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.
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.
1) You were tailgating.
2) You weren't paying attention and hit the brake too slow.
It is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to hit the rear of a car that is not moving toward you if. A) you leave the legally required amount of distance behind it, and B) You hit the break when it slows down.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
...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.
According to their tracking data on the cars near them, there was more than enough stopping distance for this particular case. Humans can get distracted.
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.
Well clearly it does have rearward sensing abilities as you can see from the video. The car was boxed in, so it really had nowhere to go.
This sig consists of eleven words, twenty syllables, and sixty-one letters.
Right about average. The average US driver drives 13.476 miles per year and goes an average of 10 years between accidents.
"You see, Government is a system that is based on weapons." -- Timster
3) You haven't had a brake job on your car for years and you have the stopping distance of a fully loaded train
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!
its actually physically possible, one example is that the brake fails and the failing of the brakes is not something the driver could have done about, maybe some manufacturing fault, + that the driver might be in a middle lane and the left and right lane has cars as well so they couldn’t steer away
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.
Insurance companies have this information at their fingertips. Here are some public numbers:
1.2-1.5 deaths for every 100M miles travelled
185 crashes for every 100M miles travelled (or 300 if only 45% are reported)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and http://www.caranddriver.com/fe...
However, in my experience, those numbers are pretty low. My wife and I have been involved in 3 accidents around a mid-sized city over the past 10 years (probably about 300,000 miles, or 1 crash per 100K miles), and I remember getting into a minor fender-bender (hardly ever reported) with someone about once a year when I worked near Chicago (1 crash per 20K miles).
the problem in city driving is IF you leave a carlength, a car will fill that spot.
Car merges infront and suddenly decelerates.
Most commercial truck driver out there will tell you this has happened to them as a close call or actual accident atleast once in their career on an interstate. Usually an inattentive driver or someone who just sees the required space between the semi and the next person infront of them as wasted driving space. But sometimes it's an idiot who doesn't understand physics and wants to brake check a semi.
So yes, it is entirely possible for the car you're rear ending to be the cause of the accident.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
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.
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 -----------------------------------
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.
So let them. I promise you won't start moving backwards from letting cars merge in front of you. Most of the time they will move back or turn soon after. Basically, they have a reason for wanting to move into your lane and it is most likely not because they want to slow you down.
because now you are following too closely and you will hit the car in front of you if they slow down quickly
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.
suddenly causing rear enders so maybe at "11" it is their fault.
there is a simple legal concept at work here:
It is your responsibility to be in control of your vehicle at all times.
If you allow your vehicle to strike another, it's your fault.
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????
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.
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.
No need to invest so much in maybe - the video makes it pretty much not maybe. The video shows the Google car gently slowing to a stop from 17 mph, the car behind is 4+ car lengths away and still plows right into the back without slowing down at all. Not watching the cars in front until after the impact. More than 3 car lengths of space in a 35 zone and it's not the fault of the person sitting behind the wheel of the rear car? The Google car didn't suddenly stop, and it didn't have a choice about stopping. Note the car bounce back after the first hit - the "driver" still hadn't applied the brakes or it wouldn't have rolled forward again after the bounce.
I still don't feel comfortable about sharing the road with driver-less vehicles - but not because they're more unsafe than the ones with meatbags behind the wheel (even when they are paying attention, or conscious).
While perhaps true in some cases, it is rather clear from the linked video that it is entirely the human's fault in this case. Unless you have different 'rules of the road' than we do here and the driverless car was expected to do something else (what exactly are you expecting the driverless car to do? 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, and there were about four or five car lengths between the Google car and the car that rear ended it. The two cars ahead and the Google car stopped well ahead of the at fault vehicle and the at fault vehicle did not slow down.
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.
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
How interesting. I hope you don't pull bongs while you're driving anything other than the couch. Maybe the Google car should have floated over the cars that had stopped in front of it? Maybe the driver behind should have been watching the fucking road instead of pulling bongs?
Which rules of the road was the Google not following oh wise one?
I wonder if they even teach about highway passing lanes anymore.
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.
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Far be it for me to defend Google (*spit*) but to even suggest that the Google car had any culpability here is incredibly stupid.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
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.
