Slashdot Mirror
Locals Reportedly Are Frustrated With Alphabet's Self-Driving Cars (cnbc.com)
More than a dozen people who work near Waymo's office in Chandler, Arizona, have complained about the self-driving cars to The Information. "One women said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn, while another man said that he gets so frustrated waiting for the cars to cross the intersection that he has illegally driven around them," reports CNBC. From the report: The anecdotes highlight how challenging it can be for self-driving cars, which are programmed to drive conservatively, to master situations that human drivers can handle with relative ease -- like merging or finding a gap in traffic to make a turn. Waymo has been testing its vehicles in the Phoenix suburbs for little more than a year and is widely seen as the furthest along in the self-driving car space, but its safety drivers have to take control of the vehicles regularly, people with direct knowledge of the issues tell The Information.
A Waymo spokesperson said its cars are "continually learning" and that "safety remains its highest priority" during testing. The spokesperson also said that Waymo is using feedback from its early rider program to improve its technology, though it declined to comment specifically on the intersection complaints mentioned in The Information story. The company has previously said that it plans to launch a commercial self-driving taxi service before the end of the year, but that its service will still include a Waymo employee in each car as a "chaperone."
A Waymo spokesperson said its cars are "continually learning" and that "safety remains its highest priority" during testing. The spokesperson also said that Waymo is using feedback from its early rider program to improve its technology, though it declined to comment specifically on the intersection complaints mentioned in The Information story. The company has previously said that it plans to launch a commercial self-driving taxi service before the end of the year, but that its service will still include a Waymo employee in each car as a "chaperone."
local are idiots and bad drivers... I recommend dropping few cops around there to teach em how to drive
Try driving conservatively here in NJ, NYC, or any major city and you'll be an obstacle to be run over. Self driving cars, to be successful, need to adapt to the drivers around them instead of being an outlier when it comes to driving habits.
Is this the same group of locals who were complaining yesterday, or is this a whole new group?
#DeleteChrome
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Thomas Watson, IBM
Self-driving vehicles are inevitably the future, should the human population of Earth continue as Alpha species, which seems quite likely.
Early technological setbacks are simply part of the evolution.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Ahh, Phoenix, the land of the Snowbird and the proud tradition of pulling out in front of people.
It's both a great and horrible place to test, because the drivers are so incredibly unpredictable. When I lived there, at least a few times a day I'd nearly hit somebody who would pull out onto a main street without looking. And that's when I was in a minivan. On my motorcycle, I was as good as invisible.
I doubt they're the worst drivers in the country, but they've gotta be close.
As a generally law-abiding driver who drives the speed limit, comes to full stops, waits until both lanes are clear before pulling into traffic because you never know when someone will switch lanes into the one you'd like to enter, etc, I identify with the Waymo. The vast majority of drivers seem to drive with contempt for the law and safety.
I constantly see people crossing solid lines near stop lights, changing lanes during turns, turning right on red when not in the outer lane, weaving through traffic, never leaving the 1 second per ten miles per hour gap to the cars in front of them, not using blinkers, driving while looking at their laps, passing cyclists as close as a couple of feet to them without slowing instead of giving them the rights of an equal vehicle, etc.
Just today I had somebody honk their horn at me when I pulled in front of them to get out of the way of a fire truck and ambulance in my lane. They were driving along as if nothing was happening, apparently in full ignorance that they were supposed to be slowing or pulling over and yielding to any other vehicles that need to move to allow the emergency vehicles by. They should have cameras on the emergency vehicles recording all blatant failures to yield and hold hearings to revoke their driving privileges. Lives are often at stake.
I've said for a while that we should require full instrumentation of every new vehicle with the same sensors as self-driving cars for a few years before we go full bore on the self-driving cars. During those years, we should both use that to collect all of the data and true, reliable statistics on how bad people really drive while evolving a system of full automatic enforcement of the traffic laws. After that, deployment of self-driving technology should be a cinch. Nobody will want to drive themselves if they have to do it legally. It is too boring.
My first accident was caused by it. I'm driving down a major thoroughfare (5 lanes, it's a small town) and I see someone trying to do a left from a stop sign start to just go. So I slow down. Bear in mind she's at a dead stop and I'm doing 45 on a major street. So she stops and I, thinking she sees me, speed back up to be about my way. She floors it and t-bones me.
Later when I asked her why she said she saw me slowing and thought I was going to stop. In the middle of the street. A 5 lane street.
Now, the girl was a ditz, it's true. But had I not slowed down she never would have gone.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I was in Tempe about 2 weeks ago and these things were all over the place. Twice i observed them driving erratically. One time it was trying to change lanes, but seemingly couldn't decide what to do. It moved halfway over, before reaching an intersection, then moved back over, applying the brakes unnecessarily, and then trying again. The first attempt it was wide open to make the move, the second one was a little dicey and i had to back off because i thought there was going to be an accident in front of me.
Scott
which shouldn't bother you one bit if you're paying attention and following with a 1 second gap per 10 mph as you should.
