Google Driverless Cars Get Into More Accidents Following Road Rules

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
Google Driverless Cars Get Into More Accidents Following Road Rules

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1023/1023105.jpg

Google's driverless cars are getting into more accidents because they follow the rules of the road and other drivers do not.

Google's driverless cars are an accident waiting to happen. Apparently, the vehicles have a crash rating of double that of human drivers, according to a University of Michigan study. But it's for a reason you might not suspect.

The cars follow ALL traffic rules, ALL the time. Without exception. Human drivers obviously do not. Luckily,all the accidents to this point have been minor ones and the Google cars have never been at fault. But that hasn't stopped engineers from debating whether they should program the vehicles to break the law once in awhile.

"It's a constant debate inside our group," Raj Rajkumar, co-director of the General Motors-Carnegie Mellon Autonomous Driving Collaborative Research Lab in Pittsburgh, told MSN [http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/humans-are-slamming-into-driverless-cars-exposing-key-flaw/ar-BBnH1CJ]. "And we have basically decided to stick to the speed limit. But when you go out and drive the speed limit on the highway, pretty much everybody on the road is just zipping past you. And I would be one of those people."

An example of one of the accidents was where the Google car came to a complete stop at a red light and wanted to make a right turn on red. It slowly started to inch out so its sensors could get a better "look" at the traffic. Another car behind it inched forward also, but right into the driverless car's bumper.

The Google cars have also been pulled over on occasion, usually fro going too slow, such as one incident in Mountain View, CA, where the car was doing 24 in a 35-mph zone. The engineers in the car were warned, but police said that sometimes the cars tend to be too cautious.

Google disagrees. "We err on the conservative side," said Dmitri Dolgov, principal engineer of the program. "(The cars are) a little bit like a cautious student driver or a grandma."

Google is looking at more "aggressive" programming to more replicate law-abiding human drivers so they can more easily fit into traffic flow, but the process is ongoing.

"These vehicles are either stopping in a situation or slowing down when a human driver might not," said Brandon Schoettle, co-author of the Michigan study. "They're a little faster to react, taking drivers behind them off guard."

But programming them to break the law? Nothing egregious like speeding or running a stop sign, but more like when to cross a double yellow line if construction or a bicycle is present.

"It's a sticky area," Schoettle said. "If you program them to not follow the law, how much do you let them break the law?"

Source: MSN [http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/technologyinvesting/humans-are-slamming-into-driverless-cars-exposing-key-flaw/ar-BBnH1CJ]

Permalink
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Driving too slow is breaking the law, and is a ticketable offense so wouldn't they are doing that already? Driving too slow is worse than driving too fast..

"3. Driving Too Slow Many may be surprised to learn how many accidents are caused by someone driving too slow. It?s been proven statistically (e.g., the ?Crash Risk Curve?) that traffic accidents are caused much more often by drivers who are driving below the speed limit than those who are driving too fast. In fact, driving even 10 MPH slower that the surrounding traffic greatly increases your chance of being in an accident."

http://southfloridainjuryaccidentblog.com/2015/03/26/speeding-causes-accidents-but-so-does-driving-too-slow/

The worst ones are the ones that hurry up and pull out in front of a driver and then do not give them enough time to slow down. this is Especially dangerous if they are driving a vehicle that is unable to slow down that quickly such as a semi or a bus. Failing to keep up with the flow of traffic is a danger to everyone on the road with them. I honestly do not think they should be driving autonomous cars on the road at all, there are too many things that could go wrong that you would need a human to react to. Like the time I was driving home and a tornado formed right on me.. no tornado warning at the time at all and I had to drive off road while trees were thrown on the hood and windshield of my car, what would a computer do in that situation? If it stopped at all during that the occupants of the vehicle would be killed s my forward motion is what avoided the larger objects being hurled at my vehicle.. They cannot see an accident and determine whether or not they need to stop and render aid, they cannot see a police officer or other person waving for them to stop on the side of the road and make a judgement call. What happens when their computer gets hacked or malfunctions? The number of times I have had to format my computers terrifies me to think of one being in control of my life and others..
 

