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."

Comments

Try that in NJ...

[slasher999]

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.

Re:Try that in NJ...

[0100010001010011]

"I demand self driving cars violate the laws" How about you follow them?

Jack up insurance in NJ and NYC for "human driven cars" and drop it for autonomous vehicles, the problem will fix itself.

Re:Try that in NJ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on linking to 4 reports about people who don't know how to drive properly (most likely too busy paying attention to their phone, or following too close). You should ALWAYS be able to stop safely when the person in front of you stops fast.

The worst part is, Waymo cars are a fucking eyesore with all of their sensors all over. So either you have no clue what the vehicle is, in which case you should be like "what the fuck is that thing" and the vehicle should have your full attention, and you should be able to react quickly. Or else you DO know what it is, in which case you should be thinking "ok, I've heard all about these....proceed with caution". Either way there's absolutely no excuse for being surprised and rear ending it...the vehicle should have your full attention.

Re:Try that in NJ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you follow them?

Spoken like someone who has never driven a car in a major American city. Good luck with changing the behavior of millions after millions of drivers. Your fantasy world has 0% chance of ever happening, so self-driving cars are going to have to adapt to the ambient traffic patterns, just as humans do.

Re: Try that in NJ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunk drivers tend to crash into things, not have things crash into the back of them?

Re:Try that in NJ...

[thomst]

slasher999 observed:

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.

I'm sorry, but this story strongly activated my clickbait bullshit filter when I first read it - the original article, straight from The Information's website, I mean.

First off, nobody else is reporting this. Secondly, The Information appears to be a startup that's utterly desperate for visibility. Its website makes the proud boast that it doesn't accept advertising - but it does rather desperately plead for likes and reposts of its articles to social media. Thirdly (and most importantly), the complaints themselves all seem to be of the "darned pesky kids these days!" variety.

I mean, c'mon - the one neighbor whose complaint The Information actually quotes bitches about a Waymo car stopping suddenly while in the process of making a right turn, causing her to "almost run into it." Let's unpack that, shall we?

I'm a fairly aggressive driver. Nonetheless, on any number of occasions, I have stopped short in the process of turning right. Sometimes, it's because I don't trust pedestrians on the corner not to suddenly yield to the impulse to dart across the street before the "don't walk" sign comes on. Sometimes, it's because I've spotted a cat or a dog doing much the same thing - and a driver who's tailgating me would not be able to see the animal. And sometimes, it's because I'm exercising due caution regarding who has the right-of-way. Regardless of which is the case, anyone who's trying to crawl up my tailpipe because they lack patience, common sense, and impulse control is still obligated by law to maintain an assured clear following distance. That they choose not to do so is entirely their problem, not mine.

The fact that the driver they're tailgating is an AI doesn't alter that obligation ...

Re:Try that in NJ...

[David_Hart]

The first problem is that a vast majority of people on north american roads fail to follow the rules of the road (usually regarding following too closely, speeding and coming to a complete stop when required to).

The woman I read about in the article did not hit the car and thus was NOT following too closely. However, drivers who maintain space tend to want to continue maintaining space. Therefore it is still stressful when someone in front of you is jamming on the breaks for no reason.

The Second problem is that this new technology is expected to work with out bugs from the get go

Don't expect humans to automatically embrace these 'bugs'. Many people have spend years working on learning to drive around human drivers. Don't throw robot drivers into the mix and just expect humans to catch on to their unpredictable nature. It is the robot drivers that are clearly in the wrong because they are changing the equation.

Basically, you have to treat automated cars like like a student driver vehicle. You never know what they are going to do. Today, these cars are identifiable due to the external cameras, etc. used as part of the testing. However, when these vehicles go I live I suggest that they have specific warning lights and markings on the cars so that human drivers can easily identify them for at least the first couple of generations.

Re:Growing pains

[green1]

I don't think there's any doubt that self driving vehicles are the future. The issue is that it's become abundantly clear that they are not the present.

