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.
I have always thought that for automated vehicles to be a reality, ALL traffic has to be automated.
It takes almost an A.I. to be able to adjust to the random nature of human driving.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
People expect Caddys to drive slow and do weird things, because Uncle Harry is driving. Same for Priuses, because it's either Aunt Marge or some granola-head hippy doing his "hyper-mileing" thing. Problem solved :-)
Either that or put a sticker on the back: "This car rigorously obeys all traffic laws"
I'm sure there will be AI defenders who will question the assertion about a crash rate "double" that of average humans. But it doesn't matter. The point is that human drivers are idiots and drive in all sorts of unpredictable ways. They also tend to hate other drivers who operate in demonstrably safer ways (e.g., allowing plenty of space in front of them, not accelerating wildly just to stop 100 feet ahead in stop-and-go traffic, not zooming past a slower lane in a merge situation, but instead attempting a "zipper merge" at the same speed as the slower lane, etc). Of course, a lot of the less safe human behaviors also tend to be the reason for traffic snarls in the first place, but you'll have a hard time convincing most drivers of that, since they want to drive as if they are on a racetrack and somehow think that weaving back and forth to get into that tiny gap you've left in front for safety is going to allow them to get home so much faster (even if it's only 2 seconds earlier).
I imagine the biggest problem with having AI cars obey traffic laws strictly is not the accidents -- rather that it's going to lead to human road rage, which often leads humans to be even more irrational and drive in even less safe ways. Thus, while AI cars are still a minority on the roads, I'm not sure it will lead to a net improvement in accident statistics -- just as a "slow driver" on a highway can block up traffic, cause other drivers to drive unsafely around them, and ultimately lead to the potential for more accidents, even if that slow driver thinks they are being "safe" by driving the speed limit or a little below.
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.
This is nothing more than a sophisticated from of "everybody else is doing it" argument that you get from small children. If the rules aren't working, the solution is to either enforce the rules better or to change the rules. Having everybody ignore the rules and not change them is the worst possible outcome. It creates a situation where things simply can't get better. Nobody can know the real effect of properly enforced rules so there's no data that can be used for improvement of the rules. What we need is better enforcement for human drivers. It's almost inexcusable that neither cars (nor trains) have automatic speed control systems that prevent exceeding the limit. Invariably somebody will point out the fantastical corner case where accelerating and swerving makes sense but those can be easily solved.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason then a lot of drivers won't respect it, and unless you can and will enforce that limit strongly and consistently, that is unlikely to change. Putting the remaining drivers -- those who do want to be responsible and safe -- in a position where they have to choose between breaking the law and driving as safely as possible, is bad law-making.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
From TFA: "They’re usually hit from behind in slow-speed crashes".
If this is in fact the dominant accident mode, I would suggest that this is not such a big deal and will, over the long term, be self-correcting as the insurance rates for idiot non-automated drivers shoot up because they can't get it through their thick skulls not to tailgate other vehicles.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety.
So...everyone? The issue here is that people tend to drive as fast or as slow as the road allows, normally it's the common law speed limit. Humans can usually adjust to this, robots with strict rules can't.
That is incorrect. People tend to drive as fast or as slow as enforcement of the speed limit allows. If authorities start enforcing the speed limit, the speed driven will decrease. Since there is no real penalty to speeding, people speed.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason then a lot of drivers won't respect it, and unless you can and will enforce that limit strongly and consistently, that is unlikely to change. Putting the remaining drivers -- those who do want to be responsible and safe -- in a position where they have to choose between breaking the law and driving as safely as possible, is bad law-making.
Actually, you don't need to enforce it consistently. You get as much compliance, but at a lower cost, if you haphazardly enforce it. If the driver doesn't know when it will be enforced, they will comply. It only takes the possibility of being caught that triggers the behavior.
Which is a great theory, but the reality is that if the speed limit is set very low on a road for no apparent reason
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety.
Or there is a reason, it has to do with safety, or with optimising throughput, or some other valid concern, but that reason is not obvious to every dummy driver on the street. I don't trust every guy who owns a pair of pliers and a power drill to have a go at my dental care. So why would I assume that I know better than the experts which speed limits are optimal for a given set of goals?