Could this lead to a new version of cow tipping?
Asking for a friend.
The phrase "Little old lady from Pasadena" was, after all, coined in L.A. to describe someone who basically drives like a self driving car. In Los Angeles you are either driving aggressively or you're parked. There is no moderate option. I spent about 40 years driving there and learned the basic rule is to always drive as fast as you can. That may be anywhere between 80 and 0 mph and it's subject to change at any moment. If you attempt to leave a "safe" interval between cars on a L.A. freeway you can be pretty sure someone will simply change lanes and pull into that space. And don't even think about Mexico City.
She just has to change her name to Carlos Danger. Problem solved!
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Put a learner plate on them till they know what they are doing, enforce learner speed limits and 0% alcohol
Go well
If you don't want to hit someone who stops suddenly, don't be so far up the persons ass that you nearly crash into them. Always keep a safe distance from the car in front.
Why the hell would you be so far up that cars ass that this would be an issue?
We can't have cars on the road that respect traffic laws or the world comes to an end.
One women said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn.
Zero sympathy for that. People may need to make a sudden stop for any number of reasons. If you hit them from behind, you are at fault. Every day on my commute I see people driving too close to the vehicle in front of them for the speed they're going. It is, quite literally, an accident waiting to happen.
As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.
If you hit the car ahead of you then YOU are at fault for not maintaining assured clear distance ahead. The car ahead of you panic stopping for any reason should not matter at all and the driver that will be and should be cited is the one with the crumpled front bumper. Maintain enough distance between you and the car ahead of you and it's not a problem no matter what they do.
They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly.
Except that humans panic stop routinely for all sorts of reasons not obvious the car behind. And again, the fault is with the idiot behind the car stopping for making unjustified assumptions about the future actions of the driver (or bot) ahead of them.
The humans have no problem in those cities.
Are you seriously arguing that humans never cause accidents in those cities? HAHAHAHAHAH..... Humans cause thousands of accidents DAILY in these cities, most of which are due to incompetent driving. One of the primary motivations for self driving cars is precisely because humans have proven that they are quite bad at driving safely. Over 40,000 fatalities in car accidents a year in the US alone last year.
There is only one possible way I can see self driving cars working, if we don't want to wait another decade for them. You need to eliminate all the non-self driving cars from the equation. And like most of you out there, that simply will not happen. I don't want to give up my right to drive myself. I'm guessing it's the same for many people out there. So how do we do this? Below is the only way I can see it happening.
First, you would need to establish a new "neighborhood", whether for commercial or residential, it would work either way. Designate the entire neighborhood as self driving cars only. Make it illegal to have a non-self driving car inside the designated area. Have a parking garage on the border for people to leave their non-self driving cars. If their can has a self driving feature, they can have it activated when they enter the designated "neighborhood", and deactivated when they leave the area.
You need to remove the human element from the equation in order for this to work properly. And the only way I can see that happening is by having an area where no human element was allowed to take hold in the first place. No amount of programming can account for the stupidity of people.
Like the old saying, make something foolproof, and the world will make a better fool.
Seeing one person out of ten thousand make a mistake, and then holding all people responsible for that mistake is bullshit. Seeing one Google self driving car make a mistake and holding all Google self driving cars responsible for that mistake is a reality of self driving.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Most of the problems I see with Google cars is an inability to anticipate, which is what has been called out from the beginning. They must be in a situation where everything is in their sensors to move forward and driving just doesn't work that way.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
These people didn't hit the cars. It's still annoying as hell when you have to slam on the breaks just to maintain that comfortable space.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Because if you are leaving space between you and another car, and that other car stops suddenly, you have to stop suddenly as well. If you don't stop suddenly, there isn't enough space any longer and some asshole like you comes along to blame you for the accident.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Safe distance is a nice academic idea which ignores the reality of driving on busy roads. Leave enough of a gap between yourself and the car in front and someone will cut in and fill it. And in fact while not as safe, close driving is far more efficient in terms of utilising road space in city enviroments.
Right but if you stop suddenly in front of someone you're an ASSHOLE.
Not if you stop for a good reason. Are you seriously going to argue that you've never once slowed or stopped your car because you were confused about the situation and wanted to be safe? (If you say yes you are a liar) If you are following too close to someone such that them stopping in front of you is a problem then YOU are the asshat, not them. If you are driving appropriately then a sudden stop isn't a serious problem. If they are confused then maybe consider trying to help or at least be understanding instead of going all third degree jackass.
It is entirely within Google's power to do better, they just don't want to.
??? You seriously think Google isn't trying to improve their vehicles? You think they are just driving and spending all that money for grins and giggles?
She almost hit the vehicle in front of her -- making her almost an unsafe driver. This is not grounds for her to complain.
Safe drivers allow sufficient stopping distance between themselves and the vehicle ahead. Doesn't matter why the vehicle ahead stops abruptly (driver had a stroke, software crashed, doesn't matter). The vehicle behind is always responsible for not hitting the vehicle ahead.
