Slashdot Mirror
Google Self-Driving Car Rear-Ended In First Injury Accident
An anonymous reader writes: Google's autonomous car project, as of June, hadn't been in any accidents that involved an injury. That changed on July 1st, though it wasn't the technology's fault. A Lexus SUV that was self-driving while carrying three Google employees was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light in Mountain View, California. All three employees had minor cases of whiplash, and were quickly checked out and released from the hospital. The other driver had minor neck and back pain as well. Chris Umson, head of the autonomous car project, said, "Other drivers have hit us 14 times since the start of our project in 2009 (including 11 rear-enders), and not once has the self-driving car been the cause of the collision. Instead, the clear theme is human error and inattention. We'll take all this as a signal that we're starting to compare favorably with human drivers." He also posted a short video of how the self-driving car was tracking other vehicles at the time of the crash — including the one that hit it.
By default it's usually the other persons fault, but I have seen cars slowing down quickly or suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Here if we watch the video we can clearly see the downside to a self-driving car vs. a human driver.
A human driver could easily make the decision to swerve up onto the sidewalk, or even to brake-check and nudge itself closer to the car in front, thus giving the car behind time to stop.
A human can see the collision about to happen and make changes so it doesn't.
The computer can do this in theory but we are many years from that kind of performance, if not decades.
If Google's self-driving car was able to track the car that rear-ended it, I wonder if there are ways to mitigate this kind of "predictable" crash. Maybe letting off the brakes a tad to lessen the impact, or (out of left field idea) deploy air bags on the bumpers?
Seems like if the real issue is "everyone else" in driving you would think Google could come up with ways to reduce the impact level of inevitable crashes.
It won't be too long now before the cars develop AI and start fighting back
If someone said I've been in 14 crashes since 2009 but none were my fault. I'd be inclined to think that there is something really wrong with the way they drive that other drivers keep hitting them.
It's good that Google's autonomous cars haven't caused any accidents, however the bigger question is if there was a human driver in those situations, would any of them have been avoidable? I try to keep an eye on vehicles coming to a stop behind me when I'm stopped, which is something the Google cars may not be programmed to do (or even have rear-facing sensors to detect that at all). I'm sure these vehicles are safer than a good many drivers on the road, but they can only react and respond in ways they were specifically designed for.
Better known as 318230.
...We'll take all this as a signal that we're starting to compare favorably with human drivers....
When the self-driving cars can navigate the snow and obstacles of a Northeast winter, then I'll be impressed. Until then, the self-driving cars are little more than an expensive toy.
They have somebody hit them every 135k miles. I wonder how that compares to the world at large? And I wonder what's going to be the protocol when it happens with nobody in the car or the passenger doesn't own it? A car lacking a driver can't exactly exchange insurance info or do the normal things one does when involved in a collision.
If you are getting rear ended a lot there is some issue. Most likely you are slowing down too fast, or are stopped in the wrong place. There is something wrong here. You cannot just say that you are never at fault in a rear end collision. Sometimes you are.
does the self-driving vehicle not try to actively avoid accidents, then? I definitely would have been rear-ended many times, rather than twice, if I didn't occasionally creep forward to avoid someone coming in too fast
14 times in 6 years is pretty good. Here in Los Angeles I usually dont make it off the 405 freeway without getting hit a good dozen or so times before i get to work.
I kid, I kid...but seriously though our state director of transportation is Immortan Joe.
Good people go to bed earlier.
My wife and I were in a very similar situation yesterday, stopped about 1/2 a car-length behind a stopped truck. When she realized we were about to be rear-ended, she gunned it to bring us a few inches behind the truck. We weren't hit. The video doesn't indicate that the google car tried anything like that.
I know that I can avoid many accidents just by being aware of my environment, so I can avoid causing an accident and also increase my chances of not being in an accident. While these cars are programmed not to cause accidents, have they been programmed to avoid accidents? The next question I have to ask is, are the google cars setting themselves up to be in an accident, where the other driver is at fault? I remember an insurance scam in southern California, two lane turning lane, drivers would drive the intersection over and over in the outside lane waiting for someone to turn wide and hit them.
I'd like to know what actually transpired immediately before the collision, because it is true that a rear end collision is not always the following driver's fault. How do we know that the google car didn't change lanes in front of the following car and then brake for the light?
