Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Records First-Ever Accident In Self-Driving Car Program (appleinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-of-its-kind dept.

Apple's self-driving car program has reported its first-ever accident, according to a filing to the state's DMV. No injuries were reported. AppleInsider reports: A test car was rear-ended by a Nissan Leaf while merging onto an expressway, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said on Twitter. The Apple vehicle suffered "moderate" damage. Details are still forthcoming, so it's unclear if the fault was with the Nissan driver, Apple's hardware and software, or some combination of the two. In an update, AppleInsider provided the following information: "The Apple vehicle, a Lexus SUV, was merging onto the Lawrence Expressway in California's Bay Area on Aug. 24, Gurman later wrote, citing a filing by Apple's Steve Kenner with the Department of Motor Vehicles. The Leaf was moving at just 15 miles per hour, but was also damaged."

74 comments

  1. Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you rear end someone it means you were following too closely and could not manage your speed appropriately.

    1. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      The Leaf was only driving 15 mph. Sounds like the driver was looking somewhere besides what was right right in front of him (like maybe over his shoulder at oncoming traffic from up the way) and didn't notice the Apple vehicle had slowed down/stopped while waiting for an opening to merge.

    2. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      Apple’s car was traveling at less than 1 mile per hour, while the car that rear-ended it, a Nissan Leaf, was moving at about 15 miles per hour

      Merging on Lawrence Expy at 1 mph ??? Either it was congested and the other car driver was distracted, or the Apple car was doing something really dangerous ... the other car braked and ended up crashing at 15 mph (down from ?).

    3. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and its driver could not manage its speed appropriately.

    4. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That is correct -- at least in general.

      However it seems likely that we will see more accidents where a self driving car is rear ended by a non-self driving car (after factoring out the increased number of non-self driving cars that have some form of collision avoidance built into them). Self driving cars are just going to behave differently than human piloted ones - esp. with respect to detecting a hazard that actually doesn't exist and braking unexpectedly. This, in fact, is apparently somewhat why the Uber self-driving car that killed the jaywalking pedestrian had it's "sensitivity" to objects dialed down -- when it was turned up, it resulted in a jerky ride as the car reacted to stuff that wasn't a problem at all.

      If someone jams their brakes on for no reason on a freeway traveling at the speed limit, they may actually be at fault in a civil suit for the massive pileup that may result. This is called brake checking and is unsafe practice.

      I'm guessing, knowing these merge lanes on Lawrence, that the Lexus appeared to the driver behind to have identified "its slot" and appeared to be taking that slot. At that point, the following driver probably began to devote more attention to identifying a slot they were going to squeeze into instead of to the Lexus because they were under the impression that the Lexus would continue its merge in a "human expected" fashion but the Lexus got "nervous" and aborted the merge and stopped -- but the driver behind was looking over to his left, not straight ahead. The driver in the back is, of course, at fault.

      There's an added twist on a good portion of Lawrence -- the RIGHT lane is a car pool lane and that's what you merge into. If you're not a carpool, you have a fairly limited opportunity to get over one lane before you're subject to an expensive moving violation. During moderate rush hour it can be hard to get over in time. This motivates the person doing the merge to consider additional factors which is an additional distraction.

      I think the merge problem in moderately heavy rush hour traffic will, in general, be an Achilles' heel for self driving cars. There's actually few opportunities to "safely" (applying the law of physics, the requirement not to interfere with a car which has the right of way on the main road, and the need for self-driving cars to be risk adverse for PR and legal reasons) merge -- there simply are no slots available to "safely" (leaving required distance in front and behind the cars that the self driving car merges between) because cars are already traveling "too close" to each other and certainly not over twice the safe distance from each other for the speed they are traveling. This is likely to result in the first self driving car on each entrance as rush hour picks up simply stopping at the end of the merge lane (making it, of course, even harder to eventually merge) and sitting there until rush hour is over and traffic is light enough to allow it to come from a dead stop to a safe merge with no merge lane left for acceleration. Of course, there is a servo effect here -- once every entrance has ten or so self driving cars blocking it, traffic will lighten up and they will slowly trickle onto the freeway -- but the service streets will be a mess and a trip that would have taken one hour might take three hours.

    5. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In *most*, not all, circumstances. A situation in which the lead car does not indicate that it is slowing/stopping (failed brake lights + no hand signal, for example) can be an issue in which the following car would not necessarily be wholly at fault.

