Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google: Our Robot Cars Are Better Drivers Than You

Posted by Soulskill on from the then-would-you-mind-taking-the-kids-to-school-every-day dept.

An anonymous reader writes "At a robotics conference in Santa Clara, California, the head of Google's autonomous car project presented results of a study showing that the company's autonomous cars are already safer than human drivers — including trained professionals. 'We're spending less time in near-collision states,' he said. 'In addition to painting a rosy picture of his vehicles' autonomous capabilities, Urmson showed a new dashboard display that his group has developed to help people understand what an autonomous car is doing and when they might want to take over.' This follows another (non-Google) study earlier this week that found the adoption of autonomous cars could save thousands of lives and billions of dollars each year. Urmson also pointed out that determining liability for an accident is much easier using the data collected by the autonomous cars. At one point, a test car was read-ended, and the data showed it smoothly braking to a stop before being struck. 'We don't have to rely on eyewitnesses that can't be trusted as to what happened — we actually have the data. The guy around us wasn't paying enough attention. The data will set you free.'"

3 of 722 comments (clear)

  1. Re:At what speed? by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alternatively... you could just drive within the speed limit?

  2. Re:Show time by rjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Where I come from, that's called "gross negligence" and "endangering lives".

    I don't know where you are so I can't comment on your local laws. In the United States, it would likely be considered neither. Acts necessary to save human lives are neither criminally prosecutable nor subject to civil litigation.

    The important word in that phrase, of course, being "necessary." Here's how a judge would evaluate your affirmative defense of, "Your honor, I had to drive like a madman: I had a man in obvious cardiac distress in the back of my car."

    • First, did you have a reasonable belief the person was in extreme cardiac distress? "He was clutching his chest, short of breath, complaining of chest pains and having trouble remaining conscious. Okay, yes: the driver had a reasonable belief this individual was experiencing a life-threatening medical event and timely treatment was necessary."
    • Second, was your action reasonable in light of the other options which were immediately available to you? "The defendant didn't bother to call an ambulance... then again, we *are* living in Detroit, where the response time to an emergency call hovers around one hour. His options were to either bring the guy to the hospital in his own vehicle, or attempt to provide cardiac care right there in the apartment. Transportation seems like a reasonable choice."
    • Third, were unnecessary risks taken? "Sure, the guy was barrelling down Jefferson Avenue at 80 miles an hour. That was necessary. If he'd taken a detour and gone 80mph down a side street to hit a 7-11 along the way to buy a Slurpee, that would've been unnecessary... but he didn't do that, or anything like that."
    • Fourth: if there was a reasonable belief someone's life is in jeopardy, if your action is reasonable in light of the options available to you, and if you avoided unnecessary risks, then brother, you are protected.

    I am generally not a fan of urban driving. I own a Mustang GT and I go to the speedway whenever I can to race at high speeds in a controlled environment, but once I'm on public roads I obey the speed limit and I live in mortal fear of Suzy Homemaker in an SUV who's jawing on her cell phone instead of paying attention to her lane merge. I welcome the development of automated driving: for 99% of people it will be a massive step up in safety.

    But let's not pretend that driving at 80mph in response to an immediate threat to a human life is something that we need to condemn. Those drivers amount to such a vanishingly small fraction of all accidents that I'm happy to give them a free pass. Go with God, may your tires have good tread, and I hope your passenger makes it.

  3. Re:Show time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a terrible argument against autonomous cars. Are you claiming that if they had only driven 65 mph then you wouldn't be alive? How about 70 mph? Unless you were way way out in the middle of nowhere I find that hard to believe. Protip- instead of the hospital stop at a fire station (if you pass one) instead, as the ambulance can do most things the ER can.

    Also, why do you think these cars won't have a manual mode?