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."
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'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.
It's not the same car each time, dummy. They've already stated their accident rate per miles logged over their whole fleet of cars is lower than then the national average.
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.
Not one car, this number is for the whole fleet!
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!
Those 14 crashes are with 23 (or more) vehicles. And none of them have been the fault of the software. They were either being driven manually or were the fault of others.
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.
It wasn't the case this time (the video is quite informative!) but I've been hit just for coming to complete stops at red lights. Too many other drivers assume you'll do the "California roll" when making a right on red that people who actually stop (regardless of traffic) fluster them. So sick of seeing people's bumpers get that close then screech to a halt right behind me.
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
Notice how the self driving car stopped when the car in front of it stopped. the human driven car didn't....
There are 50ish cars with over 200 "drivers" of them in California. These are used by more than one person, and get a lot of miles on them. And this is just in California. With the amounts of miles these cars get on them, they're not typical driving patterns: Google claims that their fleet has clocked over 1 million miles on the road. 11 "not at fault" accidents over 1 million miles doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility.
Reminds me of the old Japer Carrott joke about bad driving: "My mother in-law has been driving 40 years and never had an accident - but she's seen thousands..."
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Try logging a million miles, as these cars have, and see how many times you are rear-ended.
These results don't surprise me, as I (and other safe drivers I know) am often rear-ended. Other drivers run lights, and expect others to do so all the time-- that's one reason. Another reason might be that I have a black car. But it also has huge taillights (Olds Alero), so...
I was rear-ended three times over eight years. That's about when I started looking in my rear-view mirror to see if the driver behind was going to stop in time, and roll forward a little bit if possible. Seriously, I avoided two potential minor rear-end hits this way... they missed me by inches. I'm not sure if I want to program driverless cars to do this.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It would be better to look at this compared to a fleet of cars that drive a huge number of miles in metro areas.
Or you're driving many miles. The rate at which they get read-ended is directly attributed to the number of miles driven. They drive more miles, they get hit more often.
If a victim can avoid being a victim then there's an obligation to do so. Whether that's "victim blaming" or not is a pretty pointless argument. Anything to do with blame is.
If someone leaps out in front of me then I slam on the brakes. It's their fault for leaping out in front of me but that doesn't lessen my responsibility to try to prevent harm. What difference will it make who's to "blame"? If someone is too close behind me I slow down and if possible, let the idiot go past. Once again, if there's an accident it's not my fault but it's in my interest to prevent the accident.
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.
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????
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.
It's not a legal doctrine. Simply a matter of common sense.
If someone were to punch you, would you move out of the way, or stay there, on the basis that it's their responsibility not to punch you?
If someone were to punch you, would you move out of the way, or stay there, on the basis that it's their responsibility not to punch you?
If I moved out of the way I would not have a chance to punch them back. If they are punching first then I have every right to defend myself.
She definitely was asking for it!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I had a dodge durango (huge SUV) from 1998 to 2005 and it was rear ended while stopped at a red light ("I thought the light had changed") AND front ended when the person in front of me at a red light put their truck into reverse and peeled into me (apparently decided they wanted to make a left turn).
I was also rear ended in a brilliant blue element (smaller SUV) when cars behind me had an accident and the air bag stunned the driver.
I was also rear ended in a white toyota after sitting at a red light for at least 10 to 15 seconds by 3 drunken young idiots in a truck.
It's not that your car is black. It's that they are idiots.
Three of the times I was rear ended were by trucks. I often observe passenger truck drivers being complete idiots on the road. Especially the larger trucks.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Why would you be obliged to defend yourself? It's not your fault that they're punching you.
Why would you be obliged to defend yourself? It's not your fault that they're punching you.
and now we are back to your fantasy interpretations of reality
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.
No. I'm saying your views are inconsistent.
You would feel obligated to defend yourself against being punched. You wouldn't feel obligated to defend yourself against being rear ended.
In both examples you'd be acting to prevent injury to yourself in response to somebody else's fault, so what criteria do you use?
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?