      Of course, there's also the trivial case of cutting someone off and slamming on the brakes, a not-uncommon form of insurance fraud in some locales.

    6. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. This is a common belief that is not true. Go on YouTube and look at all the folks brake checking or playing chicken with trucks. Police still do accident investigations for rear end collisions to determine who is at fault.

    7. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing it was one of those awful Sunnyvale intersections like Kifer eastbound or Central/Enochs eastbound, where you're lucky to be moving 1 MPH during certain times of day. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    8. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not always. In the UK there is a big problem with "crash for cash" which tries to capitalise on that the Amy of thinking, where fraudsters will overtake you, pull back in much too close and then slam their brakes on immediately, giving you no chance to avoid them. The fraudsters will then claim for all sorts of medical, psychological and other compensations from you.

      The rise of dash cams is slowly bringing them under control.

      Similarly here - we need to full details before we can be sure who is to blame, but a car merging into moving traffic might bear some responsibility, especially if the traffic they are merging into is moving significantly faster than they are...

      We shall see what the outcome of the investigation is.

    9. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The human is obviously at fault. Software is written to follow the letter of the law.

    10. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      iOS autocorrect strikes again - I have no idea what's Amy's way of thinking is, but I do know the fraudsters are trying to capitalise on that *way* of thinking...

    11. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. It's a simple matter to suddenly cut in front of a vehicle, leaving them too little room to stop.
      Also, when merging into traffic you're supposed to match speed before entering the traffic flow.

    12. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Traffic isn't that bad until you have to drive in reverse.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    13. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by sodul · · Score: 1

      Blaming my Apple twice, eh?

    14. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not always. In the UK there is a big problem with "crash for cash" which tries to capitalise on that the Amy of thinking, where fraudsters will overtake you, pull back in much too close and then slam their brakes on immediately,

      They have that everywhere. The poorer the citizenry, the more there is, but it's a problem every place. If you don't have a dash cam (as you say later) then you're screwed. It's hard to prove that someone did that stuff on purpose otherwise.

      giving you no chance to avoid them.

      Unless they have a vehicle with a shorter stopping distance than you do, you had a chance to avoid them — start braking as soon as they come over. Which is what you do if you're driving defensively, to maintain a safe distance.

      Still, having a camera is a great idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's not impossible that it's Apple car's fault....
      If the Apple car is driving fast, over take and cut in front of the leaf and immediately execute an emergency brake, then it could be the Apple Car's fault.... but that's obviously unlikely to be what happened.

      I actually seen someone did it before.... after an argument .... but that was before in car cameras became common. Have to be really dumb for someone to do that these days.

    16. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you! It's MY Apple.

    17. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's MINE!

    18. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Duds · · Score: 1

      That is not universally true by any means.

      Most notably a case a friend of mine had when they were slowing down for a queue and someone changed lanes and immediately stood on the brakes.

      In the pre-dash cam era the case took 18 months to win but he won it.

    19. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you rear end someone it means you were following too closely and could not manage your speed appropriately.

      You're making a lot of assumptions. Sometimes you're just a completely distracted and useless git.

      I got rear ended at a bridge opening once. I was at a red light. Car was standing behind me. I saw the bridge opening, the instructions are clear: turn your motor off, you're going to be there for 20min.

      So I took my foot off the break, and put on the handbreak and switched my car off and got rear-ended.

      The guy behind me tapping away on his phone just saw the red lights on my car turn off and assumed the traffic was moving and drove right into me.

    20. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone jams their brakes on for no reason on a freeway traveling at the speed limit, they may actually be at fault in a civil suit for the massive pileup that may result. This is called brake checking and is unsafe practice.

      Yes, people doing stupid things like very abrupt braking may get punished. That still don't give you a right to rear-end them, and you will usually get punished too. You must always be ready for the guy in front braking - because you never know when he have good reason to do so. There may be nothing on the road, but if the driver gets ill and is about to faint - of course he jams the brakes on.

      And then there are cars stopping without braking - such as engine failure. You can't ever blindly assume that the car in front will maintain speed. Automatic cars may drive like grannies in order to avoid accident. You can't claim that as a problem - there are actual grannies out there too.

    21. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      At least your iOS quotation marks worked.

    22. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Well it's not impossible that it's Apple car's fault...."

