Google’s Self-Driving Car Involved In Collision

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I think I've got Google's self-driving cars all wrong. It turns out they aren't a danger to the public, it's the other way around. :D

The collision happened near Google’s home in Mountain View, CA, where 20 of its self-driving prototypes have been cruising around recently. In this case, the company’s Lexus SUV bearing sensors and cameras was hit from the back, Chris Urmson, head of Google’s self-driving car program, wrote in a blog post on Thursday, and three Google employees riding inside to monitor the test car complained of minor whiplash as a result.
Click to expand...
 
People clearly can't drive for shit anymore. The sooner these things get perfected the better.
 
Why is this even news. Not once has google's cars caused an accident.
 
In the last month I saw someone come on to my side of the road two times. The stupidity in driving is getting worse every year.
 
Galvin said:
In the last month I saw someone come on to my side of the road two times. The stupidity in driving is getting worse every year.
Click to expand...

I was hoping I just wasn't getting old and feeling this way as a result. Glad to hear others feel that way too
 
It does highlight one of the risks when we get around to implementing driverless cars ... they will likely need to be separated from the regular cars for their safety (not the safety of the regular cars) ... maybe we could convert the commuter lanes in big cities into self driving car lanes and take the three lane highways and separate one lane with barriers for the self driving cars ... since a self driving car can't speed or deviate from its course the one lane roads would work well until the numbers grow

the highway option would present some interesting taxi options as well (maybe a new Uber will crop up) where you could transport someone to another city and either have the return included with the fare or pick up a fare in the other city to come back ... with gas efficient self driving cars this could work out well as a self driving car doesn't care what hour the pick up and drop off is at or what hour the return drive occurs at :cool:
 
These headlines are really starting to feel like boy who cried wolf; by the time a google car actually causes a crash no one will read the article because they're tired of the sensationalist headline.
 
rudedog said:
Why is this even news. Not once has google's cars caused an accident.
Click to expand...

This is news because it is the first injury accident. Minor ones, fortunately.

I've heard that Google has video evidence of the other driver being being distracted by a cell phone in every one of these accidents.

"In a telephone interview, Urmson said his team was exploring whether its cars could do something to alert distracted drivers before a collision. Honking would be one possibility, but Urmson said he worried that could start to annoy residents of Mountain View."

If I were them, I'd think about a very directional horn (to try and reduce noise pollution) mounted in the back of the car specifically for when a stopped or slow-moving Google car detects that a rear-end might occur. But detecting it early enough to make a difference when the difference really matters - when the other car is traveling fast enough to cause injury, which is really quite fast - might be too difficult for current image recognition.
 
evilsofa said:
If I were them, I'd think about a very directional horn (to try and reduce noise pollution) mounted in the back of the car specifically for when a stopped or slow-moving Google car detects that a rear-end might occur.
Click to expand...
Or treat cellphone use while driving the same as we do alcohol use. We have zero tolerance for drunk driving, so why do we do nothing but a slap on the wrist for cellphone use?

Make distracted drivers go into something as much of a PITA as the AAA meetings drunk drivers are forced into, and then revoke their licenses.

Speaking of horns, I installed an ungodly loud airhorn on my motorcycle on the left side under the fairing. I used to get run off the road even with a honk, as they just couldn't hear the factory Suzuki POS, but that airhorn? OOOH boy, it makes it sound like they are about to hit an 18-wheeler. :D
 
Ducman69 said:
Or treat cellphone use while driving the same as we do alcohol use. We have zero tolerance for drunk driving, so why do we do nothing but a slap on the wrist for cellphone use?

Make distracted drivers go into something as much of a PITA as the AAA meetings drunk drivers are forced into, and then revoke their licenses.

