Slashdot Mirror
Google: Our Robot Cars Are Better Drivers Than You
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.'"
Have the Google robot take on the Stig round the top gear test track.
Autonomous cars will more than likely drive at exactly the speed limit. So on that stretch of highway you were used to doing 65mph in a 55 zone... well that slow car (hopefully in the right lane) will be the Google one.
I guess that's when the human takes over?
TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
If you had read TFA, you would have noticed that the robot car operates more safely than humans in the highway infrastructure that is in place today. We don't need to redesign today's infrastructure, if we switch over to autonomous cars.
Get it into production, allow for Moore's law, and these could be competitively priced in a very few years.
Thanks to our dear friends at the NSA, law enforcement will soon have the ability to override the destination selection of autonomous cars and have any driver/passenger they wish promptly delivered to a convenient jail or donut shop.
I love technology!
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Solution: robot children and pedestrians. Anyway, wearable computing will make the garments aware of the surroundings. Trying to cross the road? Your pants know better!
if {collision}
then {arbitrary braking profile}
else {real data}
Burma-shave
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Will you still be drving drunk if you have your autonomous car drive you home after a night of drinking? 2. What if you are driving link and ass and rear-end someone, will they be able to use that data against you? What if both people are at fault? 3. Who's going to absorb the liability for these cars when something unexpected breaks? The large automotives are going to drag their feet for years on self-driving cars. Their will need to be a lot of testing in real life before they mass produce any cars.
So when you're driving today you're in a state of being aware of the situation and are engaged with the surroundings.
If you're letting the car drive, I highly doubt you're paying that much attention. Why wouldn't I let the car drive and I read, do email, surf the web or turn around and talk to the passengers in the rear seats.
In the event where you need to take an emergency action, it's much easy in the first case to go to heightened state than in the second one. Atleast in the first one you aren't completely surprised by the events you're facing before you.
Think of the case of a gravel truck that has a loose load. If I know there's a truck in front of me, I'm not 100% surprised if some gravel comes out, whereby if i'm reading/emailing and I'm forced to take over to avoid gravel, it's more of a surprise and I'm forced to figure quite a bit more out about the situation before I can act. One could also panic because of the amount of elevated emotion or adrenaline dump that would be taking place since you'd go from "reading iPad" to "dodging gravel".
Very few people, even those who enjoy driving, enjoy more than a tiny fraction of the driving they do. In these situations, I find that the best touchstone is asking what very, very wealthy people do. They have essentially unlimited options, and what they do is reflective of human desire not limited by constraints.
Overwhelmingly, they choose to be driven. They choose to fly private jets. If you could afford it, you would do the same thing most of the time, because most of the time getting there is just a task, not a joy.
It will be the same with regular people. Imagine what society looks like when there are zero deaths due to drunk driving, distracted driving, and falling asleep at the wheel. Imagine how much lower car insurance premiums are when the risk of an at fault accident is nearly zero. People will still buy cars, because they will want one customized to them, but imagine all the things that can change when a human pilot no longer has to be accommodated: cars set up so that parents and children can face each other and play games together while traveling, lay-flat seats for overnight driving. You can leave Washington after work on Friday and eat lunch in New Orleans.
Except, if you've read any of the news for the last few years, it IS changing. Young people aren't entering into the automobile culture the way their parents did. They are favoring bicycles, walking, public transit, and other non-car ways to get around. It's something the big car mfgs are worried about a lot because their customer base is rapidly aging.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/5-reasons-young-people-are-not-buying-cars-or-getting-their-drivers-license/
And as a cyclist, I trust the self-driving cars *much* more than human piloted cars. I see drivers texting while driving every day, and I'm confident that a self-driving car will never be reading a break-up text from its boyfriend and plow into me while txting a reply.
Last week I had an American friend over and we were talking about driverless cars, and she said she thought they might work in the USA, but having seen what UK roads are like, she was very skeptical they'd work there, so maybe Google should try it!
For example, many roads in tows date back to roman times, and are too narrow for two-lane traffic. You need to look far ahead and work out when exactly you need to duck into a gap behind a parked car to let oncoming traffic through, and when to go for it when you have right of way so as not to block traffic in either direction. And if a block does occur, will it mount the pavement (sidewalk) to free things up, or know when it's time to back up and give in?