You would feel obligated to defend yourself against being punched. You wouldn't feel obligated to defend yourself against being rear ended.
I have no obligation to defend myself from being rear-ended because in most cases there is literally nothing to be done. You can't get out of the way if there is traffic in front of you and you can't punch back at the car that's about to rear end you.
Or the self-driving car in back could, you know, STOP before hitting the car in front of it. As for the car in front, even if there was enough gap to get up on the sidewalk, and the car didn't bottom out trying to do so, and it could rev up the curb in time to make a difference, and there was no pedestrian on the sidewalk to get run over (better to get rear-ended than to kill a pedestrian due to panic), the human in a properly stopped car at a red light would not be vigilantly looking back at every intersection for the one in a million chance of some moron about to run into him without even slowing down.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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.
That's actually a really good point. After 20 years of driving, it seems like I have about 90+% accuracy in predicting what people will do over the next 5 seconds or so. I'm guessing that's not atypical for anyone that actually pays attention while they're driving. A robot isn't going to give up a lot of those clues.
On the other hand, though, the robot *should* be fairly deterministic, so it might be possible to predict it based on what's going on around it (or actually force it to react how you want it to! For example, it would be easy to cheat traffic by cutting off robotic cars, because you know you'll win the game of chicken.).
You are puking nonsense. Seriously. The Google car could do nothing that wouldn't also endanger other road users. Whether such a bizarre obligation exists or not doesn't change who was in the right and who was not.
Yes. If you can't do something then obviously you shouldn't.
The suggestion that one should respond does presuppose that there is a possible response that might actually prevent the accident.
So assuming That there is another car about to rear end you, and assuming that there is something you can do to prevent oneself from being rear ended, is it not better to do this thing to prevent being rear ended than to do nothing? That is "Better". Not "mandatory". not "legal responsibility". Simply "better"?
Because this is clearly the situation we are talking about.
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.
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.
For example, it would be easy to cheat traffic by cutting off robotic cars, because you know you'll win the game of chicken.).
you'll lose the game when its cameras record your deed and send the evidence to the cops
You know this for a fact? In this case, I'm sure there was nothing that it could do but how about the other 13 accidents?
Who cares who's in the right and who's in the wrong? I'd rather simply not be rear ended.
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.]
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.
Interesting, because my personal experience is the exact opposite. On the highway, incident ahead, driver in front of me brakes sharply, I do too. He stops in time, I stop in time, guy behind me doesn't, hits me, and pushes me into the car in front of me. Driver behind me was liable for the damage to my vehicle AND the vehicle in front of me. Certainly helped that the driver in front of me testified that I had come to a full stop before I was pushed forward, hitting his car.
We know because the video shows that the Google car was stationary, and the trailing car simply kept on driving in to it.
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?
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.
The problem with that approach is SOMETIMES you will avoid the crash (you did), however the rest of the time you are now in the middle of the chain of crashes. That both damages your vehicle more, and makes your insurance payout and court problems much worse. "We both hit the truck" is different than "that guy hit me and fortunately I didn't hit the truck" in court.
Cops will even give tickets out to everybody in line except the first one and now the court battle is "get your insurance payout and shut up" rather than "sue that guy's insurance because he screwed up"
I do know this as a fact, as it's in the fucking video! You'd know it too, if you paid attention. And as for the other 13 accidents, well, who knows - we're discussing this crash here, as we have the data for it.
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!”
because it is true that a rear end collision is not always the following driver's fault.
Yes, it is always the following driver fault. Always! Unless the google car was backing up, which it wasn't. The guy behind was not paying attention. If you pay attention and keep your distance you will not rear end anybody. It's simple physics.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Body language like 'there is a red light and stopped cars are gathering in front of it'? That kind of body language? This isn't a turning situation. There is no body language when coming to a stop, you just hit the brakes and slow down. Almost all of the crashes have been this exact thing... rear ended by inattentive drivers.
