Google Says Its Self-Driving Cars Can Tackle City Streets Now

Being legally blind, I am very curious to see if it ever gets to the point where I can own a car that will drive me places without a human driver.

Some of you are posting things such as "What happens when a computer-driven car runs a red light?" The answer to that is that it never would, because unlike humans, computers are unable to break the law. There would have to be extraordinary circumstances to make that happen, such as an 18-wheeler barreling down on you from behind while you are stopped at the red light; humans would usually be unable to do anything about it, but a computer driven car might be able to move the car out of the way while also avoiding other vehicles.

It seems likely to me that the most common complaint about computer-driven cars will be that they drive too slowly, especially in residential neighborhoods, or in rain, snow and ice conditions. Humans will complain about that because humans almost universally drive too fast for the conditions of the road. The argument in this thread about "will the car choose the cat or the child?" will never apply, because the computer-driven car will have time to brake for both of them - the time required for both the cat and the child to get on the road will be plenty of time for the car to brake, because the car isn't driving 39 mph in a 25 mph zone.

Watch a few RoadFail videos and ask yourself how many of these accidents would have happened if a computer were driving the vehicle(s) that were caused by or were involved in the accidents. The answer, even now in this early adopter phase, would be zero.
 
evilsofa said:
It seems likely to me that the most common complaint about computer-driven cars will be that they drive too slowly, especially in residential neighborhoods, or in rain, snow and ice conditions. Humans will complain about that because humans almost universally drive too fast for the conditions of the road. The argument in this thread about "will the car choose the cat or the child?" will never apply, because the computer-driven car will have time to brake for both of them - the time required for both the cat and the child to get on the road will be plenty of time for the car to brake, because the car isn't driving 39 mph in a 25 mph zone
Click to expand...

Well, since you can't drive, you don't know about those split second decisions, even at 25 MPH. Or less... Kids come out from in between cars. Or chase balls. Or whatever. It happens. That's why good drivers are always scanning and looking for that kind of thing. The computer could react faster, so it might be avoided easier. But, it's not due to the slower speed. It's reaction time. If you have 25 feet to make a decision, even the computer would need to make a hard brake. If it stops 4 feet before it hits the kid vs. 1 foot, it's still a miss. But, it was still a hard brake at the same 25 MPH. Plenty of time? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how far the obstruction is. Some are unavoidable due to physics. This cannot be fixed via a computer.

Speed isn't the cause for some accidents (it is for a lot, though).
 
I'd love to drive in one of these cars as long as the radio plays something other than old commercial jingles.
 
"google car has experienced an unexpected crash. Google can check online for a solution to the problem"
 
Youn said:
I'd love to drive in one of these cars as long as the radio plays something other than old commercial jingles.
Click to expand...

Is that the second demolition man reference in one week? Nice! :D
 
Kaitian said:
That pissed me off so much. What fucking reason did that asshole have to do that twice for? He wasn't turning left. Just being an asshole blocking traffic.
Click to expand...

You morons - the guy works for google and he was helping to test the system.

Take some anger management classes for fuck's sake.
 
Now you never have to be sober. :)

Just wait until one of them is hacked, and GTA X is installed as its AI.
 
okashira said:
You morons - the guy works for google and he was helping to test the system.

Take some anger management classes for fuck's sake.
Click to expand...

While he was obviously a Google employee helping to test the system, he was also accurately simulating the major habits of cyclists in my neck of the woods.
 
VladDracule said:
thats your view on the industry? Clearly you have never ever ever ever coded in a regulated environment. I currently write code for FAA certified equipment and the amount of regulation and testing for a piece of equipment to be certified is extraordinary. take your narrow minded view of an industry you dont know anything about somewhere else, not a tech forum
Click to expand...

Incredibly naive. I don't work in this industry, this forum just has a lot of overlap with my hobbies. But I work in an industry that pumps more money into verifying their stuff than yours does and broken shit still goes through.

Aside from the false belief your crap doesn't stink. This is going to couple with the real world and to mechanical devices. The input data isn't going to be clean and the consistency of the mechanical controls and sensor data is going to be complete crap compared to what the 'tech industry' is use to having.

What happens if you drive through a bug swam and the cameras and sensors get half spooged over with bug guts. The owner isn't going to want to pull over immediately to clean the spooge off and if you make them, they'll get pissed off. So suddenly the input data is compromised and the car has to compensate. Even if you force the driver to clean it, its not safe to force them to pull over in the dark, on a narrow road, or bad neighborhood, so the car must still be able to function on compromised data.

And for every scenario like that a person can think of, there's ten more that weren't thought of. You're in for a rude awakening if you think your shit's tight. It never will be in the real world with the product in someone else's hands.
 
I would definitely use this once all the bugs are worked out. I'd love to take trips to Florida just on a whim and have the car drive me there while I sleep or watch a movie.

I would love to see how it would react to kids running into the street though. Would it swerve or would it try hard braking?
 
XViper said:
I would definitely use this once all the bugs are worked out. I'd love to take trips to Florida just on a whim and have the car drive me there while I sleep or watch a movie.

I would love to see how it would react to kids running into the street though. Would it swerve or would it try hard braking?
Click to expand...

I imagine it would operate purely based on statistical likelihood and its ability to analyze the data quickly, therefore it would perform what is the statistically most likely action to avoid hitting the kid(s) based upon the data available. Now if we can only get the people entering the data to actually listen when IT people say, "garbage in, garbage out."
 
jpm100 said:
Incredibly naive. I don't work in this industry, this forum just has a lot of overlap with my hobbies. But I work in an industry that pumps more money into verifying their stuff than yours does and broken shit still goes through.