Speaking of horns, I installed an ungodly loud airhorn on my motorcycle on the left side under the fairing. I used to get run off the road even with a honk, as they just couldn't hear the factory Suzuki POS, but that airhorn? OOOH boy, it makes it sound like they are about to hit an 18-wheeler. :D
Click to expand...

zero tolerance for drunk driving :confused: ... I don't think that word means what you think it means :p ... although some states are tougher than others we are generally pretty lax with DUI enforcement in many states ... that said I agree that we should throw the book at distracted driving and if anything it should be even more severe a penalty than DUI ... a drunk is still ultimately trying to drive (they are just impaired) ... a distracted driver is far more dangerous since their attention is somewhere else (I seem to remember Mythbusters testing this and coming to the same conclusion)
 
Ford Prefect said:
That was my initial thought. The frequency with which I notice drivers looking down at a smartphone display, is increasing too rapidly for my comfort.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if Android or iOS devices have added this yet, but I enable driving mode on my Windows phone every time I get in the car. As soon as it connects to my BT headunit, I don't get text or email notifications. Well, except from my wife, in case it's an emergency, but I never actually pick up my phone to look, I can just glance at my Band.
 
rudedog said:
Why is this even news. Not once has google's cars caused an accident.
Click to expand...

Yeah seriously wake me up when Google Car is smart enough to hit and run, like it flattens a baby stroller in a crosswalk and then has the wherewithal to flee the scene. But not before taking out any witnesses.
 
rudedog said:
Why is this even news. Not once has google's cars caused an accident.
Click to expand...

It's not at technical fault. A lot of good that does the injured people inside. The correct question is whether a human would have allowed that situation. I personally would start to get nervous if I was sitting stopped in front of a green. I would be looking to get around the stopped vehicles if it was clear for me to do so (because I know that's not the ideal situation to be in and my own impatience) and be keeping an eye on the rear view mirror if I couldn't.
 
Its news because its tech related and a reminder to everyone that self-driving cars are proving time and time again that they are SAFER than our lowest common denominator human drivers.

So many people say that self-driving cars have to be perfect, but they really don't. They only have to be better than the average schmuck behind the wheel, who is shoving french fries into his face driving with his knees, yacking on the cellphone with her friend, putting on makeup with the rearview mirror adjusted so she can see herself, or are just completely incompetent drivers that never should have gotten a license in the first place.

In the US thought, we consider driving a right rather than a privilege, and so make it virtually impossible for anyone to fail a driving test, and we don't test the elderly that haven't taken a driving test since WW2. Self-driving cars will finally give us an excuse to tell these people that they can still get around, but we aren't going to give them drivers licenses anymore because they're too damn stupid and irresponsible to be trusted with one.
 
It takes major troll skill to drop racist shit in a thread about robot cars.
 
jpm100 said:
It's not at technical fault. A lot of good that does the injured people inside. The correct question is whether a human would have allowed that situation. I personally would start to get nervous if I was sitting stopped in front of a green. I would be looking to get around the stopped vehicles if it was clear for me to do so (because I know that's not the ideal situation to be in and my own impatience) and be keeping an eye on the rear view mirror if I couldn't.
Click to expand...

The answer is yes, a human would have "allowed" that situation. See the video of the accident that Weirdo linked above. 99.99% of humans would not even have seen the other car coming up from behind. You, the special one who would have seen it coming, would still have been unable to do anything to prevent the other car from hitting you. You would likely not abruptly accelerate and swerve into the bicycle lane to your right, because you would not be able to be sure in the split second required for your decision that you wouldn't wreck a bicycle that you didn't see, potentially causing severe injury or death. Even if you did recklessly decide to do that, you would get your right front tire stuck on the curb and the other car would hit you anyway.
 
I'm with you guys on the bad drivers all over bit in a way, I've seen em, and surely this tech will help, eventually, maybe, if people can afford it and it not be an annoyance half the time like every other piece of tech, but..

There are a lot of places, I'd say most geographically, where bad drivers aren't a problem, accidents seldom happen, there isn't any road rage, people ride bicycles and drive cars just fine, and it just isn't any more of a problem now than it was in 1950, 60, 70, 80, etc, etc, etc. There are places with problems, absolutely, and I feel sorry for those of you that live there and have to deal with it. I suspect that much like crime, it's densely packed urban areas as often as not. But swinging the broadsword hoping to do away with human drivers and make the driving tests crazy complicated is totally unnecessary in most places, and you'd be screwing a lot of people over doing so. This is a big country, lot of variance. Lot more towns with one stoplight than there are with millions of people, and those folks operate cars and motorcycles pretty OK still.

