Slashdot Mirror


Waymo Self-driving Cars Are Having Problems Turning Around Corners (siliconangle.com)

Alphabet's Waymo has long been regarded as the leader in autonomous vehicle development and technology, but all might not be as well as it seems at the company, according to a report published Tuesday. From a report: The Information quoted a number of unnamed Waymo insiders who claim the vehicles being used in the Arizona ride-hailing test have numerous problems. The test, which launched in November, is meant to be converted to a full commercial service later this year. The report claimed that the autonomous Chrysler Pacifica struggles to handle a number of driving tasks and even goes as far as annoying human drivers around them. Top among the problems is an apparent issue with turning left. "The Waymo vans have trouble with many unprotected left turns and with merging into heavy traffic in the Phoenix area, especially on highways," the report noted. "Sometimes, the vans don't understand basic road features, such as metered red and green lights that regulate the pace of cars merging onto freeways." If having problems turning left isn't bad enough, they also apparently on occasion have problems turning right. One woman claimed that she almost hit a Waymo vehicle as it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn.

30 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Autonomous Dreams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I really cannot fathom these monstrosities on the same road as myself. Time and time again it has been proven that a human driver is needed to intervene to keep these 'auto'mobiles in check. Yet, each one of these companies claims they'll be fully autonomous within a year or so, and each time it gets delayed again and again. If there's any indicator where we're at, just take a look at the newly released chat with the former Telsa worker. When will Silicon Valley and its ilk stop spreading false hopes and flat out lies to appease investors, it's starting to look like Trumpgate part 2. It is most likely at least a decade or 5 away from reality, maybe more so for the streets of London. Many more will die in the same likes as in the Tempe, AZ accident. It's going to take a revolutionary AI, one that hasn't been built yet to truly make this a reality. Robots are def not here to take our jobs or take over the world. If anything, it will create even more work for us humans, assuming we don't get ran over in the process...

    1. Re:Autonomous Dreams by aticus.finch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you looked in your crystal ball to say all that? I get it, you don't trust the evolution of AI. But it is still going to work and save many lives.

      Have you looked into your crystal ball to say that? Over the last 40 years there has been little to no improvement in the software for AI. All the improvements have come from the hardware.

      With software you can't tell if you're 90% on the way to solving the problem or if you're 5% done. You can't even tell if a problem is solvable!?

    2. Re:Autonomous Dreams by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm actually surprised about the progress that has been made already. I'm pretty optimistic about this stuff, but 5 years ago I would not have predicted that we would have come as far as we have, not just with experimental vehicles but with semi autonomous tech that is alerady available on high end consumer vehicles. Sure, there's false hopes and unrealistic expectations being raised, that's what Silicon Valley is all about after all, but this is not 5 decades out either. I think automakers like Tesla (if they're still around) will be offering this within 10 years. More importantly, I think insurance companies will start offering discounts to autonomous cars a few years after that. Because even now there's nothing to indicate that "many more will die" once these things hit the road, compared to the causalties caused by meat based drivers.

      And getting these monstrosities on the same road as yourself turned out to be the right move. It's one thing to have a car drive itself around a test track - which is what most researchers have been doing until recently - and quite another to put one on an actual road. A large part of the progress of the last few years is made possible by the mountain of data gathered from test drives on public roads.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Autonomous Dreams by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I really cannot fathom these monstrosities on the same road as myself.

      I really cannot fathom the monstrosities known as incompetent drivers on the same road as myself, not knowing how to handle left turns in intersections (the left turn always yields unless there is a protected left signal!) and not staying in their lane and not knowing how to signal at a roundabout, but there they are, and they mostly don't crash.

      Many more will die in the same likes as in the Tempe, AZ accident.

      That same collision could reasonably have happened with a human driver. Many more die every day due to the failings of human drivers. You're nowhere near a point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Autonomous Dreams by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Considering Waymo vehicles can't make a turn without possibly causing an accident what are they up to now?

