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.
Or at 11 it's still not their fault. Remember, these vehicles are logging 10,000 miles per week - there's a lot more opportunities to be rear-ended by an inattentive driver when one is on the road that much than there are for a typical driver. By way of example, in the video from the article at Medium there were two cars in front of the driverless car that had also stopped at the light - there was nowhere else for the driverless car to go.
3) You haven't had a brake job on your car for years and you have the stopping distance of a fully loaded train
I would agree with you except I've been rear-ended and almost hit (sometimes with tire lockup) simply because I choose to stop at red lights before turning right, even if the traffic is clear. I seriously want a dashcam so the next time I get hit in this situation I'll be able to demonstrate I was following the rules when I was hit, regardless of what the fellow behind me is ranting on about.
Look, I'm not a perfect driver but to assume others will break the rules as you do is just asking for trouble.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
It's possible that the Google car is not giving out "body language" that telegraphs behavior before it happens. If you are about to slow down, you might move your head to check your mirrors, let off the gas a little bit, possibly maneuver in the lane, little things that humans could detect subconsciously. If the Google car just enters a slowing-down event, it might be undetectable.
I know as a motorcycle rider, I've suspected someone was about to do something stupid just before they did and it's saved me a few times.
Notice how the self driving car stopped when the car in front of it stopped. the human driven car didn't....
To be fair, you're asking the self-driving car to do something that most humans can't do. :p
I think it is perhaps *partly* the Google car's fault.
Thank goodness we don't use your thinking processes as law
I wonder if the Google car itself serves as a distraction to other drives.
Only the ones who would also be distracted by many other things, they are already a menace.
Unless the person in the car in front of you had previously cut your brakes, it still isn't their fault, which is the point.
It's not as simple as assigning fault.
YES, it IS.
Otherwise losers like you would be clogging up the courts with your lame excuses as to why you rear-ended someone. It's your goddamn fault and that's the end of it.
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONTROL OF YOUR CAR AT ALL TIMES.
That's not so hard, is it?
Twice, I have been at a red light turning right, started to go and stopped, (having seen vehicles coming too quickly for me to pull out safely) and been rear ended by people who thought I was going. Clearly I was not at fault but that start-stop action was definitely a factor.
Frankly, it sounds like US drivers are just fucking terrible. I guess it's because you have very lax driving tests and never ban anyone from driving (in any kind of serious way), but I've NEVER been rear-ended in the UK because of something like that. People just fucking well pay attention.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Yeah, I don't see any reason to think that the Google car is at fault. I was once rear-ended twice in the same month, while stopped at the same red light. There wasn't anything particularly wrong with the layout of the light either. It boils down to this: People are not good at driving.
To those reading this: Oh, I know, I get it. You're great at driving, and insulted by any suggestion to the contrary. Your reflexes are great, and you're in control when you're on the road. You even drive stick because you need the extra control that it gives you, and not at all because you like to imaging you're a race car driver.
But really and honestly, if you haven't been in accidents, as much as skill and safe driving may have contributed to your safety, luck has really contributed just as much. All things considered, we're generally not very good at driving, and the result is that tens of thousands of people die every year. As far as I'm concerned, we should make it a goal to work to get safe self driving cars on the road ASAP, and then get really strict on issuing drivers licenses so that almost nobody is allowed to do it.
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.
Computer driving system needs to avoid all accidents, not just proclaim after each one "its not its fault!"
Maybe you can explain how a car is supposed to avoid getting rear-ended when there is no place to go.
Sure, there could be some optimizations for reducing damage in an imminent crash scenario. That's just fine tuning. Google's real goal is to get a machine driving a little bit better than the average human. It's looking like, at least in known, well mapped cities, they have achieved that.
As for letting off the brakes when getting rear-ended, that may not be a good idea - the guy in front of you may not appreciate turning a 2 car wreck into a 3 car wreck. Especially if said impact pushed them into crossing traffic.
There's some room for "can I dash out of the way" thinking, but in general that's probably a bad idea too. Being predictable to other cars is better than flitting around erratically, possibly causing other accidents.
As far as I'm concerned, we should make it a goal to work to get safe self driving cars on the road ASAP, and then get really strict on issuing drivers licenses so that almost nobody is allowed to do it.
That goal might be a technically sound one, but I don't think it's politically viable. Telling people they are not allowed to drive their car anymore is likely to be even less popular than telling Americans they can't own a gun anymore.
A more attainable way to improve safety would be to allow people to continue to drive if they want to, but to add intelligent accident-avoidance software to the automobile so that when the person is driving, if the car notices he is about to cause a crash, it can step in and take the necessary actions to avoid or minimize the crash. In this case, if the car noticed that the driver wasn't braking sufficiently to avoid rear-ending the car in front, it could start applying the brakes for him. This approach is not only possible, but is already implemented in some cars.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I'm replying to this... and in the process undoing a bunch of mods I just did, because it appears nobody else is going to say it...