In my state at least it is illegal (and a 6 point violation if you do it to any vehicle having a gross weight over 26000lbs) to change lanes in front of another vehicle in such a way that they are then "following too closely."
The missile system clearly did not engage as designed. Also, no lasers??? What is this, the 1950's?
Google here is solution start thinking and predicting what other drives do. This is how people get thought in Europe.
For rear ended collision:
- slow down before and leave a a couple yards for car to roll slowly to the car in front
- check rear to see what other car is doing
- if they are approaching to fast honk and try to use remaining space in front.
I have been doing it for long time, as a defensive measure.
Where was this? I want to move there.
The driver two cars ahead of the autonomus car was stopped at a green light (according tot he video), properly avoiding entering the intersection until they could drive through it (there is a car stopped immediately at the end of the intersection according to the video).
That is some good driving on everyone's part, except the driver of the Lexus who rear-ended the autonomous car of course.
It doesn't matter if the guy in front of you has to slam on the brakes or not. If you rear-end someone it's your fault.
Your following distance should be appropriate for the speeds being traveled. One car length for every 10 MPH of speed.
What if the guy in front of you has to hit the brakes hard to avoid hitting a kid? Is it still his fault that you ran into the back of him?
Has everyone forgotten what was taught in Driver's Ed????
No, say it ain't so! Let's just pretend that "We're all the same" while they (Mexican scum) continue to KILL us with their shit driving.
I never understood why cars have red tail lights when they're moving, and red tail lights when the brakes are applied.
It seems to me that if we used amber tail lights when moving and red to indicate brakes it would be far more obvious that the brakes were applied. This is exacerbated by car designers who try to make the lights stylish - please, they are not a design feature, they're a fundamental safety feature and should be bright, obvious, and consistent across vehicles.
She definitely was asking for it!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Where's the Star Trek like warning, "BRACE FOR IMPACT"!?
Unfortunately, on most roads I've driven on, people take "you've left appropriate distance between you and the car in front of you" to mean "this is a good spot to change lanes." So then you drop back a bit (hoping the cars doing the same behind you don't slam into you) to leave appropriate space again and the process repeats.
What it all comes down to is human drivers stink at driving. Yes, some of us are decent at it, but all too many humans are willing to take extremely dangerous maneuvers just to shave 30 seconds off of their journey while raising the risk of collision dramatically. Then, when they get in an accident, they'll blame the other guy for "stopping unexpectedly" or "coming out of nowhere" or some other excuse to defer blame. I don't think driverless cars are ready just yet, but I can't wait for cars to be smart enough to take humans out of the equation.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I've been behind a Google self-driving car in traffic. They have a big camera (or cameras) mounted on top that spin really fast. It's a distraction when you're behind them in traffic,. The spinning camera keeps grabbing your attention. The camera feels more important than the brake lights, both because it's moving really fast and also because it's located in the same place as the flashing lights on an emergency vehicle.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONTROL OF YOUR CAR AT ALL TIMES.
That's not so hard, is it?
Yes it is. See swoop and squat.
["Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING." And somehow it traps me, not you.]
First, I don't care if it's marginally better than me at driving, I don't get much out of that. No amount of facts and spreadsheets are going to make me care about a problem that just isn't on my give-a-damn list. Next, even if I cared, I am used to everything under-performing when finally deployed, so it needs to be much better than me, say 5 times better at driving in the field tests before I'll consider it safe enough. Finally, I'm sick of over-hyped tech crap, and I guess it's tainting my opinion of this. I don't need a self driving car. What a circus, what a load of crap.
Whilst people pulling into your stopping space might bruise your ego, it has negligible effect on your travel time.
So many times I'm driving correctly and then some idiot pulls into the "safe" space that I had AND THEN HITS HIS BRAKES BECAUSE HE ALMOST HITS THE GUY IN FRONT!!!
With an autonomous car the situation will still be the same BUT there will be a lot more data showing the circumstances that lead to the accident.
statistically speaking the best way to do that is to take the bus
Statistically speaking, in my city, 0 percent of crashes at night, on Sundays, or on a major holiday involve a bus because the buses are not even running. So statistically speaking, what's the best way to use the road while preventing crashes at those times?
Let me describe what happened to me.
