HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Google To Release Monthly Data On Self-Driving Car Accidents
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Good idea, have a site that shows how bad other drivers are lol.
Google has video cameras mounted in all directions on these vehicles (it's part of how they drive). I've heard an Unsubstantiated rumor that in all of the accidents involving another human driver, you can clearly see them looking at their cell phones just prior to impact. That may be the most plausible rumor I've ever heard.
The first monthly report, which includes all of the previous dozen or so accident reports that you heard about last month, is interesting reading. They close showing a near-accident involving two bicyclists that a human almost certainly would not have been able to avoid.
The first monthly report, which includes all of the previous dozen or so accident reports that you heard about last month, is interesting reading. They close showing a near-accident involving two bicyclists that a human almost certainly would not have been able to avoid.
Most people don't know that not only are these vehicles not allowed on busy freeways/highways, but all of the driving is done in light-traffic areas where the speed limit maxes out @ 35MPH, or so (unless a human behind a duplicate set of controls is in the car and ready to take over.) Most people also think, erroneously, that self-driving cars are "good drivers," based on the very partial and misleading PR that Google generates on the subject. Great PR for Google--but not newsworthy in the slightest...
What concerns me: does the Google self-driving car "know" that another car is behind it when it puts on brakes?
What concerns me: does the Google self-driving car "know" that another car is behind it when it puts on brakes?Note that in the near-accident example at the end of the report, it was accurately calculating the speed, direction and acceleration of two bicycles on two sides of the car in real time in the dark. Given this ability, would you expect them to have forgotten to put cameras pointing to the rear, and to have forgotten that calculating the speed and acceleration/deceleration of the following car would be useful information?
In cases where the self-driving car must apply more force than usual to the brakes to avoid hitting something in front of it, what alternatives to this action do you think are likely to be available that also prevent being struck from behind?
How exactly do you believe the self-driving car could behave worse than a human driver in these conditions? The self-driving car, unlike humans, will never point its video cameras at a cellphone instead of the road to update its Facebook page.
Grahamkracka
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,052
I'm sure it does. But what the fuck does that matter? It's up to the following drive to pay attention. There is no excuse in a 35 mph zone.
And that's the problem.
The self driving car (or one of the newer cars with automatic braking) can react faster than a person. That means it can stop faster than a person can That doesn't help you avoid an accident if the person in the car behind you doesn't react fast enough or is driving to closely behind you.
Whenever I have to make a quick stop in traffic, I'm always worried that the person behind me won't stop in time. I've been rear ended a couple times over the years.
Had an accident on the freeway a few years ago, traffic suddenly stopped, I barely managed to stop, but the guy behind me (in a mid size SUV) didn't. Even though I had my brakes on, hit me hard enough to push me into the car in front of me. At least it was obvious who was at fault, due to the damage to the significant to the back of my car, and just a bent license plate in the front.
Why does that matter?
Option A: Hit object in front of you and you're at fault.
Option B: Don't hit object in front of you, and maybe a jerkoff that can't drive will rear end you and they are at fault.
Option B sounds like an obviously better choice.
Ideally what I'd like to see are driving tests that are so difficult, and driver's licenses as easily revoked, as to put them on par with pilot's licenses. That way the enthusiasts will still be allowed to drive their own vehicles by themselves, and they will be just as good or better than the 'autopilot', but you'd get all of the retards off the road.
Seriously, at least 1/3rd of drivers in the US (including illegals) should not be driving. Period.
NOTHING will stop the following car from rear-ending the car in front of it if its human driver is following too closely or not paying attention when the car needs to brake. This does not change whether the car being rear-ended has a human or computer driver, so you have no point here.
Furthermore, you seem to have some harebrained idea that the self driving car can only slam on its brakes at full power. This is most certainly not the case; it can and does calculate the minimum amount of braking necessary to stop before striking whatever it is approaching. We know this because if it didn't, it would be an unbearably rough ride in non-emergency situations.
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
While it is good to question things, making assumptions that the cars are "bad" when everything points to them being better than the average drivers, it just trying to make an issue where there is not one. There are cameras EVERYWHERE on these cars, and that video goes to the report on who is at fault. The only cases where the Google car was at fault was when it was in manual mode and a person was driving it. In all the other cases when in auto, the car was rear ended. And in almost all of those cases the car was already stopped, not coming to a stop, so the assumption of the car applying brakes to hard is a bad one.
I have seen news reports that try to hate as much as they can on these things, even headlines reading "Google self driving car causes crash", when if you research that crash, it was in manual mode and a person was driving. That is not to say they will never cause a crash of some sort etc, however, with the miles they have driven, and the at fault rate, they are doing pretty damn well compared to normal drivers.
I have seen news reports that try to hate as much as they can on these things, even headlines reading "Google self driving car causes crash", when if you research that crash, it was in manual mode and a person was driving. That is not to say they will never cause a crash of some sort etc, however, with the miles they have driven, and the at fault rate, they are doing pretty damn well compared to normal drivers.
That was my point. As long as there are idiot drivers not paying attention, it doesn't mater how good your self driving car is, you will still end up in the occasional accident. Only when everyone is in a self driving car, will most of these accident be eliminated.
Of course a self driving car will be programed to brake the car like a normal driver.
I was referring to braking during an emergency stop.
And that is likely what will happen once self driving cars become common and reasonably affordable.
My guess is that they will turn carpool lanes into self driving car lanes, and eventually non self driving cars will be banned from many freeways/highways. Eventually the only place you will be able to drive your own car is on back roads or private property.
Hopefully I'll be too old to care about driving my own car by then
Grahamkracka
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
- Messages
- 1,052
And that is likely what will happen once self driving cars become common and reasonably affordable.
My guess is that they will turn carpool lanes into self driving car lanes, and eventually non self driving cars will be banned from many freeways/highways. Eventually the only place you will be able to drive your own car is on back roads or private property.
Hopefully I'll be too old to care about driving my own car by then
I can't wait to not have to drive. I fucking hate driving. Riding my motorcycle on the other hand...
michaelvvang
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
- Messages
- 79
Obviously if they wanted to release data, then it is data that would benefit them.
Maybe being a machine it was comfortable with an abrupt stop because of a potential obstruction instead of a swerve or lane change. Most people would swerve or lane change than break aggressively and send their stuff and themselves lurching forward. Or the person was able to anticipate the potential obstruction was a non-issue and expected the driver ahead to do the same.
Example a jogger coming up to an intersection at a fast clip, but by watching where they are watching you know they will stop at the corner and go when it clear, but the car just sees an object on an intercept course because it can't anticipate the jogger stopping. So the car jams its breaks out of the blue.
Now you can say the driver should be an appropriate distance yada yada yada... The reality is that the number of lanes on busy roads would need to double or triple if all cars were traveling by the rules of thumb like 20 ft per 10 mph. Just not reality. Humans compensate by making assumptions especially on highways where variables are simpler.
Reality of traffic densities pretty much forces the autonomous cars to co-operative or non-autonomous really.
Robot cars is the correct name.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
The irony of the older crowd resisting technology that they need the most.
Actually, no, you (a human driver) don't know they will stop at the corner. Like this (skip to 2:39 if the url doesn't start you there).
D
Deleted member 184142
Guest
I LOVE driving, and riding motorcycle, I just don't like commuting to work, one hour going in and two hours going home. I could use that time to read a book, catch up on work email/reports etc etc, 3 hours a day could make me allot more productive.