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.'"
That the vast majority of human drivers around them were able to avoid accidents despite the presence of dangerous automated cars.
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
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.
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.