It's a common "bingle" (it's not an accident) all over the world. Though in most of the world I'm familiar with you don't turn at a red light unless it's a specially marked intersections. In the quoted scenario it's the driver behind at fault, and the driver who was rear ended. If you move into an intersection before checking it's safe - you're at fault. If you run into a car that's started to move through an intersection, and then stopped, you are also at fault (and the latter is the one whose insurance company has to pay out).
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.
Clear sign of a conspiracy, amirite?
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....
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...
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"
Do you have an example of how they prepare you more for driving than other countries, including the US?
My experience is that in my driver's education class, we spent ZERO time in high speed driving, ZERO time in congested traffic. We got NO practical experience of ANY sort in ANY kind of defensive driving or even how to drive on anything other than a flat straight road in broad daylight.
I failed my UK driving test on Tuesday.
I reached around 50mph (the speed limit), in heavy traffic on a dual carriageway in London. Had I not reached at least some "reasonable" speed (40mph?) on that road, I would have failed for that reason. I turned left on a roundabout to get onto that road, and turned right at a big (multi-lane) roundabout to get off it (so I had to move over to the "fast" lane for that).
The examiner asked me to do a three-point-turn in the road, he could alternatively have asked me to reverse round a corner or parallel park.
There was a lot of driving round smaller roads, dealing with junctions, mini-roundabouts, cars parked on either side of the road, oncoming buses that need the whole road width, pedestrian crossings, etc.
I was expected to be aware of traffic around me (including behind and beside) at all times.
I failed through repeated "undue hesitation", i.e. yielding for too long when I had a chance to go. (This is partly bad luck, but it's something I'm not that great at. I'm overly cautious.)
However, the test is known to be easier in rural areas (e.g. parts of Scotland), since there's a lot less traffic and complicated junctions.
Before the practical test there's a theory test. You can try a mock one online: http://toptests.co.uk/mock-the... (most UK signs follow international convention, although the US doesn't — remember we drive on the left).
There's also a hazard perception test: http://www.driving-test-succes... — the actual test is 15 driving clips, you are expected to identify "developing hazards" in reasonable time. Apparently many people fail this first time, but I passed easily -- probably because I've been cycling in London for 7+ years.
Considering how often I've seen people driving slowly (relative to the flow of traffic) in the passing lanes, I'd say no.
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....
Interestingly you don't mention how much harder bad weather conditions make driving for human drivers, as well. There is a reason that many more than usual accidents happen when the weather is bad, when it's snowing, late at night (sleepy drivers - never heard about a robot getting sleepy), or when the roads are bad and human drivers think they know it all and can continue at top speeds.
Of course they start in good weather - that's also how you got your driving lessons. First make sure you can handle the good weather situations, then add bad weather into the mix.
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.
Rear-ending is something that always comes up in /. discussions about driving, especially by US drivers (the site is rather US centric). Everyone and their dog seem to have been in at least one such accident. I have never been in such an accident, nor have I heard of any European friends that had such an accident.
Add to that, statistics show that US drivers have far more accidents, injuries and deaths per distance (per km or per mile, whatever you like to use) than European drivers, especially those from western European countries. This while US streets are wider and straighter; quite some Americans are scared stiff by our narrow, winding roads - we're routinely doing things like driving 80 km/hr (the legal limit) on country roads, and not slowing down for oncoming traffic while the road is so narrow there's not even a line in the middle... because the road simply is plenty wide enough for two cars.
Much stricter driving training does help a lot.
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.
Flight.
My insurance premium is £350/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.
Market forces are going to do fuck all.
I'm a licensed claim rep. Your scenario with the car inching forward to go then stopping because they changed their mind, doesn't have negligence. Negligence rests on the vehicle behind 100%, and that negligence is assigned for driving forward and yet not looking there. Negligence assigned for assumption that the car in front actually completed the maneuver. Negligence assigned for the duty owed to maintain proper following distance. While it does take two to cause an accident, your kind of mentality leaves us in a world where rarely is anyone never at fault. You can't assign negligence by sheer fact of someone being at the scene of the accident.