People seem to think that self driving cars are almost here, only a couple of years out. The truth is that they are way further away than people want to believe. Driving is not an easy problem to solve, there are just too many edge cases. I am very much looking forward to self driving cars, and I really hope we manage to get there within the next 30 years or so when I expect I won't be able to drive myself any more. But realistically I think that 20-30 years is far more likely than 2-3.

And I'm frustrated with them too

[RhettLivingston]

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.

Re:And I'm frustrated with them too

[jittles]

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,

Where the hell do you live that this is even an option? You must cause all kinds of ire. Look buddy. It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it. You are probably causing all kinds of road rage. Where I live you would likely sit at that intersection for 30-40 minutes before you ever got a chance to turn unless you were stopped at a red light, and not an intersection where you have a stop sign and they do not.

. The vast majority of drivers seem to drive with contempt for the law and safety.

Do you ever drive slower than the speed of traffic in the left hand lane? Because that's also against the law and studies have shown that people who do that are more dangerous than people who speed.

I constantly see people ... weaving through traffic

Probably because people are illegally blocking traffic by driving slower than those around them in the left hand lanes. I usually drive to work in the far right hand lane because it's wide open while the left hand lane and carpool lanes often have cars going lower than the speed limit.

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.

We really ought to be more restrictive about who drives in the US. It's much harder to get a license in Germany. People obey the laws regarding rights of way, driving in the correct lane for their speed, etc. And they have a lot fewer accidents in Germany even though many sections of autobahns have few, if any, restrictions on speed. They typically only limit speeds in populated areas and where major roads come together.

Re:And I'm frustrated with them too

[mysidia]

It's illegal to change lanes in an intersection. If your lane is clear, you can turn into that lane safely because no one should be entering into it.

In most states it is legal to change lanes in an intersection, unless its a crossroads with solid lines between each lane. If you turn suddenly in front of a vehicle changing lanes, that is one of rare situations where you can be found at fault, since you made an illegal turn in front of a vehicle -- even if the collision is you getting a rear-end collision..

Re:And I'm frustrated with them too

[terrycarlino]

A quick search online seems to indicate that in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions it is not legal to change lanes in an intersection. California is often cited as a place where it is not illegal. I can tell you that in my state (Virginia) it is definitely illegal.

Too much caution is dangerous

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:Too much caution is dangerous

[RhettLivingston]

Regardless, the accident was clearly her fault. People who are compromised in any way (including simple driving incompetance) will hopefully be amongst the first to decide that self-driving vehicles are for them.

I was taught to never pull out when it isn't my right-of-way and isn't clear - even if someone stops and waves you out. There are people in the world who will wave you out and then floor it to hit you as an insurance scam. Hopefully, self-driving vehicles aren't being taught to take the statistically stupid chances that humans take.

The best defensive thing to do in your case may have been to switch lanes to give yourself more room to react to a possible bad actor.

Re:Growing pains

[rmdingler]

Since self-driving delivery trucking is clearly, on the order of crystal, more profitable for your online-goods-provider-overlord, perhaps it comes down to insurability. Once your automotive insurance companies collectively determine it is in their actuarial interest to back nonhuman automobile pilots, the lobbying effort will be insurmountable.

give the technology about 10 more years

[schematix]

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.

Re:Growing pains

[RhettLivingston]

Self-driving vehicles operating in a Transportation as a Service (TaaS) scenario will be the mass transit solution in America - both for commercial and personal transportation. TaaS will provide many of the benefits of traditional mass transit, including not having to own vehicles, while not requiring us to completely rebuild virtually every city in our nation in the zoning patterns and concentrations required to support traditional mass transportation.

Self-driving TaaS will cause overall transportation costs to plummet because vehicles can be designed to last over 500K miles on average, are owned by the manufacturer to provide the incentive to do so, maintenance becomes centralized and performed by the manufacturer in the depots, energy can be generated by depot-owned solar fields, insurance is self-provided by the manufacturer, etc.