The UK has very few towns laid out in a grid, and most roads are twisty, and narrow, other than motorways. Can a driverless car cope with such terrain? If Google really want to prove their technology is better than a human, let them bring their cars over to the UK. If they work here, I'll be impressed.
Oh, we're going to have this discussion again. Okay, I'll play. You see drivers texting and putting on make-up. I see cyclists riding in the pedestrian crosswalk, riding against the flow of traffic, maneuvering around slowing/stopped vehicles, and they never EVER use hand signals to indicate a turn or stop. And most of them don't use required safety equipment, let alone the recommended ones.
In aviation, more maneuverable aircraft yield right-of-way to less maneuverable aircraft. Though not actually codified, this is generally true in automotive. No one argues with the 18-wheeler. Then it breaks down when cyclists expect everyone to move for them (and this is the exact argument another gentlemen here was making the other day when claiming it's the driver's responsibility to adjust *their* behavior to accommodate cyclists).
Maybe motorcycles and bicycles should also be automated. I mean, fair is fair.
Having worked on self-driving cars (2005 Grand Challenge), a few points:
The comment about minimizing "near-collision states" is significant. A near-collision state is one where a reasonable variance of the behavior of another vehicle could cause a collision. It's about predicting other-vehicle behavior. That's an important area to study. Aviation people put a lot of effort into minimizing near-misses, and it pays off.
Incidentally, Tesla's announcement that they're starting work on an "autopilot" is them playing catch-up. Audi, BMW, Cadillac, and Ford are already demoing automatic driving systems. It looks like Cadillac will be the first to ship hands-off highway driving, in 2015. All these early systems are highway driving only, although Cadillac includes stop-and-go driving in traffic jams. That's likely to be a very popular feature.
On the sensor side, more progress is needed, and it's coming. That rotating LIDAR contraption on top of Google's self-driving cars is from Velodyne. It's 64 LIDAR units on a spinning turntable. That's a research device, not a production one. There are better ways to do LIDAR, but the cost needs to come down. The approaches used in the Kinect and the XBox One will not work outdoors in bright sunlight. Outdoor LIDAR systems work fine, but they're pulsed, not continuous. For a nanosecond, at one frequency (color) they far outshine the sun. But the total energy per pulse is low, so they're eye-safe. Currently, such devices are very expensive, but that's not for any good reason. It's because some exotic ICs have to be made in tiny quantities.
Radars are getting better, too. A decade ago, in the Grand Challenge, we had to use Eaton VORAD radars, which operate at 24GHz. These could reliably range cars, trucks, and larger bicycles, but not people at long range, or signposts. (Such radars return range, azimuth, and range rate; this isn't a speed gun. I used to have one of these looking out my window at at an intersection, with a display plotting the traffic.) Today's automotive radars are running at 77GHz, with plans to move to 79GHz. There's an effort to standardize on 79GHz internationally. Tripling the frequency, plus applying more compute power to the processing, means that most objects a car might hit are detectable. These radars are getting cheap and small, so a car will have enough of them to provide full-circle data. Long range is needed mostly in front; on the side and in back, much lower power can be used.
A key issue is a high viewpoint. This isn't just about obstacle detection. You also need to profile the road. This was a big deal for the off-road DARPA Grand Challenge, but even on paved roads you need to be able to detect junk on the pavement and potholes. Google has their sensor on top of the roof. This will probably be unacceptable in a production car. I'd go for flash LIDARs at the top corners of the front windows. One possibility is a narrow strip just above the windshield, to contain all the sensors. This is one way to combine vehicle aesthetics and field of view.
Cameras are useful, but computer vision is still kind of dumb. Distance from stereo only works at short ranges, and range rate info from cameras is poor. Digital cameras are so cheap now, so it's tempting to think they can do the whole job. Not yet. Computer vision isn't good enough. Tesla is probably putting too much hope into camera processing. You need cameras to recognize signs, traffic lights, and such. Also, you need multiple sensors because not all objects are visible on all sensors. Radars can't see insulators. Cameras can't see objects with little contrast against the background. LIDARs can't see some materials, such as the charcoal fabric used on many office chairs. Sensor fusion is essential.
Enough for now. This looks quite do-able.