FillerDmon

New member
Jun 6, 2014
329
0
0
As offensive as this sounds, I wonder if the title can be reworded to reflect what's going on. The situation doesn't seem to be "accidents", and it's not the car following the rules that causes them as much as it is other people not following the rules while around them. The fact that the engineers are considering having the cars break the law in certain areas to increase safety actually seems more noteworthy than the fact that other people keep bumping into the things.

I'd definitely agree that going too slow, at least in comparison to the speed limit, is a no-no. No reason for this thing to be less efficient than normal driving if it wants to be able to catch on in the modern world.

Still, don't see this working until you can get every single person in the world driving one. And I don't see that happening until... quite frankly, ever.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
 

Shdwrnr

Waka waka waka
May 20, 2011
79
0
0
Why aren't people looking at this and saying, "Hey, these things follow the laws exactly and it's causing problems. The laws seem to actually be pretty bad; maybe we should do some revision." or maybe, "Wow, it looks like a majority of people are breaking the law. Maybe we should be more consistent in enforcing them."

It seems like people are trying to focus on the wrong problem here.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
I remember the days of Drivers Ed. and following the turning rules exactly and cutting off so many people while my teacher never said anything because I was driving properly. I'd purposefully make a right turn just as the person across from me was making a left turn (us both turning onto the same street), I'd stay in the right most lane while they wouldn't stay in their left most lane like they are supposed to.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
 

Senare

New member
Aug 6, 2010
160
0
0
Ergh... These findings really strike a nerve in me. I am often annoyed by just how badly most drive, to the point that I'd want to say "fuck it" to the careless human drivers. I don't buy the reasoning that they should have to break the traffic laws, because when corners are cut the severity of the collisions will increase. But a vindictive approach towards "bad drivers" is not right either, because I know that some days it will be me who is the bad driver.

The only reasonable improvements I can think of for the engineers would be:

1. Cars that communicate their intentions even more clearly.

2. Profiling of nearby, unskilled drivers so the car can plan to let them pass.

3. Guidelines that are derived from the underlying principles behind the local traffic laws. If you can speak to the ones who designed the traffic layout, they can probably tell you why the road is designed as it is. By following these guidelines, reasonable decisions can still be made when laws must be broken to maintain safety.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
They will only stop for police under specific conditions, not all the conditions that they would have to stop for police. Like an officer on the side of the road waving for traffic to stop..

I am fully aware of the testing, they heavily map the specific routes and the issues I mentioned are the issues they say need to be addressed..
For example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e698c396-8d61-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3v61wUX3y
http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-cant-han-1628040470

In addition, their current testing may also be hindered due to the law..
http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-proposes-rules-for-autonomous-cars-1450293308
You will still have to have a licensed driver responsible regardless of if they are doing the driving.
You will have to havea steering wheel and ability to manually override in an emergency.

They have not resolved the issues of GPS hacking, or what happens if the car gets a virus.. When humans get a virus they are just sick. Whena computer gets a virus, it's programming is altered. There is no such thing as " secure" . "Security" is just guys trying to change code faster than someone else breaks the code... It isn't something that is even really " attainable" or sustainable.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
They will only stop for police under specific conditions, not all the conditions that they would have to stop for police. Like an officer on the side of the road waving for traffic to stop..

I am fully aware of the testing, they heavily map the specific routes and the issues I mentioned are the issues they say need to be addressed..
For example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e698c396-8d61-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3v61wUX3y
http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-cant-han-1628040470
Well, these articles are assuming that they all need to rely completely on self-driving. Why can't we have it like I, Robot where you can switch from automatic driving to manual driving whenever you need it?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
They will only stop for police under specific conditions, not all the conditions that they would have to stop for police. Like an officer on the side of the road waving for traffic to stop..

I am fully aware of the testing, they heavily map the specific routes and the issues I mentioned are the issues they say need to be addressed..
For example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e698c396-8d61-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3v61wUX3y
http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-cant-han-1628040470
Well, these articles are assuming that they all need to rely completely on self-driving. Why can't we have it like I, Robot where you can switch from automatic driving to manual driving whenever you need it?
That also creates a dangerous situation if the driver is not prepared at all times to take the wheel. When people assume the car is doing the driving, they are not overly concerned with making sure they are capable of doing so at a milliseconds notice.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
They will only stop for police under specific conditions, not all the conditions that they would have to stop for police. Like an officer on the side of the road waving for traffic to stop..