While it is theoretically possible that a very aware driver paying attention to the boy language of everyone around them might potentially miss a tell from an autonomous vehicle it doesn't matter because the radar and safety features means no blind spot... no missing a motorcycle. It just won't turn into your lane and drive you out or cut you off because the automatic driver is polite and safety conscious. The situations where body language saves you is when the other driver fucks up. If you are attentive enough to be watching the body language of the driver, then you are attentive enough that you won't hit the vehicle when it makes a safe, signaled, legal lane change into an empty slot; performs a safe, signaled, legal turn; or a safe, cautious, and considerate turn at a four way stop.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
"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!”
Does body language include the red lights at the back of the car indicating a break light, along with that the cars on the left were rather slow (indicating at least some form of red light), and that the driver behind the Google car was closing distance with the car in front for a period of 2 seconds?
Linked video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm certain the driver would likewise hit a parked car, which has zero body language.
If the break lights at the back of the car don't work, then the car is not fit for road travel.
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
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.
Baloney. The car was stopped at a red light. Thinking a human driver is going to pull some amazing shit to avoid getting rear ended is just retarded.
Machines are better drivers than humans. Get used to it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
Flight.
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.
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 totally agree, but you missed my premise... you didn't actively choose to move closer to the guy in front of you _because_ you noticed someone behind you not paying attention. That's a different scenario.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
Aha, got it, now I understand.
Computer driving system needs to avoid all accidents, not just proclaim after each one "its not its fault!"
The courts and entire legal system says you are wrong.
The law only says you must follow the law, and thusly following the law and being hit by someone breaking the law is not the law abiding person (or computers) fault, nor is it intended to be their problem.
(Even then it's only their problem in the sense the law abiding driver has to deal with fucktards like you causing harm to them, refusing to take responsibility for your law breaking, and the slowness of the courts in forcing you to make them whole again)
> 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.
Almost always, but not always. About 9 years ago I was on my motorcycle on a freeway. I was coming up to a split where you can exit onto another highway. Traffic was coming to a stop on the first highway, and as my house was about middle distance between the two highways, I decided to switch to the other one. So I did my lane change, and was happy approaching the split, at the posted 100kph for that ramp, when a car that was in the lane I had been in a moment earlier suddenly realized traffic was stopping in front of him. He slammed on his brakes, locked up the wheels, and swerved into my lane to avoid the car in front of him. I was going about 100Kph, he was likely down to 20kph. Having a transport beside me in the other exit lane, I grabbed the brakes so hard I almost got the back wheel off the ground but still hit the back of him. I went up over the bars, landed on his car, rolled off and onto the highway. I got up and ran to the shoulder before I could get run over by someone else. The driver came out to apologize, said he didn't see me. Then when the cops get there he changed his story and said I just hit the back of him. I pointed out the lockup streaks on the highway going from one lane into another and the cop agreed with me. I took a bunch of pictures, which turned out to be very helpful as insurance also tried to automatically say it was my fault. I sent them the pics from the highway along with some drawings of what happened that I made, and they also agreed and went after his insurance. Thankfully I had no major injures. I had been wearing my helmet, leather jacket, and gloves that day but only hkakis, not my riding pants. I had road rash on both legs but didn't go to the hospital. I had a sore ankle and shoulder for a few days but that was it.
That's actually a really good point. After 20 years of driving, it seems like I have about 90+% accuracy in predicting what people will do over the next 5 seconds or so.
You mean like... turn signals, brake lights and so on? I found it took me way less than 20 years of driving to understand that kind of stuff.
If you're trying to gauge the person's intent from the way they shift their weight on the seat or handle their cigarette hanging off the window, you're thinking too hard.
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.
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.
...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? :)
Did you watch the linked video? The Google car appears to smoothly come to a stop at a traffic light with two stopped cars ahead of the Google car. There's no "body language" that contributed to this situation, just a following driver who didn't stop in time at a red light with stopped cars ahead. It happens every day.
This is actually worse telegraphing than a smooth deceleration with the brakes because by just letting off the gas you start slowing down with no brake light signal to following drivers. It takes more time and brain power to parse that somebody is decelerating when they just let off the gas. At least for me when I'm following you.
Again: brake lights.