Stephan
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety
Surely this article shows that the speed limit is indeed about safety. If you think that you actually driving at a safe speed and then run into a car that is travelling at the legal limit then obviously you were driving too fast to be able to avoid a hazard on the road. If you travelled slower then you would have more of a chance to see the car, correctly gauge it's speed, and then stop before you ran into it.
I'll admit it: I drive like an old person. Any day I can piss off a millennial in his BMW, is a good day.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Agreed. Human drivers tend to have this sense of entitlement and exceptionalism so that they believe that they can break the law but anyone else who does it is a dangerous idiot. Automated cars are a new type of vehicle that these drivers have to negotiate. Expect a learning curve with a spike in accidents while drivers get used to it. I remember the same thing happening in Barcelona when they re-introduced trams. There was a sudden, dramatic spike in accidents, some of them fatal, while drivers learned what they could and couldn't "get away with." The answer is to give time for lawless drivers to learn about automated cars and adjust their law-breaking appropriately so that they don't get involved in as many accidents. And while we're at it, how about automated cars recording everything that happens around them that can be presented as evidence in court?
To summarise the summary: people are a problem.
If you're not overtaking, you have no business being in that lane. That's what the outer lanes are *for*. It's people who don't understand that simple rule that cause accidents. Undertaking is illegal e.g. in the UK for a reason.
There isn't any situation I can think of where speeding up will end up saving lives
Getting out of the way. In most cases, a car can accelerate out of the way of a car faster than its brakes can overcome intertia. Even if it can't, I'd much rather an accident where I get T-boned in the trunk than in one of the doors.
nor is that why cars can go faster than posted speed limits
Well, a car that maxed out at 55mph would be laughable in other states where 65 and 75 are common. trying to decide upon a national speed limit would be ridiculous, as it doesn't account for population density or geography/topography. Sure, this argues well for having cars max out at 90, rather than 120 or 140 (higher in some of the high end / exotic models), but a car that maxed out at 75 would be more desirable than one that maxes out at 55, and then we end up with interstate commerce hell...
nor does anybody teach swerving into the left hand (on-coming) lane to avoid an accident.
This particular lesson was covered as follows: "do whatever the hell it takes to avoid an accident". If that includes swerving into the left lane? so be it. Here's a for-instance: residential area, two lane road, a driver isn't looking too closely while backing out of the driveway. Do you retain your lane, or swerve into the left lane to avoid hitting his car in the rear wheel well area? Same for hitting a deer, fallen tree, road construction, idiot texting instead of looking at the road, a situation where the lights aren't synchronized and thus the left side is clear and the person in front of you stopped short...
That's just beyond brain dead
No, assuming that we're only talking about driving in a straight line on a highway, as if it is the only possible scenario where driving skills come into play, is beyond brain dead.
"let me trade this rear end collision with a head on collision, all day long!".
I am certain that the GP wasn't referring to crossing the divider when there was oncoming traffic. To more fully phrase it with the included context, his/her statement was this: "At present, Google cars treat the divider line as sacrosanct, and will not cross it under any circumstances. However, there are edge cases when driving where the best way of avoiding an an accident is to cross the line. Humans know that avoiding an accident is more important than staying in the lane; most humans would look at another human sideways if an accident took place because the driver adhered to lane markers rather than self preservation. This is expected of humans, but not of Google cars."
Oh there is a reason, it just has nothing to do with safety.
Or there is a reason, it has to do with safety, or with optimising throughput, or some other valid concern, but that reason is not obvious to every dummy driver on the street.
The throughput argument bears repeating. Many drivers don't understand this, but sometimes you can get more people through a bottleneck (AND have fewer accidents) if everyone drives more slower at a constant speed than if everyone is trying to drive faster at the same traffic density. This is particularly true when you have a high variability of vehicle speeds, like in a mountainous area where trucks are forced to go slower or in an urban area where frequent incoming and outgoing traffic at exits often travel at different speeds from the rest of the highway.
For example, if you're driving on a highway through an urban area and they lower the rush hour speed limit to 45 mph (some areas now are adopting such dynamic speed limit signs), the idea is that if cars actually go 40-45 mph, the road will actually be able to handle the amount of traffic while also allowing all the people merging on, getting off at exits, changing lanes, etc. at a safe speed.