I am fully aware of the testing, they heavily map the specific routes and the issues I mentioned are the issues they say need to be addressed..
For example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e698c396-8d61-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3v61wUX3y
http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-cant-han-1628040470
Well, these articles are assuming that they all need to rely completely on self-driving. Why can't we have it like I, Robot where you can switch from automatic driving to manual driving whenever you need it?
That also creates a dangerous situation if the driver is not prepared at all times to take the wheel. When people assume the car is doing the driving, they are not overly concerned with making sure they are capable of doing so at a milliseconds notice.
If they need to take control at a milliseconds notice, then it's most likely already too late anyway. For everything else, just announce very loudly that manual control will have to be taken in, say 5 or 3 seconds. That's enough time to get your basic bearings and snap out of it. But yes, you're right, even with that, it still won't completely eliminate stupid accidents. But honestly, it's just as easy when you're driving normally to screw up, so there's not that big a difference. At least this way's much more comfortable.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Awesome. It looks like they've actually got the cars all worked out but now they just need to make them less strict! I SO can't wait for these.
No, they are a LONG ways away from having this anywhere near worked out. The reality is they do not have solutions for most of the issues they have to resolve, nor do they have any ideas of how to resolve them yet. They do not stop for police officers, or stop to render aid, which is illegal. They are unable to drive outside of well mapped routes, if a stop sign appears ovber night on their already mapped route, they will not stop for it. They are unable to make decisions outside of what they are programmed to do if the situation calls for it, they are unable to drive in different weather situations.. There is MUCH work to be done before this can even be considered, even for in city short distance driving due to the issues that must be resolved for them not to be a safety hazard.
So much of a safety hazard right now that they're having them drive on public roads and actually are stopping for police? It's all in the article. As to adverse weather conditions, you may have a point there but I don't know. Again, they're already testing this on public roads so...
They will only stop for police under specific conditions, not all the conditions that they would have to stop for police. Like an officer on the side of the road waving for traffic to stop..

I am fully aware of the testing, they heavily map the specific routes and the issues I mentioned are the issues they say need to be addressed..
For example:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-for-googles-self-driving-cars/
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e698c396-8d61-11e5-8be4-3506bf20cc2b.html#axzz3v61wUX3y
http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-cant-han-1628040470
Well, these articles are assuming that they all need to rely completely on self-driving. Why can't we have it like I, Robot where you can switch from automatic driving to manual driving whenever you need it?
That also creates a dangerous situation if the driver is not prepared at all times to take the wheel. When people assume the car is doing the driving, they are not overly concerned with making sure they are capable of doing so at a milliseconds notice.
If they need to take control at a milliseconds notice, then it's most likely already too late anyway. For everything else, just announce very loudly that manual control will have to be taken in, say 5 or 3 seconds. That's enough time to get your basic bearings and snap out of it. But yes, you're right, even with that, it still won't completely eliminate stupid accidents. But honestly, it's just as easy when you're driving normally to screw up, so there's not that big a difference. At least this way's much more comfortable.
That is not how things work while driving, you do not " announce" you react as quickly as possible to survive and prevent casualties. Not being able to do that, or creating situations were that is not possible means it is not safe to be on the road. It is not " just as easy".. things happen very quickly. When you are already driving, you will react and respond faster than if you are not.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
It's because it's programmed to follow the rules, not drive safely. There is a subtle but important difference. If everyone is over the speed limit, then it's very dangerous to be the one going slower than everyone. You won't pull a ticket for it the vast majority of the time, but you will get into accident.

It's only valuable if it's adaptive. If you are going strait and someone in on coming traffic is making a left, you have the right of way, but that doesn't mean the other person won't turn anyway. This will cause an accident. And sure, you are not to blame, the other driver is. But the goal should be to drive safer, not according to the rules.