A traffic light turned yellow and I was at the maximum permitted speed (60km/h). I pressed the brakes and then saw a vehicle coming at me, probably at the same max speed (it's a place with speed radars, we couldn't possibly be faster than that). It became clear to me I would have my car rear-ended. Looking ahead I saw some people at the sidewalk and, in a single instant, decided to enter the crosswalk. With the lights going from yellow to red.
With that, I got a ticket. Don't know about the other guy, buy he managed to divert his car and thus there was no collision. There's another car in the photo passing beside mine, so I suppose he got a ticket, too. Of course, any explanations about the quasi-accident were futile. Dura lex, sed lex... *sigh*
Would a self-driven car take all this into consideration?
Actually, I'd expect it to evaluate the situation an go slower than the allowed max speed if there will be a chance for an accident -- that's what I do now at that spot.
If you're self-driving cars are getting into accidents with human drivers, "hit 14 times" that doesn't bode well for the technology. Yet they're calling it favorably. Which can only mean that getting into car accidents is part of their goal. Or that he's lying.
Human drivers do things to avoid accidents. We give extra space to cars that are not maintaining their lanes. We avoid coming to abrupt stops if someone is following too close so that we don't get rear ended.
I understand that the technology hasn't been perfected yet, but the comments and attitude presented by Google in this article inspires no trust.
If you rear end somebody, it is your fault, and your fault only! Period. End of story. There is no argument. Remember the three second rule and all will be well.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"And I know from the content that you were hurrying to meet a women who is not your wife. You might want to keep this in mind when we suggest a settlement."
It doesn't matter if the guy in front of you has to slam on the brakes or not. If you rear-end someone it's your fault.
This needs to be burned into the brain with a branding iron. The excuses people make here are amazing, and as old as the hills.
One car length for every 10 MPH of speed.
Or three seconds between you and the guy in front, one to react, and two more to come to a stop.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Now imagine that the autonomous car in front of you was talking to your car about what actions it is performing, while your autonomous car is talking to the one behind it doing the same, etc... I mean things like visual cues, break lights, etc... are all human sensory information. A robotic car can simply transmit the exact information about everything to everyone around it more less instantaneously. Not to mention they could be sending information of road conditions coming up, etc... ...or extra caution ahead, human driver detected! :)
They do very unpredictable driving school-level things like slow/stop where deep shadows fall on the road. Like very suddenly. And then they stay there for a few seconds.
I'm not surprised there's finally a rear-ending. I'm actually surprised it took so long.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's preferable for the car that is struck to not release its brakes. Basic physics. The more the struck car moves, the more injuries from the passengers in it. Also, the struck car moves and hits another car, etc.
The struck car's momentum is what mitigates the impact for its occupants. Ideal would be deploying a system to keep the struck car from moving at all. Mercedes has a braking system they've been testing that would probably do the job. It's basically an airbag on the bottom of the car, with a very high friction surface.
Please help metamoderate.
I see it happen regularly at 80 mph on Interstate 78 in northeast NJ
As a human, when I was rear ended, I saw it coming, I verified my wheels were straight, I was out of gear, and I lessened the brake pressure to reduce damage by allowing my vehicle to move forward a bit before braking more to bring us both to a stop.
The video makes it appear the self driving vehicle just stayed stopped, thereby exacerbating the injuries of the occupants.
(The time I was rear-ended, the car that hit me was totaled, the front end completely crushed up to the passenger compartment, my vehicle was fine, I was unharmed and continued on my way.)
The video makes it appear like a very low impact yet three occupants were injured in a modern vehicle with crumple zones?
I'm a big fan of self-driving systems and can't wait until humans are removed from the equation, but that sounds bad, not an improvement.
You really gotta chill the fuck out. You really didn't need to jump down his throat like that.
I would love to see the insurance claims and process for these accidents. Also seeing how the at-fault humans feel at being bested by a computer and how the insurance companies are handling such a clear fault of their customer while they are on the hook for damages.
OMG facts!
I've been driving for 35 years, Most of that time I've lived in or near major cities/traffic, driven to work and back every day, and in all that time have only ever been rear-ended once (by a dumb woman paying more attention to her Google smart phone than driving her giant SUV).
I was initially thought this must be a ridiculous stat that Google have made up in a lame attempt to justify getting human drivers off the road, but If the figure is actually true then something else must also be going on with that car, and/or the unpredictable way its driving. For me thats good enough reason on its own to make self-driving cars illegal and get them off the road.
