10 ms·
Humans Are Slamming into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw
- zaroth 11y agoNice quote from Dmitri! “They’re a little bit like a cautious student driver or a grandma.” --- Dmitri Dolgov, principal engineer of the program. No one likes getting stuck driving behind grandma. I expect as the tech sees more of the light of day, they will go from 'cute curiosity' to 'extremely frustrating to drive near'. They will pin you, in some cases, well below the speed limit, which is often set dangerously low. When someone dies trying to pass one of these things, of course it won't be the robots fault... Robots should drive to minimize their impact on the road. That would be my guiding philosophy. That means driving appropriate speeds at appropriate times, and not creating a dangerous situation for other drivers. "Slower traffic ahead" is a big danger on the freeway. A human driver would be expected to speed up and merge with traffic and not create an impedance. There is no question the right thing for the software to do is to exceed the posted limit. Imagine a government so willing to help spur investment in driver-less cars they set a different statutory limit for the AI to follow (class-by-class)? Sounds like a very cool way to solve two problems at once. Based on the specifics of the road, visibility, and telemetry, weather, etc. the tech gets a huge boost if the robot can travel significantly faster.
- alttab 11y agoThis is where I think the divergence between "machine learning" and "artificial intelligence" really lays. These vehicles need to be able to generalize and understand motivations, not something that can be intuited via "more data," at least not practically. Who wants to merge into highway traffic for 500 hours before a machine can do it well? Does it take a human 500 hours? A tough problem to solve, no doubt.
- zodiac 11y agoI think the bigger problem is not training the cars to drive more aggressively, but that doing so will probably require them to break traffic rules
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- cafebeen 11y agoIt's also interesting to think how they will deal with uncertainty. In my neighborhood, people don't follow the law at four way stop signs, and a rational and law-abiding agent might just end up being paralyzed by it.
- wtvanhest 11y agoThe nice thing about these cars and all the dash cams we have from regular drives is that we can now tweak the laws to reflect reality. The robot cars should do what they are supposed to and drivers or law makers should adjust.
- dsfyu404ed 11y agoDon't hold your breath. Those laws make a lot of money.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoNot as much as google
- bnj 11y agoThat might be true but I'd check first.
- grogenaut 11y agoRandom Calculation and I may be way off: http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson-missouri-court-fines-budget.html http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-fe... This is all fines and forfeitures but: St. Ann $3,609,972 $9,115,012 39.6 13,020 St. John $1,126,763 $3,835,573 29.4 6,517 Ferguson $2,571,190 $12,746,894 20.2 21,203 Bellefontaine Neighbors $749,252 $4,918,310 15.2 10,860 City of Florissant $2,966,669 $23,120,332 12.8 52,158 City of Berkeley $1,047,536 $8,680,716 12.1 8,978 Creve Coeur $1,847,864 $16,365,796 11.3 17,833 Maryland Heights $2,077,689 $22,820,884 9.1 27,472 Jennings $679,787 $7,737,693 8.8 14,712 Hazelwood $1,919,022 $23,809,852 8.1 25,703 Overland $582,292 $8,695,835 6.7 16,062 Richmond Heights $763,523 $12,109,281 6.3 8,603 Black Jack $123,355 $2,621,186 4.7 6,929 Clayton $1,027,932 $21,761,741 4.7 15,939 Olivette $283,289 $7,046,302 4.0 7,737 Bridgeton $445,171 $12,887,494 3.5 11,550 St. Louis City $11,022,000 $441,426,000 2.5 319,294 University City $586,281 $26,639,562 2.2 35,371 St. Louis County $4,397,769 $341,291,336 1.3 998,954 This totals up to around $35MM in Fines and Forfeitures in St. Louis (chosen due to Ferguson and all the articles around Mike Brown). Anyway WAG numbers this looks to be about 80% of the neighborhoods on the highways but it's got the 2 major players (city & county) so lets call it good. St. Louis is 21st (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_...) in Metro area size, so that gives us $755MM if everything was actually the size of St. Louis. However if I just add all the pops from 21 up I get 146MM people, so that means that if scaled linearly for St. Louis (which may or may not be right), we're talking $1.763MM, so around 1.75BN for the 21 biggest cities in the US. Easy to say that traffic stops in the US are well over a billion. Way over analysis but it shows scale of traffic income. If you read the first article linked, it points out the share of revenue this. It can be up to 36% of revenue for small municipalities.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 11y agoThese cars remind me of the oblivious middle aged woman who leaves destruction in her wake but insists she's a good driver because it's never her fault and insurance for woman costs less... Have they gotten driver-less cars to successfully navigate graded dirt and snow covered roads yet?