Looking at the linked video, I was amazed to see the number of surrounding cars and objects being tracked. Also looking at the video, you could tell for almost a second that the trailing car was going to be a problem. Perhaps self driving cars that realize they are going to be rear ended could blink/flash lights, blow a LOUD rear facing horn, or something to catch the attention of the trailing driver.
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.
Let me fix this for you...
Your auto insurance deductible is $100 when the car is self-driving, but $1,000 when you're manually driving. If the car is self-driving and it causes a wreck, the auto manufacture is liable, if you're driving, then you are.
You don't have to ban people from driving, you just use carrots and sticks to make people want to stop driving.
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?
May be avoidable if you're a top-tier driver who leaves sufficient gap ahead of you for such things (my driving class taught me to leave a 3-4 car gap between you and the car in front, narrowing it as traffic builds behind you), so you have the ability to maneuver - either changing lanes or simply using it as absorption space in a crash (or moving forward a bit to give a bit more distance for the guy behind to stop).
But you're talking top tier drivers. Average Joe probably will be just on their phone not looking out for traffic, ahead or behind. And most drivers don't pay attention to their rear view mirrors while stopped, either - if not on their phone, they'll just be looking ahead at the light.
And given an accident like this, it's even harder to debate as it appears people don't even look far enough ahead while driving.
And then there's this thing, reality. You might have heard of it. In reality, you just simply can't make allowances for everything that could possibly go wrong, or traffic density would fall to a point where it's hopelessly ineffective.
If the snow and ice and road conditions make the above true, then perhaps people should STAY HOME AND STOP DRIVING IN IT.
Just saying...
Yes, Moores Law won't help at all.
Self driving cars are (not even) where the original iPhone was 10 years ago. Think where another two or three generations of chip evolution will get things to.
This applies to cpu speed to analyze. It also applies to gpu's to analyze video. It also applies to all of the sensors and radar and lidar units required.
Everything will be cheaper and faster with higher resolution.
Actually, from my experience, they may have a good reason, but the most likely reason is impatience with their lane. And it is frequently combined with sudden acceleration from a low speed, or even a stop, where the offender sees an opening to accelerate into so that they can just go faster. And no signal. There's no turn to be made, they often proceed for miles afterward on the same road.
Unless unfamiliar with the area, most people know when they need to get over to make their turn without having to generate a car accident. Of course, there are times when you really have to get into the right lane to exit and the cars form a solid line to the side of you. In that case, you should turn on your signal well back and provide notice you are moving over.
I hate to do it, but there are times where I will close with someone in front of me because I don't trust the person acting erratically in the other lane to be aware enough to provide a signal and enough time for me to react to their sudden move. While that does take me into the danger zone, I have excellent brakes, and I am aware of my position and am prepared to stop suddenly.
Unfortunately, I am also aware that this puts me in more danger, regardless, and I will try and let the erratic driver ahead unless I feel like they will cause me to end up in a rear end collision with them (where I will bear the presumption of guilt because I was behind and THEY cut down the safe driving distance I was attempting to maintain and no witnesses will likely come forward to support my assertion).
Autonomous driving will be nice if it rids us of those sorts of drivers, but honestly, those are the sorts of people who you will have to pry the steering wheel and stick shift from their cold dead hands.
Personally, I don't want to be unable to drive my own car, but I would be more than happy to have roads where I'd be required to turn on autonomous driving, if everyone else was also required to do the same. There's no need for me to operate my car manually when I am going to work, unless it is some sort of mixed environment where the autonomous driving mode only serves to have me doing 35mph in the right lane in ultrasafe mode to avoid the idiots zooming around at all speeds.
Speaking of speed. You know what will really encourage people to adopt autonomous driving? Faster road speeds and higher speed limits. Then you'll see people jumping all over them so that they can get to work at 90-100mph with no discernible loss of safety.
Yes, but compare the rate which it might happen between people and automated systems. People do call the police all the time, but that's not the same thing as every vehicle on the road becoming the eyes of the government on you.
Just like it is not Orwellian to call the police when you suspect a crime is in progress, but it is Orwellian to have cameras on every house reporting any suspicious activity back to central. It isn't the reporting, it is the panopticon nature of the sensors. People do suspicious sorts of things every day that are meaningless, would you like to be dinged for every one of them?
