their cars... then that's not for the streets, that's for the raceways.
Will there still be the one in a million idiot that does something insanely stupid, gets someone killed, and then drools in the courtroom saying he didn't know or that the rules somehow magically don't apply to them? Yes. There will also still be lightning strikes. If we got fenderbenders and carcrashes down to the scarcity of lightning strikes however, or lower... man, imagine the billions of dollars and manhours saved... not even mentioning the deaths and injuries avoided.
Wise man say, when crossing one-way street, look both ways. There are very many hazards that automated cars undo as well. I read an amazing essay about life with all fully automated vehicles, where you don't own a car, instead you punch your cargo and travel plans into a website, and the appropriate vehicle shows up and takes care of your travel needs. If it's a mile or so to the grocery store, a wagon shows up. If it's to the remote cottage an SUV shows up. If it's to a wedding a limo shows up. If it's to an airport a shuttle bus shows up with room for you and your baggage along with others etc. Think about how much time your car is parked and think about how many fewer automated vehicles it would take to service a large population. MASSIVE CO2 emission reduction, especially if most of them are fully electric, as they could easily recharge themselves automatically. The ramifications are really stupendous.
I can't find a link to the essay (I'm unwinding after a long day and I get 3 hrs sleep before a 17 hr day tomorrow), but I'm sure other /.ers have heard of it.
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
I wish to be driven about in a self-driving car. For hundreds of kms at hundreds of kmhs. In tightly packed convoys to save fuel even at mind boggling speeds. Sleeping comfortably in safety.
Except for the weekends. Then I wish to exhibit my driving prowess on mountain passes.
Life gets sweeter by the day.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
In London we have "car clubs" that do this without the autonomous vehicles. Near my house there's a small car parked in a normal residential parking space. I can walk up to it, open the door and drive it around for a couple of hours. If I need to put fuel in, I can do that via fuel card (or reclaim money if I can't use the fuel card for some reason). If there's anything wrong with the car, or I have an accident, I push the "call" button and talk to an operator. All this by pre-booking online, and paying on my credit card after I return the car to it's normal resting place.
It's an expensive way to replace a car you already own, but it's a cheap way to borrow a car for an hour or two a week. When we get autonomous vehicles, it'll probably become entirely more popular, and different vehicles will arrive at your house, as you describe. Can't wait ;-)
Think of the implications of having an automated driving system... the onboard computer is collecting and analyzing data in real time, and it will likely store that information, at least temporarily. So if a Google car is involved in a crash, a full report will be generated, detailing exactly what happened and liability will be very easy to determine in most cases. "Car A has had a faulty motion sensor on the front bumper that the driver failed to have replaced" or "Car B drove through a red light to hit Car A".
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
I think that making automated, passenger-less cars legal will be a very easy decision for legislatures, and will pass quickly. Like I said, I believe automated cars will err far more on the side of caution, like the most grandmotherly of drivers.
Think of the implications of having an automated driving system... the onboard computer is collecting and analyzing data in real time, and it will likely store that information, at least temporarily. So if a Google car is involved in a crash, a full report will be generated, detailing exactly what happened and liability will be very easy to determine in most cases. "Car A has had a faulty motion sensor on the front bumper that the driver failed to have replaced" or "Car B drove through a red light to hit Car A".
I also think that automated cars will observe all safety rules to the letter... like only driving the speed limit (or slightly below), always maintaining a safe distance behind other vehicles, stopping for yellow lights, and having a generous braking distance. Remember, Google could be held liable if the system is reckless, and they aren't going to want that when human lives are at stake.
I think that making automated, passenger-less cars legal will be a very easy decision for legislatures, and will pass quickly. Like I said, I believe automated cars will err far more on the side of caution, like the most grandmotherly of drivers.
I'm not so sure. For driving on the highway I think it will be fine, but think about some other conditions. How will it deal with passing a horse and rider on a narrow road? How will it deal with coming across another driver in a country lane at a place where there is no room to pass? How will it drive on a road with a shear drop off on one side and a cliff on another? If this is narrow with passing paces will it know to pull in so that it almost touches the cliff to give extra space to the vehicle near the drop-off? In busy commuter traffic will it adjust the "aggressiveness" of pulling out from a side-road to take into account that if you don't pull out quick and accelerate hard you could be waiting until the end of the rush? On a rutted farm track can it work out that you have to drive with one wheel on the centre of the road and the other on the edge to avoid the tractor ruts?
If you have a driver there is always the option to safely pull over or stop and say "manual intervention required", but once you allow completely automatic use with non-drivers or no driver the car has to do something sensible.
The density of humans per car is already too low. I live in Mexico City, a 25 million people city. There has long been a campain to reduce the use of single-driver cars, but the campain is never strong enough.
I want to go to point X. Being too lazy to walk ten metres, I drive around for half an hour until I find a parking spot. With a self driving car, the car can drop me off exactly where I want to go and leave the area going somewhere where parking spaces are easier to find. Self driving cars can also park closely together because they don't need to leave space on the side for the driver to enter, and they can park blocking other self driving cars, because when the other car needs to leave, the blocking car can get out of the way.