I've worked in insurance (claims). The situation described in scenario "2" (if I'm reading that correctly) does not sound like your fault at all. Key phrase there "pushed us into the truck". The insurance adjuster handling the claim should have asked questions of the front most person like "how many impacts did you feel?" If they answered "two", it would have indicated that your vehicle hit them prior to the rear most person impacting your vehicle thus indicating two accidents occurred. First accident was you hitting the front person, second accident was you being pushed into the front person by the rearmost person. If the front person only felt a single impact, it was a single three car accident.
Yes, he did.
If you're too fucking stupid to realize that when you rear-end someone it is 100% your fault, then you need your skull thumped until you get that through its thick ass.
Unless the guy in front of you is backing up:
AT NO POINT IS IT EVER THE GUY IN FRONT OF YOU's FAULT IF YOU REAR END HIM.
IT IS ALWAYS YOUR FAULT. ALWAYS. ALWAYS. ALWAYS.
Read that about 9 billion more times until you learn not to make such fucking stupid statements. assholes who think there are excuses for rear-ending people ARE THE PROBLEM with driving.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That "someone" is driving 10,000 miles a week. They drive as much per year as an average U.S. driver drives over half a century, for crying out loud.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
That would make sense if everyone drove cabrios, in summer, in daytime. When I drive, I very rarely look at drivers unless they are in front of me and somewhat facing me. There's no body language when you're behind someone and the most you see is their headrest.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I've got too thick a skin to worry about that. But my point is not that the person in front bears any fault, my point is that there is more to the story than just assigning fault.
Can you understand that? Do I need to make it simpler? Do you realize that you and the other poster went off on a rant about something that I was not saying in the least? Even my daughter understood when she was four that it's no good assigning fault to someone else when you're lying in a pedestrian crossing bleeding out because you had right of way over that truck that was barreling down the highway towards the red light at 60mph.
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!
Sometimes the posted speed limit is too fast for existing conditions. You don't have to go 100 just because it's legal. And on a bike in traffic? You are running with the bulls. You have to assume the absolute worst, always.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is very different from what happened in the Google accident. The car behind the wife was slowing down. The car behind the Google car was acting as if the road ahead was clear.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
Perhaps someone should have quoted a statistic that was meaningful.
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.
Look, I'm not a perfect driver but to assume others will break the rules as you do is just asking for trouble.
George Carlin: "So I'm out driving with my friend and he just blows straight through a red light and I'm all "What the hell are you doing?" and he says "shut up, my brother taught me to drive and this is what he does." Come to another red light, same thing. Then we come to a green light, and he STOPS. I'm all "Now what are you doing?" and he says "My brother might be coming the other way." That's what's called looking out for your brother!"
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
There is more to defensive driving than taking evasive action to avoid an imminent accident. True defensive driving is an ingrained habit of thinking and an experienced driver does it constantly with little conscious notice. It is staying out of other drivers' blind spots; it is letting up on the gas a little when it appears that a driver pulling out of a side street might not see you; it is taking a quick glance both ways when the light turns green just in case someone else is trying to beat the red light. It is not just tricky maneuvers to get out of a tight spot -- it is thinking ahead to reduce the risk of getting in a tight spot in the first place.
^ 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.
Actually, I am afraid they are right with this one. Obviously safety, practicality, and reality are important but if the vehicle can safely protect its occupants then it should do so - and it should make the attempt to protect the occupants where possible. As an aside, the two of us seem to have filled this thread up though you were much earlier than I. I think we used most of our daily post allotments in this one thread. Ah well... But, yeah, they are right and even go on to show you why they are right.
Don't let your ego make you look silly. I, personally, make mistakes often enough that I am quite comfortable admitting that and learning something and if I can do it you can too. Their logic and conclusions are spot on. You seem to be thinking in terms of extremes as opposed to moderation and safety is really paramount with the obligation for such being on the software controlling and protecting the soft squishy things inside.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I've wondered this too. If google cars are being hit "surprisingly often," as they themselves say, there might be an issue with the ability of human drivers to interpret what the driverless car is about to do, or its "body language," as you put it.
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.