There's a lot to unpack here.
OK if you RTFA, you'll get a glimpse of the reality behind the claim that Google has never been at fault in any of these accidents.
From the article:
"The light was green, but traffic was backed up on the far side, so three cars, including ours, braked and came to a stop so as not to get stuck in the middle of the intersection. After weâ(TM)d stopped, a car slammed into the back of us at 17 mphâSâ"âSand it hadnâ(TM)t braked at all."
1) It's a technicality in our world that IF you rear-end someone THEN you're at fault- no matter how big of an asshole the driver was in front of you. Essentially, it's your job to leave enough room to between you and the car in front of you to brake, no matter what the situation.
If you couldn't stop in time, then by definition you were too close.
In this case, Google is humping this factoid for all it's worth. A good driver would would have taken evasive action of the kind described in 2) below, if at all possible.
Google couldn't do that because
a) the technical requirements required to succeeed in such evasive action
and
b) the liability such evasive action would involve them in should they fail or cause other drivers to act in a manner which was unsafe.
For a) consider the requirements to escape being rear-ended. The driver has to quickly assess the position, trajectories and attentional state of all the cars and drivers in the vicinity which could impact with them. Is THAT person in THAT car going THAT direction looking like they understand what is happening here? How about that other person? Is that elderly lady in front of me going to suddenly change lanes or do I see a look of paralyzing beffuddlement ? What are the prevailing conditions- weather, darkness which could impact what I might do? What about traffic control signs - do not enter, one way, no turns between 4 pm and 7 pm which would cause drivers to be taken aback should I attempt maneuver X right now?
That is the barest description of what goes down in 1/10th of a second in a driver's brain when their goal is to not get hit and not hit.
Not only can Google cars NOT do any of that , they won't, for legal reasons.
If they DID attempt human level evasive action, then what would you have? A Google car "driving erratically" at the scene of an accident, that's what. They would get sued into oblivion, then the recalls begin.
No Google lawyer is going to consul their client to attempt to program into their cars potentially life saving evasive action capabilities for ad hoc situations. That's absolutely no-go territory.
What they're going to tell them to do is "never do anything where you might be found at fault, *even if it means your passengers die*.
Because if your passengers die but it's not your fault, then that's a tragedy. If you cause a fender bender to save the life and limb of all invovled, then thats a lawsuit.
You better believe with all yoru heart and soul that not only is that what Google's lawyers are telling Google but that's what they'll do too.
It's the 21st century version of Ford's Pinto. What's cheaper- saving lives or not saving lives?
2) Google car did one of the MOST dangerous things anyone can ever do while driving- they were stopped dead at a green light. I don't drive now (in NYC) but when I did, I quickly learned that drivers see the green light and assume the rest: either the car ahead of them is moving (even if it's not) or will be moving presently because the light just turned.
In the unconscious assumptions of drivers, being stopped at a green light is like saying no to money. Who does that?
Do not be stopped at a green light upon pain of death by high speed rearendment. Period.
Even to slow down and stop for a yellow is always chancey and you should ALWAYS glance in your rear view mirror while you are doing so to make sure the driver behind you isn't already commited to the opposite- beating the red lig
> It isn't clear that there were lots of options from the video - perhaps move ahead a foot but it seems like that would at best delay the crash). There were two cars stopped at the light, the Google car was behind it
The way most people drive, they wouldn't have any option to avoid the crash. According to the video, though, the Google car did better. It did as taught is advanced driving classes and left enough room that it could have pulled to the right, into the turn lane, and even driven away, as it detected the fast-moving car approaching from behind. That's taught as a more safe way to stop - think car jackings, a cement truck coming up fast from the rear, or an ambulance trying to get through. You can get out of the way or leave the area entirely if you leave six to eight feet between you and the car ahead.
The Google cars seem to have reported several accidents each. While none of them seem to have been serious, the per mile statistics show that someone, probably the Google cars is doing something that cause or provide fertile ground for accidents. Yeah I know "what" and that is the issue. Whoever is designing the driving particulars for these devices needs to find out and fix it PRIOR to releasing them on the nations roads.
we'll all be able to laugh at the old times when we let every random fucking idiot on the planet steer a heavy piece of steel around our neighborhoods.
Interesting to see that there's very few brave individuals willing to put a name to their advice of removing all humans from driving.