Aside from the false belief your crap doesn't stink. This is going to couple with the real world and to mechanical devices. The input data isn't going to be clean and the consistency of the mechanical controls and sensor data is going to be complete crap compared to what the 'tech industry' is use to having.

What happens if you drive through a bug swam and the cameras and sensors get half spooged over with bug guts. The owner isn't going to want to pull over immediately to clean the spooge off and if you make them, they'll get pissed off. So suddenly the input data is compromised and the car has to compensate. Even if you force the driver to clean it, its not safe to force them to pull over in the dark, on a narrow road, or bad neighborhood, so the car must still be able to function on compromised data.

And for every scenario like that a person can think of, there's ten more that weren't thought of. You're in for a rude awakening if you think your shit's tight. It never will be in the real world with the product in someone else's hands.
Click to expand...

Im the naive one when you directly just said you have not worked in a government regulated industry? The very things your talking about are exactly why other requirements such a redundancy will be there.

And very very very rarely has aircraft software caused issues, in fact, i can only think of one. Level A certified software requires triple redundancy, which means redundancy of the data sources, or of the units themselves.

Do not preach about an industry you have absolutely no direct experience with. Other people on the board were spouting such bullshit on the ADS-B article on the front page last week
 
VladDracule said:
Im the naive one when you directly just said you have not worked in a government regulated industry? The very things your talking about are exactly why other requirements such a redundancy will be there.

And very very very rarely has aircraft software caused issues, in fact, i can only think of one. Level A certified software requires triple redundancy, which means redundancy of the data sources, or of the units themselves.

Do not preach about an industry you have absolutely no direct experience with. Other people on the board were spouting such bullshit on the ADS-B article on the front page last week
Click to expand...

Not to mention you clearly have no clue what the V&V effort is to create FAA certifiable software. DO-178C processes on average add at least 70% to overall project budgets alone, and that is to companies that have extreme amounts of experience. Start ups project cost will double just to meet DO-178c
 
Not sure why you guys are lumping cyclists as douches. Most are douches, not all. Most motorists are douches. I'm not sure I trust this technology. Let's say there's a traffic jam ahead. Will it take this in account and have you sit in traffic for hours? Will it run over squirrels? So many variables involved here. Let's say someone is about to side swipe you and you have an obstacle in front of you, what's it going to do? I can foresee truck drivers, pizza drivers, taxi drivers losing their jobs. Is this good? I don't want the government tracking my movements. I don't trust Google, but they will add some tracking device into that. I need to stop using their services. I agree a lot of assholes don't need to be driving, but I don't think this technology should be forced on people.
 
Sometimes it's better to disobey the law, that is to neglect traffic laws to avoid an accident or traffic jams. Let's say you're driving on a single lane road separated by a solid yellow line and there's broke down car ahead. Would the Google car sit there causing a jam or move around? How's it going to adjust for laws in every state?
 
r-486 said:
Let's say there's a traffic jam ahead. Will it take this in account and have you sit in traffic for hours?
Click to expand...

There's this thing called Google Maps, and it has this thing called the Traffic layer...

Will it run over squirrels?
Click to expand...

Probably, but less than humans do. Let's not worry about your local squirrel infestation; I'm more interested in larger animals, like deer and moose. Again, the computer-driven car will have an advantage here - it'll be able to use infrared to the sides to see large animals much further in advance than a human ever could.

Let's say someone is about to side swipe you and you have an obstacle in front of you, what's it going to do?
Click to expand...

The situation you are attempting to describe is unclear. Are you moving or not?

I can foresee truck drivers, pizza drivers, taxi drivers losing their jobs. Is this good?
Click to expand...

Do we still miss buggy whip manufacturers?

I don't want the government tracking my movements. I don't trust Google, but they will add some tracking device into that. I need to stop using their services.
Click to expand...

That ship sailed a long time ago.

I agree a lot of assholes don't need to be driving, but I don't think this technology should be forced on people.
Click to expand...

I doubt we'll ever see manual driving forbidden. Don't worry, you'll have the right to be a hazard to your fellow drivers for the remainder of your life.
 
evilsofa said:
Probably, but less than humans do. Let's not worry about your local squirrel infestation; I'm more interested in larger animals, like deer and moose. Again, the computer-driven car will have an advantage here - it'll be able to use infrared to the sides to see large animals much further in advance than a human ever could.
Click to expand...

Driving has so many variables. Humans can react to things that are very rare and unexpected. But, use the deer example. Would the car stop and wait for the animal(s) to cross the road, or would it swerve to avoid hitting them (spooking them and having them go faster into your path)? Yea, I'm nitpicking, and I'm sure eventually the AI will be able to do it. I know people that still would swerve to miss a deer and the deer turns at the last minute and gets hit...
 
Ur_Mom said:
Driving has so many variables. Humans can react to things that are very rare and unexpected. But, use the deer example. Would the car stop and wait for the animal(s) to cross the road, or would it swerve to avoid hitting them (spooking them and having them go faster into your path)? Yea, I'm nitpicking, and I'm sure eventually the AI will be able to do it. I know people that still would swerve to miss a deer and the deer turns at the last minute and gets hit...
Click to expand...

It will always be a challenge for either computers or humans to avoid a truly determined animal or human, but I will stand by my opinion that the computer-driven car will almost always have more options and more time to use them because in almost every case the computer-driven car will be going slower than a human-driven car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top