      You can't cause an accident by stopping in the middle of a turn at an intersection. You can, however, cause an accident by following too closely. People coming to an abrupt stop should be an expected action. An animal or a human could run out in front of their car, or a bag could just blow out in front of them too quickly for them to see what it is. Something could fall off of the car in front of them.

      I don't want to let Waymo off the hook here completely, it's still ridiculous behavior. But blaming them for a collision with someone behind them is even more ridiculous if their vehicle isn't in reverse at the time. And it's still more ridiculous when no collision in fact occurred.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Autonomous Dreams by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The onus is on Waymo to drive in a predictable fashion here.

      No, it really isn't. Unless Waymo is trying to cause a collision, the onus is on the following driver to watch out for irrational behavior. Humans are often irrational. Often, when following one driver, I see them do literally a dozen different irrational things in the space of a couple of blocks. They speed up, they slow down, they drift lanes, they start a lane change and then stop it for no reason... If I assumed they would be driving rationally and predictably, I would hit them. I don't, so I don't. The law is quite clear that if I run up their ass, I'm at fault.

      Is the driver that is following too closely at fault in a specific accident? Sure. But should Waymo identify this as a factor in proper defensive driving and have their cars do it as well? Absolutely.

      Yes, of course they should. And they will, because unnecessary stops are undesirable for a variety of reasons. What I take objection to is all the people who want to let the following driver off the hook because the Waymo car shouldn't have stopped. Human drivers do things they aren't supposed to do all damned day, and the rest of us are expected to account for that. Why would other drivers' inattention or poor practice suddenly become acceptable because they are behind an AV?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Autonomous Dreams by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      The onus is on Waymo to drive in a predictable fashion here.

      No, it really isn't.

      If they want to brag about how much they improve safety on the roads, it sure as hell is. If introducing a "safer" driver to the road ecosystem causes an increase in accidents because it doesn't behave the way "bad" human drivers expect it to, it isn't actually safer, no matter how rational or law-abiding it may be.

    7. Re:Autonomous Dreams by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      If they want to brag about how much they improve safety on the roads, it sure as hell is. If introducing a "safer" driver to the road ecosystem causes an increase in accidents because it doesn't behave the way "bad" human drivers expect it to, it isn't actually safer, no matter how rational or law-abiding it may be.

      Your scare quotes are, as usual, inappropriate. If it doesn't hit things as often as humans, it is a safer driver. If the vehicles behind it hit it, they are the problem. They shouldn't be following that close. A vehicle can come to a hard stop for a variety of reasons, only some of which are control-related. Not being prepared for those eventualities makes the follower the problem driver, period.

      Should Waymo limit spurious hard stops? Yes. Is it the person behind them with the responsibility to stop before hitting them? Also yes. Is the AV bad for stopping? Yes. Is the driver behind worse if they hit them? Also yes.

      There is no defense whatsoever for a driver who is not prepared to stop in case the driver in front of them makes a hard stop. This is especially true in town, where obstacles are prone to literally jump out in front of drivers, but of course it's also true in the country, where the same thing can happen. An otter ran out in front of us as I drove along the 1 just south of Mendocino. I nailed the brakes as hard as I could, because hitting an animal can lead to loss of control. (I didn't swerve, because I am not an idiot.) If there had been someone following so closely that they hit me, I would not have been even slightly at fault. It would not have been reasonable for me to try to take a following driver into account, either. I can't reasonably do that and concentrate on a panic stop at the same time; even with ABS and ESP, a panic stop can cause a vehicle to skew such that it departs the lane. I came to almost a complete stop on the highway in that case, and yet, someone who hit me from behind would have been 100% at fault for the collision. And that is as it should be.

