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.'"

Comments

Show time

[mjwalshe]

Have the Google robot take on the Stig round the top gear test track.

Re:Show time

[HxBro]

Some say, "he is actually the robot driving the autonomous cars... All at the same time"

Re:Show time

[rjh]

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.

Re:Show time

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Show time

[canadiannomad]

911: 911 what is your emergency?
10 year old: I think my dad is having a heart attack.
911: How old are you?
10 year old: 10
911: Ok, thanks, we have your address at 123 Flower St. Is that correct?
10 year old: Yea
911: Is your dad's car at home?
10 year old: No it is out with my mom
911: Ok we can route a taxi to your home, it will get there faster then an ambulance, do you think you can help him to the taxi?
10 year old: I think so..
911: It will be there in 40...30 seconds. Don't hang up your cell, in case you need assistance.

Taxi arrives exactly as predicted by the operator, child is able to help their father get in, the taxi detects that both are safely in the car and speeds off to the hospital automatically, not asking for fare. The 911 operator walks child through basic emergency procedures though the taxi communication system. All other cars yield properly as the taxi is sending out an authorized emergency signal and has lights flashing and horn blaring at a recognized interval. They arrive at the hospital in a minimum amount of time with less risk then waiting for the ambulance to arrive.

I'm sure that isn't exactly how it would go down, but I can certainly see the advantages of autonomous cars, taxis, even ambulances at every step of this.

Re:Show time

[Plunky]

Which us why self driving cars are better for all road users.... They won't drive at triple the speed limit.

I don't get why people think they wouldn't do that

In fact, in a world of self driving cars, I don't see why we would need a speed limit. The car can be trusted to drive within its own limits..

And if your dad had a self driving car, your brother could have helped your dad to the car and told the car to drive to the hospital.

and his brother could have told the car that it was an emergency (destination: emergency unit of hospital) and the car could have decided to drive at its maximum speed, broadcasting to other vehicles that it was doing so.

A journey such as this might attract some official attention, but assuming that the hospital corroborates the story of an emergency, then I don't see why there would be any charges..

Re:Autopilots

[Sique]

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.

Re:What is the use of being better Driver?

[mbone]

Get it into production, allow for Moore's law, and these could be competitively priced in a very few years.

Perfect Synergy

[some old guy]

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!

Re:At what speed?

[beelsebob]

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

Re:Yup, and it doesn't matter.

[demonlapin]

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.