An irony, is that the places with really scary drives, already have good public transit in a lot of cases..
 
The rear-enders probably saw the Google logo on the SUV and thought they'd hit the insurance lottery. There are plenty of lawyers who are willing to file frivolous lawsuits.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
The rear-enders probably saw the Google logo on the SUV and thought they'd hit the insurance lottery. There are plenty of lawyers who are willing to file frivolous lawsuits.
Click to expand...

What? No. That's not how rear-end insurance fraud works at all. The idea is to get the target to rear-end your car, not the other way around.
 
I dunno if they're giving out driver licences more easily now or people just suck more than ever.
 
maverikv said:
It takes major troll skill to drop racist shit in a thread about robot cars.
Click to expand...
Yes, countries are racist now... lol:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSy46ghV-G0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjrEQaG5jPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJNYcwTi-BE

Fatalities per 100K vehicles per year (compared to Germany where average speeds are MUCH higher):
India: 207.5 (30x higher)
China: 133.3 (19x higher)
United States: 13.6 (2x higher)
Germany: 6.9 (master driving race)

PS: Looking that up... what the actual fug... Central African Republic 13472.8 deaths per 100K cars (1952x higher)????

article-2142436-13066BA0000005DC-449_306x278.jpg

Central African Republic Highway 99
 
For any of us who are of a decent age, kids laugh and can't comprehend a time when there was no internet, when black and white TVs were common, etc.

In the future kids will laugh and joke about those of us who had to drive our own cars around.
I see a time in the future when driving your own car will be illegal for safety reasons.
 
evilsofa said:
What? No. That's not how rear-end insurance fraud works at all. The idea is to get the target to rear-end your car, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I recall somebody in these forums describing how some female motorist backed up into his car at a stoplight and then, weeks later, blamed him for rear-ending her vehicle. The topic involved the collection of driving habits on the the consumer equivalent of "black boxes" inside cars. Most of the forum participants viewed it as an invasion of privacy, but that guy said that such evidence would have proven him innocent.
 
Deadly Ramon said:
I recall somebody in these forums describing how some female motorist backed up into his car at a stoplight and then, weeks later, blamed him for rear-ending her vehicle. The topic involved the collection of driving habits on the the consumer equivalent of "black boxes" inside cars. Most of the forum participants viewed it as an invasion of privacy, but that guy said that such evidence would have proven him innocent.
Click to expand...
In this day and age, cameras, cameras, cameras!


Get yourself some IP cameras for home, way better to have an instant alert and be able to tell police you see the burglars and you're on your way to intercept them with a firearm for fast response compared to the false alerts they are used to from monitoring companies. Go on a date with a girl you haven't met before, same thing set your phone to at least record the audio so you don't end up with false rape charges if you piss her off. In your car, the dashcams again are too cheap to ignore, and for me I use both a forward and rear facing camera, because people lie, lie, lie with no shame. Even cops tend to be on better behavior when they notice you have a passive dashcam when walking to the front of your car on a stop (you're not in their face being rude pointing your phone at them, but at the same time they know to stay professional).

https://dashcamtalk.com/

Personally, I use two Mobius, which they list as "best discreet" which is why I went that route. You don't really need a screen, just have it always autorecording in loop and just access the footage when you have a reason to.
 
sfsuphysics said:
All things considered that's quite cool, interesting to see what those blips are on the median/sidewalk that pop in and out of view (larger than humans)
Click to expand...

The ones that are not on paths are probably trees, bushes, utility boxes, telephone poles, etc. The few that are on paths are signs and light poles. Doesn't seem to be any pedestrians. Too bad we don't have a street address to compare to.
 
Ford Prefect said:
That was my initial thought. The frequency with which I notice drivers looking down at a smartphone display, is increasing too rapidly for my comfort.
Click to expand...

You should bust out your phone and takes pics of them. That will show them!
 
I have vestibular problems so I would have to find out if I could ride in them reliably. If so I would be all for self driving car. Just not the motorcycle :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top