- WalterBright 11y agoYesterday I was driving past midnight through the city. I'd frequently come to an intersection where 2 arterials crossed at 90 degrees. 3 of the roads had red lights and 2 or more cars backed up. The 4th had a green and no traffic coming at all. And ..... we'd sit there a while, and eventually the light would go yellow, again, for nobody, turn red, pause a second for the non-existent red light runners, then finally turn green for us. The intersections had cameras mounted pointing all 4 ways, and sensor wires in the roads. You'd think that if we could build self-driving cars, we could devise a traffic light that would not be monumentally inefficient and incompetent. How hard can it be? And think of all the gas, CO2 and time saved. There's a heluva lot of low hanging fruit in traffic lights.
- WalterBright 11y ago(The traffic light problem is a small subset of the same problem a self driving car faces.)
- dalke 11y agoGet rid of most traffic lights. Use well-designed roundabouts.
- protomyth 11y agoHow much would that cost?
- dalke 11y agoDepends on many factors, including how much you value human life. Quoting from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_672.pdf : > The initial design and construction cost of a roundabout can vary significantly depending on the roundabout size, right-of-way impacts, illumination requirements, and other design or aesthetic features that may be desired. A new single-lane roundabout intersection in an unbuilt environment can have construction costs comparable to a traffic signal. However, as the size of the roundabout increases, particularly in a fully built-out commercial or residential area, the cost of roundabout construction can be higher than that of a traffic signal, depending on the footprint of the roundabout relative to that needed for the signal. However, the ongoing operations and maintenance cost of a roundabout can be less than that for a signal, with the possible exception of increased illumination needs for a roundabout. Although the initial construction cost may be more, a roundabout can have less operating and maintenance costs than a traffic signal, and the service life of a roundabout is significantly longer, approximately 25 years, compared with 10 years for a typical signal (2). Roundabouts also provide substantial cost savings to society due to the reduction in crashes, particularly fatal and injury crashes, over their service life. It also depends on how much you value people's time waiting for a light to change, as described in the parent scenario.
- mrdrozdov 11y agoThis might defeat the purpose, but why not have remote controlled cars. A digital taxi driver could alleviate a lot of the problems that we currently have with non-autonomous cars, except bypasses the whole open-research problem of having roads full with autonomous vehicles. What's being done right now with digital assistants is a similar strategy.
- placeybordeaux 11y agoThe latency is a bit of a worry.
- tluyben2 11y agoThe obvious solution is to forbid human drivers but that will take many years. We will learn cool things until it happens. It is, imho, incidentally the reason why all scifi shows and movies are unrealistic though: there will not be drivers and pilots (of spaceships, planes and cars); it will actually be forbidden.
- alanpost 11y agoIt won't be forbidden to drive. People will still watch Nascar even if they can't afford to own cars. The demand for drivers can't be satisfied solving for the demand for rides. Robots are going to have to learn to deal with human drivers, we're not going to be able to define them out of existence.
- lifeformed 11y agoI hate that "dilemma" if whether or not driverless cars should kill its passengers in order to avoid a deadlier collision. If a group of people walk onto the road as my car approaches, why should I be the one to die? They made the dangerous action, they should bear the consequences. Even if they didn't intend to, how is my car supposed to determine that? I think asking "who is at fault" is a better question than "how many people will live" when asking who should die. Vehicles should be programmed for preservation of the passengers. It's the only unambiguous rubric that makes sense to everyone. Preserve yourself, and if you are in the wrong, bear the legal consequences.
