Slashdot Mirror
Self-Driving Cars In California: 4 Out of 48 Have Accidents, None Their Fault
An anonymous reader writes: The Associated Press reports that 48 self-driving cars have been navigating the roads of California since the state began issuing permits last year. Of those, only four have been in accidents, and none of the accidents were the fault of the autonomous driving technology. Seven different companies have tested autonomous cars on California's roads, but Google, which is responsible for almost half of them, was involved in three of the four accidents — the other one happened to a car from Delphi Automotive. All four of the accidents happened at speeds of under 10 mph, and human drivers were in control during two of them. The Delphi accident happened when another car broadsided it while its human driver was waiting to make a left turn.
The AP pieced together its report from the DMV and people who saw the accident reports. But critics note that there aren't direct channels to find this information. Since one of the chief selling points of autonomous cars is their relative safety over cars piloted by humans, the lack of official transparency is troubling. "Google, which has 23 Lexus SUVs, would not discuss its three accidents in detail." Instead, the company affirmed its cars' accidents were "a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention."
The AP pieced together its report from the DMV and people who saw the accident reports. But critics note that there aren't direct channels to find this information. Since one of the chief selling points of autonomous cars is their relative safety over cars piloted by humans, the lack of official transparency is troubling. "Google, which has 23 Lexus SUVs, would not discuss its three accidents in detail." Instead, the company affirmed its cars' accidents were "a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention."
I expect the number haven't been publicized, because they are still to limited to have any significance, and also because the cars have been running under fairly tightly controlled conditions.
When there are a few hundred cars, running in all kinds of weather and traffic conditions, with millions of miles - if the numbers are still good, you can bet that they will be plastered all over the internet
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
4 Out of 48 Have Accidents, None Their Fault
I think that compares well to the average Californian.
Perhaps you would like to read the story somewhere other than the NYT because paywalling is stupid and offensive, even if you know how to bypass it. Thanks, Seattle Times, for just showing me the flipping article.
Here's a news flash: You can get the same AP newswire article anywhere. Yet people still link the NYT. That's poor internet etiquette given that they paywall.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is all well and good having self driving cars, however, (ok, so this is through reading the unfortunate things that happen to people through stupidity, and malice on reddit, liveleak, etc)....
Hopefully we'll never get to the stage where you just 'pop the infant' into the car and tell it to go to grandmas (assuming grandma is there, and nothing happens along the way). Sad, far fetched, but you can bet that this will happen somewhere and some unfortunate may be hurt as a result in something entirely preventable).
This was a waking dream this morning. Sad thing to wake up to. Hopefully never happen.
Computers are still too stupid.
One of the analogies I've seen at a speech on the subject went something like, "A computer can detect an object in the roadway, but it can't yet tell if it's a paper bag that can be safely run over or a rock that's apt to damage the car."
This was a few years ago, so I don't know if it's still true or not, but it does demonstrate the programming challenge in processing something exceedingly simple that even the most inexperienced human driver would be able.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"a handful of minor fender-benders, light damage, no injuries, so far caused by human error and inattention"
In case any of those were done by human co-drivers in automated vehicles, this does not exonerate the automation from some share of responsibility. For example, if the presence or habitual use of the automation makes it more likely for the co-driver to become inattentive, it's partly to blame.
That the vast majority of human drivers around them were able to avoid accidents despite the presence of dangerous automated cars.
Self-driving cars need to be banned.
Why - it wasn't their fault?
One can be "in the right" and still not have done the right thing. For example, if the light is green I'm in the right not to slow down for the intersection. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't take precautions to check if someone is coming the other way. If I had I might have avoided the accident that was not assigned to my "fault".
On the other hand it's also possible that google cars will be better drivers than the average person. One might hope they use different CPUs for the texting and the driving.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It's still better than letting computers drive. I've heard the damn things even sleep on the job. I've also heard they have a dog watching while they're asleep but that doesn't make any sense.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Not important. In the future, you'll order food online and a drone will deliver it to your moving car. After all, if you're not driving you'll be able to eat while you're in the car.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The fact that of the 4 accidents that happened, none of them were the car's fault is more significant than the 10% rat.
When any specific humans has 4 accident driving cars, on average exactly 50% of them were caused by that specific human. If I drove long enough to have 4 accidents and none of them were my fault that would be significant evidence that I am a far superior driver than the average human
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
So who is a fault when breaks fail. It has happened. Who is a fault when tires blow out? Or fuel tanks catch fire, or airbags improperly deploy?
Liability is nothing new and ToS cannot waive rights that are not waive able.....
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
NON-Self-driving cars need to be banned. There, I fixed it for you. :D
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Actually theres a historical precedent for legislation concerning semi autonomous non human traffic. Horses.
It's not entirely as ridiculous an analogy as it initially sounds.
This is why "no fault" insurance was invented. Even with people, the liability in traffic accidents is often complex. Require no-fault insurance, you insurance is responsible for you, mine is responsible for me, and you are basically done - at least as far as car insurance is concerned.
What may be left is civil liability. If a manufacturer produces a genuinely faulty product, they can be sued in a completely separate action. The laws are already in place for that. The problem I see is the exact opposite of what you are worried about: People will sue, regardless of the quality of the product. Because bad things aren't supposed to happen, and if they do, someone must be to blame.
So someone without insurance t-bones my autonomous car, and I want compensated. The other driver is broke, so I sue my car manufacturer. Stupid, but entirely possible under US law. Loser pays would be the simplest solution: if you file a stupid lawsuit, you'll be paying the other side's legal costs. In the case of class action suits, the attorneys for the class should be liable for the loser's legal costs if they lose.
Before any company brings autonomous cars to market, the US tort system has got to be fixed.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'm pretty sure that an AI car is never going to "freak out." The worst it might do is slow the heck down, which you, the person following, should be ready for anyway.
Because someone being blamable for accidents is much more important than having fewer accidents in the first place, right?
The major part of safely driving is anticipating another driver breaking the law. Doesn't look like computers can do that yet.
Accident rate in general: 4-5%
Accident rate so far with only 48 vehicles: 8-9%
Without details I'm not going to accept "someone else's" fault as fact.
Accident rate in general: 4-5% Accident rate so far with only 48 vehicles: 8-9%
Ah, no, the meaningful rate is accidents per miles driven, not per car. These cars are driven constantly (for testing, data collection, etc), surely way more that twice the average.