      It's apple's fault because the safety driver did not take over when the AI was obviously not able to merge with the traffic in a competent fashion. This kind of problem happens with all companies, also during left turns, in both instances the complexity of what humans do when negotiating these situations is way beyond the scope of what these AI systems can now accomplish.

    23. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well it's not impossible that it's Apple car's fault...."

      It's apple's fault because the safety driver did not take over when the AI was obviously not able to merge with the traffic in a competent fashion.

      So it's Apple's fault that the security driver didn't ram the Apple car into the other cars that wouldn't let it merge. Yeah, you make sense.

    24. Re:Other driver obviously at fault by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      One website had a few videos. First one of a woman jumping from behind a tree onto the street, right in front of a car, but estimating the jump wrong and getting badly hurt. One was a car overtaking a truck, braking hard but not managing to cause a crash, going on the fast line and falling back, overtaking again and repeating the manouvre. With everything caught on the truck's dash cam.

    25. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "So it's Apple's fault that the security driver didn't ram the Apple car into the other cars that wouldn't let it merge. Yeah, you make sense."

      I don't know the specifics of what happened so yeah.

      But at the level 'autonomous' cars are today I think it's fair to always at least partially blame corporations when they permit their cars to enter situations that are beyond their car's AI's capabilities.

    26. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the idea is more than if someone going only 15 mph rear-ended them, it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation if it got rear-ended while stopped at a red light? Assuming a self-driving car must be partially to blame if struck by someone driving incorrectly is faulty logic. All that said, I have "rear-ended" a car before when I was stopped at a red light, and the car in front of me decided it wanted to back up to go another way without checking if another car was behind it. Unlikely to be what happened here, though.

    27. Re: Other driver obviously at fault by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is more than if someone going only 15 mph rear-ended them, it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation if it got rear-ended while stopped at a red light? Assuming a self-driving car must be partially to blame if struck by someone driving incorrectly is faulty logic. All that said, I have "rear-ended" a car before when I was stopped at a red light, and the car in front of me decided it wanted to back up to go another way without checking if another car was behind it. Unlikely to be what happened here, though.

      "it was likely a situation beyond anyone's capabilities except for the person that rear-ended them. Would you also blame the self-driving car's corporation"

      These companies have special permissions to be on the road, they have rules to follow above and beyond what your average driver has to. They have contractual obligations to not interfere in any way with the safety and operation of the public transport system, which includes the obligation to not test any system that would put anyone at a higher risk of injury.

      That said, these companies, considering the state of the technology, should not under any circumstances let their cars merge or make left turns unless the safety driver has taken over the operation of the car, if not they should at minimum be fined, and if involved in an accident they should also as an extra deterrent be held at least partially responsible for damages, which would not preclude any other vehicle involved in the accident from being fined if they bore some or even all of the blame.

  2. I blame iTunes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    It was probably updating when the crash occurred.

  3. Death was no accident for *BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went out to *BSD's grave on Decoration Day. The old forgotten cemetery is to be found adjacent to the dark woods beyond the edge of town. There within olfactory distance of the municipal treatment plant you will find *BSD's final resting place.

    *BSD's tombstone was shrouded by thick mosses and knots of noxious ivy. A mournful funerary crow sounded the requiem, as I gently pulled aside the tangled twists of thorns, and cleaned the decaying marker the best I could. A suffocating melancholia filled my heart, while I pondered that this indeed was *BSD's figurative charnel house of which so many have plaintively spoken.

    Nothing is so pitiful as an untended grave, a loved one now forgotten. The short sad life of this doomed and fated OS makes us realize that there but for the grace of God go all of us.

    I planted some wilting marigolds, found discarded in the waste heap behind the caretaker's shack, wishing that by some miracle these fleurs de mort might take root and bring a modicum of cheer to *BSD's God forsaken plot. My fervent hope is that the torpid colored boy, who so carelessly mows the grounds, doesn't slice them down, inadvertently mirroring *BSD's own doomed encounter with death's irresistible scythe.

    Funny how things work out. Linux, that brilliant novam stellam, now runs the Internet and the world's fastest computers, while *BSD lies moldering within its forgotten crypt. Let the barren silence of *BSD's tomb be a mute reminder that hubris and braggadocio were no defense on that woeful day when the Angel of Death's bleak umbra was cast upon *BSD.