-kgj
Safe distance is a nice academic idea which ignores the reality of driving on busy roads.
Physics doesn't care about your social problems. If you cannot stop without hitting the car ahead of you then you were following too close. There is no debate to be had here. If you don't maintain an adequate gap then you are purposely taking a risk.
Leave enough of a gap between yourself and the car in front and someone will cut in and fill it.
Then you adjust your speed to allow the car to get ahead of you to a safe distance. If the cars behind you have a problem with you driving safely then they can change lanes and pass or simply slow down themselves and suck it up. It's not rocket surgery to figure this one out. And it is not relevant on single lane roads which account for the vast majority of roads anywhere. Believe it or not, not all driving occurs on multi-lane highways.
And in fact while not as safe, close driving is far more efficient in terms of utilising road space in city enviroments.
You don't get both. Safety and efficiency are not always complementary concepts. The choice to drive more dangerously is one you can make but then you don't get to bitch about the consequences when things go badly. If you want driverless cars to be safe then they are going to maintain assured clear distance just like you should. Your failure to maintain an adequate gap is not the fault of the car ahead of you.
Having to repeatedly stop, or even slow down, is incredibly frustrating even when there's no issue of safety.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph? The point of using a gap measured in seconds is that it gets longer the faster you're going. Increasing the distance by 1 second per 10mph results in absurd required following distances. At 80mph - a reasonable speed for Arizona freeways - that translates to a following distance of nearly a quarter mile. The state where I grew up recommended 2 seconds following distance, and the state I live in now recommends 3 seconds. Even the latter seems excessive and unnecessary.
"I didn't like how the self-driving car was obeying the law, so I broke driving laws to get away from it."
This is exactly how accidents happen - putting one's self above respect for others.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Driving predictably is safer.
Maintaining assured clear distance IS being predictable as well as assures that you cannot hit the car ahead of you no matter what dumb ass thing they do. Driving right up on someone's bumper on the other hand makes it impossible for you to react quickly enough to avoid an unexpected problem. Physics is unfortunately quite unforgiving in this matter.
If you drive 25mph in a 55mph zone because you insist on keeping a large space in front of your vehicle while everyone in a large line behind you leapfrogs in front, you will be dead or cited for impeding traffic.
I'm sure you would but that's not what actually happens outside of your strawman argument. To maintain assured clear distance you simply have to drive just slightly slower than the car ahead of you for a short period of time. 54mph for a few seconds when the guy ahead of you is going 55 is adequate to accomplish the task. Once you get an adequate gap then you resume traveling at a speed that matches the car ahead of you. Anyone who has actually driven a car knows this intuitively.
The crux of the problem is trying to intermingle human driven cars with self-driving cars. The two simply do not mix very well, and in my opinion, they probably shouldn't be mixing.
If we're going to do self-driving cars, we need to redesign everything around them, so they operate as efficiently as possible. This mingling of the two types of drivers is folly as we have repeatedly seen.
Also, where on earth are you getting 1 second gap per 10mph?
Standard drivers ed rule. It accounts for both the increase in stopping distance and the increase in reaction time that occurs with dangers further in front of you. If a driver in front of you is stopped instantly by hitting something fixed that you couldn't see around him to see or has a collision due to a vehicle running in front of him from the side that leaves debris at that point in the road, you have to stop before the point of impact. If they get sideswiped or have a flat or just slam on their brakes, yes, you generally have more time because their motion carries things forward more from the point of the occurrence. Rear ending an accident is your fault for not leaving enough room in almost all situations.
I have to imagine there are quite a few people who DO think this way - given how common it is to see people more interested in their phones than the road. If they're so damned interested in their phones, perhaps a car that can drive more safely than them is just what they need. I used to live in Chandler for almost 10 years, near one of the deadliest intersections in the state - you couldn't go a week without seeing broken glass or debris somewhere in the middle of it. Seeing things on the side of the road demolished because someone jumped the curb and smashed into a control box or whatever wasn't uncommon. More than once someone had done it and hit a water main or fire hydrant - flooding the intersection.
...and the list goes on.
Chandler was also one of the first towns that Alphabet started testing their vehicles in public. I've never once had any issues with the Waymos when they started driving here, I've actually felt they're generally safer than most people who drive around here. I can only guess that the people complaining about them are the ones who have next to no clue what "safe driving" means.
Small wonder that "locals are (reportedly) frustrated with Alphabet's Self Driving Cars" - they actually obey the rules of the road generally, unlike the people living here. Waymos ARE known for doing some insane things almost no one else here does:
Stopping at stop signs
Driving the speed limit
Driving the correct speed limit through school zones
Signalling before merging
Not attempting to merge when another car is already there
Doesn't accelerate to block someone signalling to merge over
Not weaving in and out of traffic to try and drive 2mph faster than everyone else
Stopping for late yellow lights
Stopping for red lights
Doesn't drink and drive
Stops for people in cross walks
Doesn't cut across 4 lanes of traffic because 'dude I totally forgot I had to turn there!'