NOTE: if everyone was using one and everyone of them followed the rules, they would be the same. But since it is following the rules and others are not, it needs to be able to tell on a whim when that is, and the technology is just not there yet.
 

Arnoxthe1

Elite Member
Dec 25, 2010
3,391
2
43
Lil devils x said:
That is not how things work while driving, you do not " announce" you react as quickly as possible to survive and prevent casualties. Not being able to do that, or creating situations were that is not possible means it is not safe to be on the road. It is not " just as easy".. things happen very quickly. When you are already driving, you will react and respond faster than if you are not.
OK, let me present one more counterpoint to you. Why would it suddenly need to hand back control to the driver when it could be programmed to stop and/or swerve out of the way for you? Unless the entire system went out in a freak glitch of course.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
That is not how things work while driving, you do not " announce" you react as quickly as possible to survive and prevent casualties. Not being able to do that, or creating situations were that is not possible means it is not safe to be on the road. It is not " just as easy".. things happen very quickly. When you are already driving, you will react and respond faster than if you are not.
OK, let me present one more counterpoint to you. Why would it suddenly need to hand back control to the driver when it could be programmed to stop and/or swerve out of the way for you? Unless the entire system went out in a freak glitch of course.
In any emergency situation the car is not equipped to make a " judgement call" for. For example: You are driving home and a tornado forms on top of you and is suddenly throwing trees, fences, metal poles and 2x4's at your vehicle.. Which objects do you avoid and which do you let hit your car? Where do you let them hit? and What path off road do you take to live?
( What actually happened to me while driving home from work one day).

Or how about there is a herd of cattle in the road, how do you safely maneuver around them to prevent from injuring them, scaring them or injuring yourself? ( that happened last week)

Or how about.. There is an accident ahead and fire and ambulance needs through and the bridge ahead is blocked and no exit ramp nearby to move to the service road. An officer is off to the side directing cars to drive off road to get to the service road through uneven ground slowly to allow emergency vehicles to make it through traffic. How does the vehicle respond? ( that happens repeatedly at a bridge near here when there is an accident on it)
 

chadachada123

New member
Jan 17, 2011
2,310
0
0
Lil devils x said:
Arnoxthe1 said:
Lil devils x said:
That is not how things work while driving, you do not " announce" you react as quickly as possible to survive and prevent casualties. Not being able to do that, or creating situations were that is not possible means it is not safe to be on the road. It is not " just as easy".. things happen very quickly. When you are already driving, you will react and respond faster than if you are not.
OK, let me present one more counterpoint to you. Why would it suddenly need to hand back control to the driver when it could be programmed to stop and/or swerve out of the way for you? Unless the entire system went out in a freak glitch of course.
In any emergency situation the car is not equipped to make a " judgement call" for. For example: You are driving home and a tornado forms on top of you and is suddenly throwing trees, fences, metal poles and 2x4's at your vehicle.. Which objects do you avoid and which do you let hit your car? Where do you let them hit? and What path off road do you take to live?
( What actually happened to me while driving home from work one day).

Or how about there is a herd of cattle in the road, how do you safely maneuver around them to prevent from injuring them, scaring them or injuring yourself? ( that happened last week)

Or how about.. There is an accident ahead and fire and ambulance needs through and the bridge ahead is blocked and no exit ramp nearby to move to the service road. An officer is off to the side directing cars to drive off road to get to the service road through uneven ground slowly to allow emergency vehicles to make it through traffic. How does the vehicle respond? ( that happens repeatedly at a bridge near here when there is an accident on it)
For the first example, seconds are not particularly important, so control should obviously shift to the driver when extreme weather or flying objects is/are seen. For the second, if there's a huge obstruction in the road, it should obviously stop and give control over. For the third, while the programming might not be there yet, obviously the car should alert the driver when any police strobes are visible, with the driver taking the conscious decision to manually drive.

None of these are particularly difficult examples. I think that driving in winter areas would be far, far harder to program, since things like black ice can't reliably be detected by a car and milliseconds really would matter.
 

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
It might become less of an issue as auto-cars saturate the market so there are less human drivers to compete with.