      It can be true both that a Waymo vehicle which stops for nothing is a bad driver, and that a person who drives up that vehicle's back side is wholly at fault for the collision, and is a worse driver. But in no universe does the driver of the following vehicle not at minimum share responsibility, since they are ignoring physics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Not a problem by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I was in high school, my sister had a friend who was deathly afraid of turning left from one busy street to another. She just didn't get the whole, "inch out until the light turns yellow, and you're sure oncoming traffic is gonna stop, and then complete your turn" thing. So, swear to god, she used to make three right hand turns instead. She drover her father's old '70 Buick Electra 225 4-door and that thing was like an aircraft carrier. But it had the first electric seats I ever saw and had the bucket seats instead of a bench in the front, which I though was cool.

    In summary, as long as you can make a sufficient number of right-hand turns, you can get away without hanging a Louie.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Not a problem by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My mum used to avoid right turns (we drive on the left in the UK so those are the ones where you have to cross the oncoming traffic). It got to the stage where she had worked out a long route that would take her to the local supermarket and back without turning right once. This was the only trip she'd drive herself eventually.

    2. Re:Not a problem by sphealey · · Score: 2

      = = = In summary, as long as you can make a sufficient number of right-hand turns, you can get away without hanging a Louie. = = =

      That works in the Midwest US (where I learned to drive), but not so well in Pittsburgh. Make a right instead of a left there and it could be an hour until you get back to your starting point, which is also true for much of the northeast region of North America.

    3. Re:Not a problem by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      In summary, as long as you can make a sufficient number of right-hand turns, you can get away without hanging a Louie.

      Indeed you can, and often should.

      I specifically address those folks who think they can turn left from an establishment out onto the road when it's bumper to bumper rush hour traffic. Just turn right and go around the block.

  3. Surprise -- there are a few bugs by vtcodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK ... So we have several problems

      First the Waymo software is likely a bit buggy. No surprise there. It'll take several years to work through that Wait til they encounter some of the blinking red and yellow arrows recently installed on traffic signals around here. I don't have the slightest idea what they really mean. Neither does anyone else.. Neither, I'll bet, will Waymo. On top of which at some times on some days, the sensors trying to read the signals will be looking directly into the sun.

    Second, the Waymo cars try to drive safely and legally. Whereas human drivers generally try to drive as quickly as possible without being delayed by accidents or police traffic stops.

    Third, I expect, is that autonomous vehicles in general are likely going to have trouble with some forms of bad weather -- especially heavy snow which humans who like to stay out o0f ditches handle by driving quite slowly and keeping moving. This is likely not going to be apparent in testing in Sunnyvale or Phoenix.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    1. Re:Surprise -- there are a few bugs by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are still so far from self driving that it should be called a better cruise control.

      Waymo has fully autonomous vehicles driving in Phoenix with no human drivers, which although buggy and reluctant to turn left have not caused massive carnage. Set a vehicle on cruise control with nobody in it and see how long it goes before there's an accident.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Surprise -- there are a few bugs by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      Wait til they encounter some of the blinking red and yellow arrows recently installed on traffic signals around here. I don't have the slightest idea what they really mean. Neither does anyone else.

      Flashing yellow arrows are becoming quite common around here. Other than one woman who wrote an editorial about them, no one has had any problem figuring out that they mean "turn left when safe to do so, yielding to oncoming traffic". They typically replace solid red arrows, and are a delightful improvement.

      We don't have the flashing red arrows, but applying a bit of logic, I'd be really surprised if they meant anything other than "Stop, then you may turn left when it is safe to do so."

  4. Walt Disney's dream by eminencja · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is not going to happen on regular roads as we know them. Instead some big corporation is going to build a new city (possibly around a new campus) where regular cars will be banned and all trafic will be autonomous and roads will be smart as well with sensors, broadcasts, and what not. It will be so much simpler (for the AI) and so much more convenient for the humans. And once the benefits are obvious, other cities will follow suit. Building a city from scratch was Walt Disney's dream btw.

    1. Re:Walt Disney's dream by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Instead some big corporation is going to build a new city (possibly around a new campus) where regular cars will be banned and all traffic will be autonomous and roads will be smart as well with sensors, broadcasts, and what not.