  4. Sounds kind of hilarious by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The thought of a Leaf damaging anything, at any speed (much less 15 MPH), kind of makes me laugh.

    They must quantify "moderate" damage by cost, it was probably over $10 to re-paint the bumper on the Apple Lexus SUV.

    That said even though rear-endings are normally the fault of the follower, I have to wonder if the Apple self driving car did not do something super un-expected...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sounds kind of hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having driven on Lawrence Expy more than I care to admit, I can tell you "Everyone" driving there does something unexpected. I'm betting the Leaf was trying to prevent the Lexus from being able to merge. There are more than a few jerks on that road.

    2. Re:Sounds kind of hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repainting a bumper with a small smudge, even on a Ford, is a good $800.

    3. Re:Sounds kind of hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for an apple car thats about $6000.

  5. Re:Apple will blame it on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats what happens when you let siri drive.

  6. Prediction: Applefans will defend the car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Including the next time Apple kills somebody with one. They can't help themselves, it's a sickness and would only be sad that it couldn't be them that gave their lives for Apple.

    1. Re:Prediction: Applefans will defend the car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was rear ended. Human or machine, you canâ(TM)t stop idiots from driving into the back of your car.

    2. Re:Prediction: Applefans will defend the car.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waste your fingers, you're replying to fandroid troll.

    3. Re:Prediction: Applefans will defend the car.. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Including the next time Apple kills somebody with one.

      While we’re on the topic of loaded phrasing with no basis in reality, when exactly did you decide to stop beating your wife?

  7. Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    Sometimes human drivers are just responsible.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Sometimes.. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Sometimes human drivers are just responsible.

      Well you'd think so, considering they're driving. I suppose there can be a few mechanical faults where they're not, but otherwise duuuuh.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No that's not true. If the robot car was doing something that a human never would have, I blame the robot car; because technology companies should be striving to make them act human so that other humans don't get confused. But unless the robot car was doing something unusual in this case, it is truly the human's fault.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    3. Re:Sometimes.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No that's not true. If the robot car was doing something that a human never would have, I blame the robot car; because technology companies should be striving to make them act human so that other humans don't get confused.

      Name something that a robot car might do in traffic that a human would never do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Slam on the brakes erratically for no reason. Which is why they turned down the sensors on the car they used to murder that pedestrian woman.

      Fucking shill boi idiot.

    5. Re:Sometimes.. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sometimes human drivers are just responsible.

      That's rarely the case. I tend to find human drivers mostly irresponsible.

    6. Re: Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      That, or get confused about what lane it is in and merge in front of a bus going faster than it, as a Waymo car did last year.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    7. Re: Sometimes.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Name something that a robot car might do in traffic that a human would never do.

      Slam on the brakes erratically for no reason.

      It wasn't for no reason, computers don't do things for no reason. It may have been a bad reason, but guess what? Human drivers do that shit all the time. So again, name something that a robot car might do in traffic that a human would never do. You haven't achieved it so far.

      Which is why they turned down the sensors on the car they used to murder that pedestrian woman.

      They didn't "turn down the sensors", they turned down the reactiveness. The vehicle's sensors saw the woman who stepped out in front of the vehicle in dark clothing at night in between crosswalks. Which, by the way, made it not murder. It made it the pedestrian's fault, which is what it was.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auto brakes on luxury SUVS do grab the brakes hard for no good reason. Mine has panicked in a turn over slowing traffic in the right lane twice. It has also had a panic over a mylar balloon blowing down the road. Robot cars certainly stop for no good reason

    9. Re: Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      If a hundred humans wouldn't have slammed on the breaks in the same situation, then it is safe to say that the reason the robot car is doing it for is not valid.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible, given your use of never. However, they can certainly do things humans only do rarely, and are therefore unexpected. Say, starting to go to merge after a car goes by, and then stopping, even though the lane is clear to the rear. Most human drivers following won’t be expecting the front car to stop when it’s clear to merge, and my be checking over their shoulder for traffic themselves, and will not see in time that the lead car has stopped.

    11. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh. Slam on the brakes erratically for no reason.

      Fucking shill boi idiot.

      He asked for something "that a robot car might do in traffic that a human would never do" - you answered with something that humans constantly do. Thanks for signing your post.

    12. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a hundred humans wouldn't have slammed on the breaks in the same situation, then it is safe to say that the reason the robot car is doing it for is not valid.