> 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.
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.
I don't think those situations are analogous at all. We already have examples of this in action with our elderly, who are indeed very resistant to having their licenses taken away as their driving abilities wane. But what they really resent is the loss of the freedom of not being able to hop in their own car and go where and when they want. If the alternative was having the computer do the mechanics of driving for them, most elderly folks would be all over that. From my experience with them, towards the end they get very fearful of traffic, and start restricting their travels to less traveled times and places. Taking this out of their hands would be a huge relief, and actually give them more freedom.
Not only that, but you'd also be giving the ability to get around to a lot of people who today cannot drive. For example, the blind, people under 16, etc. Just thinking of having all that time back from those years when I spent all week playing chauffeur for 3 kids with different soccer practices on different sides of town simultaneously ... I'd pay $10's of thousands for that. Shut up and take my money now.
So what you'd do is what they did with the drinking laws back in the '80's. "Grandfather" in everyone who has a license now, but for new licenses just start making them slowly more and more restrictive. Not unattainable, but hard enough that the rest of us on the road don't have to worry too much about the drop in public safety inherent in letting you take the wheel.
the car was hit by another Google employee.
It was hit by a Yahoo car.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
If you hit a car that suiddenly slows down, than one of two things happen.
1) You were tailgating.
2) You weren't paying attention and hit the brake too slow.
3) The car in front of you hit something, which made them stop much more abruptly than would have been possible through use of their own brakes.
4) The car that was in front of you changed lanes to avoid the stopped car, which that you couldn't see due to that first car being in the way, and you had no way to get out of the lane like he did due to cars next to you.
3 and 4 weren't what happened in this case (according to the video), but about once or twice a decade I have 4 happen to me. I haven't hit the stopped car yet, but that's probably only about 80% skill (after the first time it happened, I try to watch for it) and 20% luck. Given enough driving, your luck will run out eventually.
You see, it isn't that simple. A lot of drivers don't realize that monitoring space between you and the next car isn't sufficient. You have to try to get a good idea of the scene in front of the car in front of you. You have to see if he is (or is likely to be) tailgaiting the person in front of him. Your stopping space needs to account for the cars in front of the car in front of you too (including ones you might not be able to see). You have to try to get into the heads of people around you and adjust yourself if they are being aggressive, or too timid, or inattentive, or just plain nuts.
And yes, in my 35 years of experience driving, most people just aren't capable of that. These days, you're lucky if they aren't on the phone.
distracting things are distracting
If you can't drive without being distracted by the world out there, then seriously you should not be driving. That's all.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
That goal might be a technically sound one, but I don't think it's politically viable... 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
Here's a compromise, then: don't do it all at once. To start with, only make it a little harder to maintain a driver's license, such as requiring people to take the test more often (especially the elderly), while also putting in the intelligent accident avoidance systems.
After a few years of this, increase the accident avoidance systems' level of control a little bit, so that not only will it kick in when someone is about to crash, but also... let's say for example, you make it so if someone is tailgating in an unsafe manner, the car will automatically slow to maintain a safe distance. Little by little, increase the accident avoidance systems every few years, until after a few decades, the people who want to drive are in self-driving cars that have a toy steering wheel that does nothing except make vroom-vroom noises.
Meanwhile, keep making the driving tests more strict. Not impossibly difficult, but maybe difficult and expensive is roughly the same range as getting your pilot's license. At the same time, open up special lanes, similar to carpool lanes, where only self-driving cars that are networked just enough to aid in collision avoidance and traffic prevention. Set the speed limit in those lanes for "as fast as the self-driving cars can safely go", and set the speed limit everywhere else to 35 MPH. If you're still driving a manually driven car, increase insurance costs to account for the increased risk.
The car behind you speeds up, overtakes you, fills up the gap and awaits next opportunity to overtake the car that previously was in front of you. Meanwhile, you slip back to keep your distance, only to have the procedure repeat it self.
The process you are talking about happens to me all the time. Don't really see what the issue is. Let them rear-end somebody if they want to. Getting overtaken by a few people in a hurry never cost me any real time. In fact, I frequently see the overtakers at the same stop light I'm at once we both get off the freeway.