There is no reason to make 500K mile cars to be driven 12500 miles a year on average. 40 years is too long for a car to last for many reasons. But a car being operated in a system that picks someone up immediately after dropping someone off and runs 24/7 could go through 500K miles in just a few years.

Could this lead to

[Blinkin1200]

Could this lead to a new version of cow tipping?

Asking for a friend.

Re:Growing pains

[green1]

Except, as we keep seeing, no insurance company will take that bet in any near future imaginable. Not until we know these cars can handle the most basic of driving tasks like rain and snow, construction zones, cops directing traffic, etc. Not a single one of which can be even remotely handled by any existing system. I do think we'll get there, but it is still a long way off.

Insurance companies are extremely risk adverse. Until self driving cars are proven safer in all conditions and over millions and millions of miles, the insurance for them is likely to be far higher than the insurance for me. And so far, this is simply not the case. Humans may be horrible drivers, but we're still way better than any autonomous system out there, and it's by orders of magnitude.

Don't expect them to work well in L.A.

[jcbarlow]

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.

Re:Growing pains

[terrycarlino]

Self driving cars don't need to be better or even as good as all drivers. They just need to be better than 50% of drivers. Considering how bad most people drive that isn't that high a bar.

Most of the time in really averse weather conditions the first thing that local government does is tell people not to drive. Most of the time people ignore this and end up in the ditch, stalled out in a puddle, or even washed away in a flood. You're right. Self driving cars won't handle that. People don't handle that well, they just think they do and shouldn't actually be out on the road.

If you don't want to hit someone turning right....

[johnsie]

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.

Re:Growing pains

[johnsie]

Thanks for travelling from the future in your time machine to report that.

Indeed

[nospam007]

We can't have cars on the road that respect traffic laws or the world comes to an end.

Re:Indeed

[fluffernutter]

Waiting for a break in traffic where most people could have gone three times over is not 'following traffic laws'. Stopping suddenly when there is no visible reason is not 'following traffic laws'.

Re:Indeed

[Green Mountain Bot]

Cars need to be able to handle how traffic actually works, not how it's supposed to work on paper.

Assured clear distance

[sjbe]

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.

I only see this working one way!

[SGDarkKnight]

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.

Yes it is very simple

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Its not quite that simple.

[q_e_t]

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.

So your argument is that because other drivers drive badly everyone should drive badly?

close driving is far more efficient in terms of utilising road space in city enviroments.

SDCs should be able to platoon more safely than human drivers.

Re:in other news

[MoralCharacter]

It's fair to say that's a great understatement. Arizona is the top state in terms of pedestrian deaths (read: jaywalkers) - it's a pretty big issue here. I can't go anywhere without seeing at least a few of them - usually somewhere like University or Dobson. Sometimes they don't even bother to run and just look at you like "what are you gonna do about it buddy?" (answer: most would hit you, because they're to busy texting to see you)

Not EVERYONE here is so bad - but there is by no means a small number of people who lack any regard for road safety. When someone says a Waymo is going "slow" - keep in mind they almost always mean "it was going the legal speed limit". I do the legal speed limit - 45mph. That's not fast enough for many people - so they try to tailgate, and then dramatically swerve into another lane so they can speed off at what they think is appropriate - usually 55mph or so. They won't even slow down for school zones. They don't even slow down for school zones with a camera - hang out around Baseline, there's a camera there that must have made a fortune by now - it's always flashing at someone who isn't going "slow".
I've had to learn to be a very observant, and pro-active driver while living here. They'll tailgate, swerve, try to merge into you, stomp on their brakes because they weren't watching the car in front - or swerve out because they can't be bothered to wait on someone to make a right turn... Of course, there's never any signals, no one ever honks their horn, and no matter what - it's always your fault for inconveniencing them. I've seen these things happen elsewhere sure - but Arizonans are notable for the frequency that they do it. Oh yeah, and were pretty high up their for DUIs and DUI related deaths before they started the whole DUI internment camp out in the desert. Arizona dropped near the bottom of the top ten last I looked.