      To make the roads really safe . . . you'll need to ban human passengers, as well. As long as there are still humans in the autonomous cars, they'll find a way to cause the car to crash.

      "Nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are so ingenious."

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Walt Disney's dream by jeti · · Score: 2

      If you're building new infrastructure anyway, it would be much more easy to use elevated light rails. I really liked the concept of the Taxi2000 system.

  5. Re:Ideal Solution by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    The ideal solution would be to redesign the road system so that autonomous vehicles could happily work however that would require trillions of dollars

    You may as well bring back tram systems

  6. Stopping suddenly by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ”One woman claimed that she almost hit a Waymo vehicle as it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn.”

    If you almost hit someone because they stopped suddenly... that’s on you, not the other driver.

    Don’t drive like an idiot.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Stopping suddenly by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Suddenly breaking for not reason is illegal in many places. Try doing that in e.g. Germany on the autobahn and you can get fined.

      Also please note the 'almost hit', so the woman did what was expected of her and had apparently the correct distance for the speed she was driving at. Otherwise there would not have been an 'almost'.

      Going for a full abrupt stop for no reason is like yelling fire for no reason.
      As I read it, the car was not slowing down by breaking. It slammed the brakes.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  7. Re:Of course by infolation · · Score: 3, Funny
    It troubles Derek

    I'm not an ambi-turner. It's a problem I had since I was a baby. I can't turn left.

  8. Errr.... by thegarbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One woman claimed that she almost hit a Waymo vehicle as it suddenly stopped

    Then don't tailgate. Idiot.

    1. Re:Errr.... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One woman claimed that she almost hit a Waymo vehicle as it suddenly stopped

      Then don't tailgate. Idiot.

      Unexpected, erratic behavior is dangerous.

      Yes, we should all defensively drive and all that. But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road, and reasonably expect that this is not going to result in increased accidents.

    2. Re:Errr.... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 2

      But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road

      Yes I am claiming this 100% and the law will claim it too.

      You should reconsider your position.

  9. Re:Of course by Barsteward · · Score: 2

    According to Top Gear, going around corners is a problem with US car design as they are only able to go blisteringly fast in a straight line :)

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  10. I'd like to hear Waymo's side of the story by SmilingBoy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd like to hear Waymo's side of the story as I could imagine that the vehicle may have stopped during a right turn because it detected a hazard that was real (maybe a child running towards the road) or not real (paperbag flying towards the road). I also find the wording "the vans don't understand basic road features, such as metered red and green lights that regulate the pace of cars merging onto freeways" strange. Surely metered lights are not a basic road feature but something quite rare. I'm not saying that Waymo should not be able to handle those (surely they should!) but it does not seem to be a major failure either.

    1. Re:I'd like to hear Waymo's side of the story by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Not rare, in Oregon and Washington almost every freeway entrance has a stop light for restricting access onto the freeway. And they work fine for human drivers who realize only one car is allowed to go through every time they turn green.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  11. Re:Of course by shaitand · · Score: 2

    Yes, but every Waymo van will also stop having trouble when the issue is resolved as well. The humans aren't getting any better. For myself, I've never even heard of metered lights to control pacing other than a yellow to indicate hazard or slow.

  12. Re:Of course by TWX · · Score: 2

    The metered lights are not uncommon, they're used all over the country for freeway ramps. To avoid excessive congestion on the freeway during rush hour, one is not allowed to proceed past the metered point until one has one's own green light. The lights are normally red, momentarily turn green for one car to proceed, then revert to red.

    That surprises me is that these are a challenge for the cars. The control signal lights are not placed in exactly the same place everywhere (some older freeways place them above, while most place them to the left of the left lane or the right of the right lane) but they're time-activated and they function the same way everywhere. Worst case Waymo should be able to map-out where they're at and should also be able to establish rules that govern when they're in-effect, how the light in this zone work, and where to look to confirm no-go versus go.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.