To start with, only make it a little harder to maintain a driver's license, such as requiring people to take the test more often
*snip*
Meanwhile, keep making the driving tests more strict. Not impossibly difficult, but maybe difficult and expensive is roughly the same range as getting your pilot's license.
I've been in favor of doing just that for a long time now, before self-driving cars were involved or even a thing.
It's ironic you mention the test shouldn't be impossible difficult, but it seems the primary argument for handing out drivers licenses like candy is that for way over half the US population a test that is possible to fail effectively is impossible (which never sounded like a valid reason against it to me, but alas)
A funny story that happened to me when I went to take my first driving test, many moons ago...
I was 17 and pretty nervous and anxious about taking the official test (as tends to be my nature), so I purposely scheduled it on a later day than suggested in order to get as early a slot in the day as possible.
My thinking was that a driving instructor that has had to put up with bad drivers and dumb kid mistakes all day is likely to be pissed off, even if only on the inside. That was an additional stress I didn't want, so hopefully if I was first in the day, the instructor wouldn't have a full days worth of frustration pent up to potentially be taken out on me.
After a 10 day delay I was able to get slot #2 that morning. Sure not as good as slot #1, but how bad could one student before me possibly be?
As myself, my mother, and the mother of the girl in slot #1 were all standing at the front window of the DMV watching her do the parallel parking cone test, just as they finished the instructor opened the passenger door and stepped out of the vehicle, the car lurches forward with a brief screech and runs over the instructors foot!
First to be said, the instructor was not seriously injured, though I can only imagine how much that would hurt.
EMTs came and examined him and took him to the hospital for further examination.
An employee there was out talking to the instructor before they took him away, which is where the report of "no serious injury" came from, as well as determining another instructor would need to be assigned for the day.
(It turns out I was in slot #1 for the new instructor anyway!)
The girl and her mom were still at the DMV after I completed my test and returned and her mom was still chatting with my mom, which was a little surprising as I assumed they remained there due to the accident, something I figured would be involving a lot of paperwork of not a police report or something like that.
Nope, turns out the girl passed the rest of her testing, and despite running over the instructors foot with her car, was waiting on (and issued) her full privileged drivers license!
If that isn't reason enough to fail someone and keep them on a learners permit, I'm honestly not sure what one could do to fail it if they wanted to.
The driving test was already far too easy even back then, and from what I hear lately the written test is now multiple choice where they get to choose which questions to skip or answer, the cone test is now spread out further than the parking lot line guides we used, and the driving test itself is limited to four right turns going around the block.
I understand how today it is practically impossible to live without being able to drive to and from work, to and from the big grocery stores that replaced the corner-mart, and all of that...
But I still wish they would take into account how difficult it is for the rest of us to live when they allow people like this to pilot a 4000lb block of metal without the slightest idea how to control the thing.
You are crazy. And I mean it. CRAAAAZY.
In a rear impact, the impact energy is redistributed into: 1. Braking friction, if brakes are applied. 2. Crushing energy. 3. Inertia of the car. When you reduce #1 - apply less brakes - more energy gets redirected towards #3. Assuming a slow crash with no significant incursion into the passenger compartment, the injuries scale with accelerations. The more energy you pass to your car's inertia, generally higher the accelerations will be. The braking force is replaced by inertial forces, but these are simply proportional to acceleration of the car, and its occupants - meaning you.
In a rear impact, if you release the brakes, you will experience higher impact acceeleration and deceleration than if you didn't. This directly translates into the trauma your neck and other body parts are subject to. All that in the name of what? Less damage to your car? Yes, you are crazy, unless your car is worth more than human life ($10M+).
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
Obeying every traffic law guarantees getting in accidents. It might not legally be the robot's fault but they did cause it because they aren't following the rules of the road. Because of that, they flow against the normal progression of traffic and cause disruptions which lead to accidents.
They caused the accident because they stopped at a red light?
The light wasn't red (according to the indicator top-right in the video). They stopped because they had no where else to go with two cars stopped in front of them. And, agreed - knightghost is an idiot, possibly a mult-skilled idiot. It's pretty obvious from watching the video at half speed in an endless loop that the Google car was exceeding the speed of the kerb.