Defensive driving is not as cool as you think it is! I'll give you two examples:
1) I had a buddy who owned a Comp/TA. It's a fairly rare car, and his was pristine. He was approaching an intersection on a highway, about 50 mph, when he saw flashing lights approaching from the side. He stopped to allow the cop to cross traffic against the light, but looked up at his rear view mirror and saw that the truck behind him wasn't going to stop in time, as evidenced by the skidding and fishtailing. He lit it up it despite the cop almost being in the intersection, and pulled over on the opposite side. The truck slid into then through the space my friend had previously been occupying. The cop made a left (causing him to drive past my friend) and gave him a look like "not recommended, but ok", and continued on to whatever emergency he was headed to.
2) I had a girlfriend driving in stop-and-go traffic on a rural street, light turns green, but the second we cleared the intersection traffic slowed again, and the driver behind us didn't notice. She crept forward close to the service truck in front of us to try to give a little more space, but to no avail, the driver behind us hit us anyways, and pushed us into the truck. The driver who hit us paid for our damage, but my girlfriend was at fault for hitting the truck... "Why" you ask??? Because the space in front of you is the safety buffer to prevent multiple car accidents when there doesn't need to be.
My personal experience is that story #1 is the ONLY INSTANCE I HAVE EVER HEARD of defensive driving successfully preventing a major accident, while the second story is so common as to be the flavor I hear nearly every time. It's quite rare to hear a story like yours where moving forward 1/2 car length was enough to save the day. The problem is this: you are gambling that by moving forward a tiny bit that you buy the idiot behind you enough time to realize what is going on and react. But the cost you incur is the loss of your buffer if they don't notice, and thus involving one more poor schmo in the accident. In other words, you actively chose to bring another party into the accident by your decision, and therefore you are at fault.
I'm sure that defensive driving techniques can be incorporated into self driving cars for situations like story #1, but you'll probably see that in Mercedes before you see it in Fiat.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
I've NEVER been rear-ended in the UK because of something like that. People just fucking well pay attention.
Really, that's your logic? "X has never happened to me personally, therefore it must never happen in the UK"?
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Of course there will be a time where manual driving will be outlawed
Why "of course"? If automatic-crash-avoidance technology can make it so that even (semi)manually-driven cars can't get into accidents, then there would be no safety benefit to outlawing (semi)manually-driven cars.
I can imagine a law requiring manually-driven cars to have crash-avoidance technology installed, though.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That absolutely matters not one iota. It's common fucking sense, and in no way a mystery. The "little things" we rely on to know when a car is slowing down are called "brake lights", and the Google cars use them. If some muppet can't even see the car in front has stopped, I doubt the driver of said car twitching their left eye a bit is going to help at all.
This is one instance where the market can really help. Insurance for these autonomous cars will be lower than manual cars, as they are in fewer accidents. That will encourage their uptake. Of course there will be a time where manual driving will be outlawed, and if you really like driving so much then, take it to the race track and don't let your hobby endanger people who are merely trying to live their lives.
When self-driving cars can negotiate in bad weather conditions (i.e. ice, snow, slush, etc.), that's when I'll buy into your future. There is a reason why Google chose relatively warm, dry areas with typically good weather. Bad weather and poor roads makes things 100x harder for self-driving cars. Not to mention the ability to handle out of ordinary conditions or events. Figure these out, then get back to me about giving up manual driving. Until then, it's a mote point....
Oh, and I forgot to mention that they need to be able to tow things, like boats... Towing is the last thing on Google's mind...
4) The road is covered with ice, snow, gravel, oil or other substances that eliminate your tires' ability to engage with the road.
(This is why those of us in the northern part of the country are cheering for driver-less cars, but realistically think they might only be useful six months out of the year.)
You are supposed to drive with consideration of the stopping distance. Shitty road conditions do not mean the accident is faultless.
My insurance premium is ã350/year. Cut it to zero and you're still going to struggle to cover the cost of the sensors, the software and the maintenance of the autonomous system.
Will that remain true when your premium rises to £3,500/year without those things?
You really must be out of touch with what Google is doing. They are already correcting for the mistakes of other drivers, even these of bicyclists and pedestrians. They literally had multiple cases of bicyclists who made life-threatening mistakes and horribly took over others' right of way and have been detected and protected by the self driving system. They also protected stupid drivers who had poor lane control, didn't check their blind spot, etc. They drove through hundreds of not-at-faults close calls where a human driver would allow an accident to happen even while not being at fault, but the self driving system has modified its behavior to avoid the otherwise inevitable collision.
Let me get this clear to everyone reading this: a current Google self driving car tracks all cars and pedestrians visible to it in a ~300 foot radius, and also maintains the models of temporarily obscured vehicles and pedestrians. It won't actively plow into a bystander, even if that bystander is a drunk that has stumbled onto a road, unless it'd be physically impossible to stop in time. In fact, the current behavior of the system seems to be sacrificial: it will sacrifice to a rear-end to save a jaywalking pedestrian.
People who think that such feats are "decades" away or out of reach of current technology have no idea what they are talking about.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.