If, instead, everyone tries to drive 65-70 in the same area, what can happen is that the merging or changing lanes will eventually cause someone to cut someone else off, which causes sudden braking, which then causes some tailgaters behind them to brake suddenly, others follow and overcompensate because they were going too fast and suddenly see much slower cars, and within a few minutes you have a "traffic wave" of stop-and-go traffic backed up for a few miles which might take a half-hour to resolve, where throughput is dramatically reduced. (How many times have you gotten to the end after sitting through 10 minutes of such stop-and-go traffic waves, and there's nothing there -- no accident, no merge, etc.? This is often the kind of thing that happened.)
At a slower speed, the slower car may not have been forced to "cut someone off" in the first place, or if he does, the impact of a bit of braking may not cause such massive changes and overcompensation. Traffic thus recovers faster and throughput is maximized.
It sounds more like a flaw with traffic laws.
In >99% of such situations, the correct decision is to hit the brake, NOT the accelerator.
Dear God, no. No, no, no. You're that guy that slams on his brake at the end of an on ramp because he can't process the situation quickly enough to know when it's appropriate and *preferred* to hit the damn gas pedal and merge at speed rather than stop in the middle of the lane and wait until that steady stream of traffic lets up. Here's a clue for you and zillion other ass hats out there...it's not letting up and your over cautious bull shit just put everyone behind you in a worse situation than they would have been if you were never born to begin with because then they would have just accelerated up to speed and merged in little a normal person rather than sitting in a line waiting to for someone to either slam into the back of them or at the very least greatly increasing their risk of getting into an accident when it's finally their turn and they have to come up to 70 mph from 0 mph in about 100 feet. Thanks.
If you're not paying attention to the driver in front of you, then you're distracted. If you''re not leaving enough room to stop if the driver in front of you brakes, then you're driving recklessly. Neither is to be condoned.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
It's not silly. It actually lets you go faster, and more safely with less road congestion. Why? Because slower traffic ends up on the inner lane, going progressively faster to the outer lane. So it's actually not silly at all in heavy traffic. It means slow traffic doesn't impede faster traffic, and it means that the driver can make certain assumptions about the driving conditions, e.g. they won't be overtaken on the inside, which makes lane changes easier and safer. It makes driving on fast roads predicable since you know how the other traffic will behave.
Of course, there are some idiots who don't know how to drive and hog the middle lane, and are universally hated for it; they get pulled over by the police since it's actively dangerous to the other traffic--because it can force people to undertake.
When you look at footage of road accidents in countries without this rule, what's immediately clear is that the driving is far more erratic since it's an unconstrained free-for-all, and that makes accidents more likely, as well as reducing the effective safe speed on the road.
You are quoting research that a graduate student of mine actually helped produce (not the original, but the followup in 1997), but you are missing the point. Yes, people will drive at speeds they are comfortable with, that is not in dispute. However, that is assuming there is no enforcement of existing limits. The research shows that if enforcement is factored in, most people will drive within five miles of the speed limit. It further shows, that this leads to a more consistent speed among all drivers on a given stretch of road and as such improves the number of vehicles per mile per hour per given stretch.
You are correct, posting speed limits does not affect overall speed. That is, unless those speed limits are actually enforced. If you aren't going to enforce them, then why post them.
It should be simple to understand that rules without consequences don't change behavior. OTOH, removing consequences tends to encourage the behavior the rule was meant to address, which is where we are today with speed limits.
The reality is that the faster vehicles go, the longer they take to stop or if the driver is distracted the further the vehicle travels until attention is focused. Couple that with the aging population, where reaction time is decreasing, and you have a recipe for disaster. One solution, albeit very costly, is to force people into driving autonomous vehicles. Of course, that will take years before they are ready and in sufficient quantity to make a difference (look at the hybrids, even government subsidies weren't enough to get sufficient people to buy them where they were economical and they were vastly cheaper than autonomous vehicles are expected to be). Or, a simpler solution, available today and proven to work is to enforce the traffic laws.
Again, I agree, just changing the number on the sign won't change peoples speed habits. However, enforcing the number on the sign has been proven to do so.
It's people who don't understand that simple rule that cause accidents
People who don't understand that the overtaking lane is also not an excuse for speeding nor does it have a requirement that you do 30km/h above the limit is also what causes accidents. In general idiots who think they own the road in every which way cause accidents.
I get that about once a week. Overtaking some speed limited truck takes about 10-15 seconds when I'm driving the limit. Some idiot will come up behind me at a stupid speed and start flashing his lights and honking the horn. They are just as bad as those people who block the lanes for no reason.