How about adjusting the car to act more in tune with the humans on the road?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
When you're dealing with non-human drivers, it's a case of the law not catching up to account for software error.
That tends to blow the "rule" out the window.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It's always the other driver fault right??!
...in other news, Google Engineers are new developing the next capability for the driverless car, the so called GOASSATODFBADFSPOSTRIYAWHITBTPTHOOTAASFSATPOIAW system, which stand for "Get out and start swearing at the other driver for being a dumb fuck stupid piece of shit that ran into you and wouldn't have if they bothered to pull their head out of their ass and stop fucking staring at their phone once in a while." heuristic engine, which will immediately assign blame and begin a confrontation with the other driver, simultaneously calling a lawyer and filming everything at the scene.
The next stage is expected to be the UYIWMGFYSITMOTFRYFTMIYWSYFYCTALATIOIAW "Oh yeah? It wasn't my goddamned fault you stopped in the middle of the fucking road you fat turd maybe if you weren't stuffing your face you could take a look around the intersection once in a while" response system, and eventually the (tits&tears) "pop my top blouse button and break down into tears hoping he won't sue my ass off" system to deal with the remaining human drivers on the road.
-Styopa
Am I the only one that sees the surveillance issues? Police won't even have to pull you over any more. They won't even need patrol cars to catch you. Just send the signal to force your car to drive to the nearest arrest depot. Absolutely, I think self driving cars will be safer, but the gov is shitting itself to get them into production, cause they will allow significantly more control over the population. Am I the last conspiracy theory nut left? :)
The discovery coming out of this is --- humans do have a weak kind of telepathy.
You know the "someone's looking at me" feeling? That one.
Awareness -- at a short distance -- of another human being actively aware of you.
Those 'oogle guys were just passengers, not paying attention to the traffic -- so the driver coming up behind wasn't aware of them.
A driver in the driver's seat -- at least one bothering to look around -- would have registered.
I dunno, 14-0 in favour of the autonomous car, I think "compare favourably" is a bit of an understatement.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
I bet all 11 accidents had females in the car.
Hence the car decided to go into stopping-short mode. Those quick stops guarantee rear-end accidents.
How about they flash the lights and honk the horn (or, even better, some strobe lights and a nice loud siren) when they detect that the person isn't hitting their brakes soon enough? If the person isn't paying attention, the best thing to do is to try to get their attention.
The self driving car does not recognize its moral imperative to try to move out of the way if it is stopped and a car is trying to hit it. Even if that means breaking the law slightly, by , for instance moving slightly into the intersection.
Nice going slashdot.
> This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing.
Why doesn't the self driving car flash its
brake lights when it sees a car approaching
fast from behind?
I wonder how many accidents the Google cars witnessed but did not participate in. That data could be very useful in determining fault, if it could be subpoenaed or somehow made available.
^ in summary, i've noticed if i decelerate very smoothly including letting the suspension relax so there is no noticeable change in pitch as the car comes to a final stop, the perception of the stopping from people behind is greatly reduced.
I've had people come to a skidding stop inches from rear ending me from driving like that... so if there's someone behind who i feel is a bit inattentive i will make my stopping a bit more obvious... if less comfortable.
I'm wondering if the google car has the same problem.. If you watch the video, the google car stops very smoothly.
I was once rear-ended twice in the same month, while stopped at the same red light.
Mercy, I thought the stoplight cycle at the intersection that leads out of _my_ neighborhood was slow!
Hell I just want their sensors.
I've been in 4 accidents while driving in the last 20 years.
One was no fault; I got blamed
The other 3 were all other driver fault, and I got the short end of the stick for 2 of them.
This kind of video woulda saved me a lot of money and hassle.
"lt;dr" is the correct response to most of my posts.
There is a lot of interplay with real world drivers vs. machines. We learn to accommodate other drivers actions and learn to compensate. My biggest issue isn't per se with driverless cars in as much as they seem to get into a lot of accidents that "aren't their fault". Any human driver would be considered accident prone.
An example of interplay is a crowded square where people are going in all directions, crossing each others path and having to make constant corrections whose main rule is not to run into one another. As far as I know there are no machines that can do that effectively. And even if there were, moving in a way that caused others to run into you would be defective firmware. It's all about playing nice with others and anticipating interactions which these cars seem not to have mastered as of yet. IMHO they are not ready for prime time.