Slashdot Mirror
The Humans Crashing Into Driverless Cars are Exposing a Key Flaw (bloomberg.com)
schwit1 sends in a story from Bloomberg pointing out that the rigid adherence to traffic laws and overcautious programming have caused self-driving cars to rack up a crash rate twice that of an average human driver. "This may sound like the right way to program a robot to drive a car, but good luck trying to merge onto a chaotic, jam-packed highway with traffic flying along well above the speed limit. It tends not to work out well. As the accidents have piled up — all minor scrape-ups for now — the arguments among programmers at places like Google and Carnegie Mellon University are heating up: Should they teach the cars how to commit infractions from time to time to stay out of trouble?" While the autonomous vehicles aren't at fault in these crashes, their relative unpredictability on the road are nonetheless leading to more accidents than expected.
There was a study a few years ago about traffic in cities. They found that if all the drivers kept to rules that most cities would halt into complete grid lock.
People need to break rules to clear junctions, to pass cars that are stuck, and even force priority to not starve lanes going into a junction.
I travel by bus to and from work in Amsterdam, it is quite a long trip which includes traffic jams in the inner city. The bus driver needs to often break the rules to be able to pass cars, and force priority on junction because they are often stuck. Cars are backing up, cars are trying to make room.
The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways.
All of this is true, yet accident rate of these idiotic humans is half of what rigidly-abiding robots are. Perhaps, driving like an idiot in all sorts of unpredictable ways is the right approach to reducing accidents in a system that presently dominated by idiots driving in all sorts of unpredictable ways?
Not only is it not an infraction to drive in such a way as to save lives and prevent accidents, when you can save a life or prevent an accident, but it requires you to go against the suggested speed, or swerve into the left lane (even when the divider is solid) you are actually required to do so. That is the entire point of cars having a maximum speed of several times the maximum suggested speed is because you are supposed to speed in many situations to save lives.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I've thought this too and I think it'll be a city that does it first. City traffic is the worst affected by the start stop of signalling and a perfected driverless system wouldn't need signalling as they could flow efficiently (assuming the system is aware of every other car's location).
We have a few cities here in the UK that are becoming completely pedestrian/mass, you get to a point on the city boundary where you have to park and a bus takes you in the rest of the way. I think a city might pilot a "auto mode only" area at some point.
The law abiding nature of them reminds me of another dilemma I've wondered about. If the car is about to crash and has become sophisticated enough to know that X maneuver would result in 5 pedestrian deaths but Y maneuver only kills the driver.
Do they make it kill the driver?
How do you sell something that is programmed to kill you if certain circumstances are met?
This should go both ways. People will need to adapt to the way automated vehicles drive (this would be helped by labeling them so they are easy to spot). Then automated vehicles should be given a set of exception to the rules and this would need to be legal, so the can override the regulations when the regulations are likely to create trouble.
If your goal is to give privilege to the wealthy who will be able to afford autonomous vehicles than this would certainly do it. The rich, riding in these new vehicles, will get special rules related to operating a vehicle in traffic compared to the rest of us. Then, in addition, if there is an accident where a regular car hits an autonomous vehicle, it will be the regular drivers fault because the autonomous vehicle wasn't breaking the law in what it was doing.
A better and more practical solution would be to enforce the existing motor vehicle laws until the majority of the vehicles are autonomous. You know the old adage about Lady Justice being blind and the law applies equally to all people.
Originally, the Interstate speeds were set by surveying the speeds of the cars. (I read that Engineers did this survey and on roads without speed limit signs--that us, unregulated. Other sources indicate that this is a common practice for setting speed limits on "new" roads.)
85% of the cars drive at the same (range) and that becomes the speed limit. The original Interstate speed in my state was 70. Kentucky was 75.
During the Carter-oil-embargo, the speed was reduced to 55 "to conserve oil". The USA Congress set the speed limit by law and USA "grants" were tied to the individual states reducing the speed limit. Years (decades) after the end of the Carter-oil-embargo, the limit was raised to 65 and a long while later to the current 70.
So, what was a realistic manner of setting speed limits has become a political football. Thank you Federal, State and Local Governments.
The is one town in Alabama that lowers the Interstate speed to 35 in that town's jurisdiction. Rather bizarre.
"Rigid rule based approach" would probably result in many fewer snarl-ups.
Let's imagine 2 extremes: the M6 southbound near Manchester as it is today. Traffic is very heavy, and impatient drivers tend to bunch up. An impatient driver cuts from one lane to the next because the next lane is moving 1mph quicker, forcing their way into the remaining space in lane 3 causing someone to brake, and it causes a chain reaction - all the close following cars with too little distance start braking progressively harder and harder until the entire motorway stops (or worse, someone gets rear-ended). You now have a self-sustaining traffic jam with no discernible reason (from the air you just see a standing wave of stopped traffic with no obvious cause) until the evening when finally fewer vehicles are arriving at the back of the jam than are leaving from the front.
The other extreme is the same entire motorway is populated by rigidly rule following automated cars. They will all be following a safe distance. No one will cut across a lane because the other one is going 1 mph faster. Traffic flows freely all day long despite the density.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
So, you've never been in an accident that was not your fault on the highways?
Sometimes, going at speed and a deer jumps out means hitting the deer and possibly killing the driver, or swerving off the road and killing the driver, or serving into another car and killing others. Often, coming 'to a full and complete stop' isn't possible. Or may be on train tracks.
There are definitely more important questions, but these questions definitely need to be answered as they are literally life & death questions and will have huge financial consequences on the robot car companies if not answered well.
Sorry to interrupt your rant.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Other articles are usually pretty quick to point out the reason, but this one has an agenda.
The vast majority of accidents involving driverless cars are low speed rear end collisions. Most drivers will not report a 3mph collision with no damage, but google does.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
all of the robot crashes have been minor fender benders
Note that, for example, Google's cars are never going faster than 25 mph. So it's a little disingenuous to say they only get into fender benders when a human in the same situation would likely not have anything more than a minor fender bender either, even if they were very bad at driving.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Disguise all self driving cars as police cars... That should keep the drivers in the cars around them from driving as if there are no rules...
You have a good point with your funny comment.
Autonomous cars should have a very distinctive indicator light marker.
Slow vehicles have to use an orange rotating beacon here.
Cars operating autonomously should have something similar.
Léa Gris