      Of course you don't have any evidence that robot car actually "slammed on the breaks". You are just doubling down on your bullshit theory, because you are the fluffernutter.

    13. Re: Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 0

      Except this is what is being reported by actual real people. You may wish to listen to what the robots say, but I still respect the testimony of human beings.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re: Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Again.. it depends on what 100 humans would do in the same situation. You can't say humans would have done the same thing without testing it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that human perception and memory are incredibly unreliable, I have learned not to respect the testimony of humans.

      Maybe the witness reports are accurate, but equally they might not have been paying attention and their brain just filled in what it thought happened.

    16. Re: Sometimes.. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Oh brother, yes people are idiots. It's a wonder we get rockets into the air, or perform successful surgeries.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    17. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again.. it depends on what 100 humans would do in the same situation. You can't say humans would have done the same thing without testing it.

      100 out of 100, or 100 out of all drivers? And why would you have to test them before you even give the benefit of the doubt to the car that was rear ended? Stop pretending you aren't desperately trying to blame Apple for your stupidity, nutty fluffer.

    18. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other actual people report that you deliberately rammed the Apple car with your tricicle because you hate Apple.

    19. Re: Sometimes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is what is being reported by actual real people.

      Cite them, asshole. Or finally admit you're a liar.

    20. Re: Sometimes.. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Duh. Slam on the brakes erratically for no reason.

      I see human-driven cars do this regularly. Frequently the actual reason is they're turning, but they didn't bother to put on their signal, or not until long after they'd hit the brakes.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  8. Can you open the hood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Apple vehicle, a Lexus SUV...

    And the hood is welded shut, right?

    At least if we believe all the posts by the Apple haterz.

    1. Re:Can you open the hood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, Apple should partner with Roles Royce. They're famous for having the radiator cap and oil cap accessible from outside of the hood, precisely because they don't want the owner accessing the engine compartment.

  9. Re:Apple will blame it on the road by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

    See, Apple astromods are already on the job.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  10. apple fanbois unite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get your excuses ready.

    1. Re: apple fanbois unite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty narrow minded. It's not just Android users that hate apple.

  11. Merging on the highway ... 15 mph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a fucking terrible place to drive.

    No thanks.

  12. Expressway by dkman · · Score: 1

    Nothing says merging onto the expressway like "going 15 mph"

    --
    I refuse to sign
    1. Re:Expressway by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that. The Apple car was probably merging at 1mph while the guy behind sped up to 15mph to fill a gap in the next lane over, but mistimed it. That part of Lawrence Expressway is like a huge parking lot during 'peak hour(s)' which lasts for a good half of the day, morning and evening.

  13. Come on, this is clickbait. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 0

    How is the Apple car supposed to protect from being rear-ended?

    It's always the person in back's fault in a rear end collision. ALWAYS. Even if the front driver is being a dick. It sucks, but that's how the law works: Did the car stop suddenly? Then you were following too closely. The the lead car hit another car an stop short, making you hit them? Then you were following too closely. Did the axle fall off the lead car and then you hit it? Then you were following too closely.

    At best, Apple could only be at fault for a small percentage of the accident IF their car was doing weird things like stopping in an odd fashion or the brake lights were not working. But in a merging situation at around 15 mph, stopping suddenly would be expected.

    1. Re:Come on, this is clickbait. by mlyle · · Score: 2

      > It's always the person in back's fault in a rear end collision. ALWAYS.

      Not necessarily in a merge. I agree it's probably the human driver's fault, but if you dive in front of someone it is not necessarily physically possible for them to stop.

    2. Re:Come on, this is clickbait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. You're also supposed to drive with a certain distance between you and the car in front of you - so that you have appropriate time to brake if the person in front brakes suddenly. The problem is, if you leave adequate room for this at high speeds, in heavy traffic many vehicles will use that "braking buffer" to merge between you and the person in front of you, so that you now have three cars at high speeds with only a foot or two between them. At this point, anyone slamming the brakes will result in an accident. Of course, this only applies to the argument of if rear-ends are always the rear car's faults. At speeds of 15mph, anyone should be able to stop swiftly enough that I think there's good reason to suspect the rear-driving car was to blame in this scenario.

  14. Apples fault? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet Apples car suddenly stopped causing the accident. Perhaps the safety driver slammed the brakes? We humans expect a certain "flow" in traffic, the jerkiness of AI cars is a real problem in those cases.