- intopieces 11y agoMoreover, why are we asking computers to make decisions we don't ask humans to make? In a split second, a person does not weigh the pros and cons of hitting an old lady vs a schoolbus filled with boy scouts. We just react, and ideally react according to how we were taught in driver's ed. A computer would do just that, only better and more consistently.
- orasis 11y agoIt's all silly philosophical argument. The heuristics will be more like: reduce kinetic energy as much as possible, avoid pedestrians as much as possible in the event of likely collision. If that heuristic is sufficient to save lives in most situations, it'll be good enough.
- tim333 11y agoI'm skeptical of the "crash rate double that of those with human drivers" The figures are "17 minor crashes in 2 million miles." That's a crash every 117,000 miles or roughly once a decade for a typical driver. From my experience most drivers average more than one minor crash per decade. It's probably that they just don't bother formally reporting them. (My most recent one was about 6 months ago. Another car reversed into mine while I was stationary - small dent. Didn't bother with reporting, insurance claims etc.)
- js8 11y agoMy father was very cautious driver, he never broke speed limit intentionally, and I remember the same argument I had with him when I was in driver's school. I was of opinion that speed limits should be hard enforced, and he told me, you don't want that, sometimes you might need to break the speed limit, for example when you're exiting the crossing a little too late for some reason. I think he was right. But in the case of self-driving cars software - I would much prefer it to just stick to the law, rather than try to match human nuances (or not!) of breaking it. I think general predictability is of value. I hate to say that but the human drivers that cause these accidents are the ones who have to learn better. And if it is still desirable for the autonomous cars to behave differently in certain place, you can always change the speed limits (or other signs) in that location.
- stonemetal 11y agoThe only problem with the article is the speed limit is much more complicated than the number printed on the sign. The actual speed limit depends on the flow of traffic and weather conditions. Merging on to a high way where people are driving 80 then driving 65 is violating the law.
- peeters 11y agoIn which jurisdictions is it illegal to obey the speed limit if traffic is going faster? I know some jurisdictions have charges for impeding traffic but that's always been for when you're going under the limit. I'm skeptical that to conform to the law you have to exceed the posted limit.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoToronto, Ontario, Canada at least. One guy got a speeding ticket for doing 120 kph in the merge lane. He got mad and decided he was going to strictly follow the law and do 100 kph in the fast lane, which normally travels at 130 or higher. He caused a traffic jam, got an obstruction ticket, fought it and lost.
- peeters 11y agoThere's a big asterisk there, and that was that he got the ticket for being in the fast lane. That's different than forcing someone to speed (i.e. break the limit even in the slow/only lane).
- dalke 11y agohttp://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter7-6.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticke... > There are several circumstances in which drivers may be ticketed for illegally blocking or impeding traffic by driving too slowly or failing to yield to a long line of vehicles behind them. ... Driving Too Slowly in Left Lane ... Impeding Traffic ... Failing to Use "Turnouts" Regarding the first of these, > Your state's law will say something like: > Any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle pro ceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway. If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic mov ing in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of this section. Note how this uses "normal speed", not "speed limit". The NoLo site at http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter5-1.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticke... describes how there are three types of speed-limit violations: "Absolute", "Presumed", and "Basic". In an "absolute" speed limit state, you can defend against a 'Driving Too Slowly in Left Lane' by showing you were were traveling at the posted speed limit. (Quoting NoLo - I have no legal training.) However, that is not true of all states.
- mirimir 11y ago> Ten days later, a Mountain View motorcycle cop noticed traffic stacking up behind a Google car going 24 miles an hour in a busy 35 mph zone. He zoomed over and became the first officer to stop a robot car. He didn’t issue a ticket -- who would he give it to? -- but he warned the two engineers on board about creating a hazard. > “The right thing would have been for this car to pull over, let the traffic go and then pull back on the roadway,” said Sergeant Saul Jaeger, head of the police department’s traffic-enforcement unit. “I like it when people err on the side of caution. But can something be too cautious? Yeah.” I believe that this reflects the 25 mph maximum speed that Google has set. I don't know CA law, but in some places it's illegal to go under 25 mph in a 35 mph zone. It's always safest to minimize speed difference with other vehicles. Even if that means exceeding the limit. That won't protect against citations in speed traps, however.
- jacobolus 11y agoBy California law, NEVs are vehicles which are incapable of driving faster than 25 mph, and are allowed to drive (unless barred by local ordinance) on any street with posted limit ≤ 35 mph. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr37 https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_... This traffic stop was caused more by cop ignorance than any problem of Google’s. No harm done though. Human drivers of NEVs go the same top speed on the same roads, it just doesn’t make the news if one gets stopped and has a conversation with a cop.
- mirimir 11y agoThanks for the cite. According to Wikipedia, 25 mph NEVs can use roads posted at 45 mph in some places. But laws notwithstanding, even 10-15 mph speed differential is hazardous.
- jacobolus 11y agoYep. It would be great to get urban street speed limits lowered to max out at 25–30 mph everywhere, with strict enforcement against driving above 35–40mph. In collisions between cars and pedestrians or cyclists, everyone mostly walks away alive at 25 mph, whereas at 45+ mph the pedestrian or cyclist dies almost every time. With smarter road design organized to minimize waits at traffic signals, it wouldn’t even necessarily result in slower trips or less road capacity overall.
- Yhippa 11y ago> The Caddy performed perfectly, except when it had to merge onto I-395 South and swing across three lanes of traffic in 150 yards (137 meters) to head toward the Pentagon. This is probably one of the most stressful maneuvers you can make on the Capital beltway. Honestly I feel like once we hit critical mass with driverless cars this action will be much more manageable. I and other drivers have to do some real aggressive things to make this work.
- CPLX 11y agoThat is literally nowhere near the beltway, just FYI.
- jacobolus 11y agoPossible reasons you might find more slow-speed minor rear-end collisions among self-driving cars than among human-driven cars on a per-mile basis: 1. There are only a tiny number of self-driving cars on the road, driving a relatively small number of miles, and accidents in general are fairly rare on a per-mile basis, so there might not yet be enough data to get a reliable idea of average crash rate. The linked study is based on analysis of only 11 (!!) crashes, 8 of which were at <5 mph, with only 2 causing “possible injuries”. As the study itself says, “[...] the corresponding 95% confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, we currently cannot rule out, with a reasonable level of confidence, the possibility that the actual rate for self-driving vehicles is lower than for conventional vehicles.” (Personally I think their confidence intervals for self-driving cars are useless given the data so far, but whatever.) 2. The Google cars which account for all of the cited crashes are AFAIK doing all of their driving on city streets, where intersections, stops, and thus these types of collisions are more common than on highways. 3. I suspect most tiny bumper bumps which don’t damage either car or injure anyone are never reported to the police when both drivers are people, but self-driving cars record every case. 4. Self-driving cars have better sensors to detect road hazards, and as a result might stop in cases where a human driver would do something which risked a more serious accident. People tail-gating these cars will end up unable to react in time and bumping them, but even these 11 crashes might have been in situations where the autonomous car stopping prevented more severe car damage or injuries. 5. Driving cautiously and strictly limiting speed to 25mph might make following human drivers frustrated and more likely to tail closely. This might be exacerbated by the Google cars’ goofy appearance. (Would be interesting to see statistics for various skills/styles of human drivers, or for human-driven NEVs.) I’m not sure NEV accidents can be meaningfully compared to standard car accidents. Overall I think this topic is worthy of study, but the data is not really all that useful yet. Keith Naughton’s Bloomberg piece calling this a “key flaw” seems like high-order FUD / clickbait.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Apofis 11y agoInteresting. Coincidentally (or not?) yesterday Bloomberg posted an article about George Hotz building his own Self Driving AI and he talks about the very problem Google is having with the car following the rules too strictly. Looks like he's right at least about this one thing. Article here for the curious: http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driving-car/ http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-driv...