25 ms·

Google says self-driving car hits municipal bus in minor crash

344 points by sajal83 11y ago

ars 11y ago
I'm actually more impressed that they are trying to code "believed the bus would slow". Understanding the expected behavior of other drivers is critical to making self driving cars work. And that seems like a pretty hard thing for a computer to figure out.
- cfontes 11y ago
  It's hard even for humans...
  - nashashmi 11y ago
    I think I have achieved 95% accuracy in attempting to predict driver behavior as much as much as 6-10 cars ahead of me. I say 95% conservatively. Though I have not exactly ever found myself making the wrong guess.
- privong 11y ago
  > Understanding the expected behavior of other drivers is critical to making self driving cars work. And that seems like a pretty hard thing for a computer to figure out. You're definitely right. With regard to this particular instance, based on my experiences in many cities in different countries, buses pulling out into traffic when they don't technically have the right of way is an expected behavior. :)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - steveax 11y ago
    Unless I'm reading the report wrong, it appears that the bus did have the right of way. Indicating intent and hoping will get you in trouble with more than just busses.
    - privong 11y ago
      > Unless I'm reading the report wrong, it appears that the bus did have the right of way. Yeah, I was more trying to make an observation about general behavior of buses. When I read the article there was no mention of fault or reference to a report, so I didn't know. But I do know that buses disregarding right of way is fairly common. "With regard to this instance" was probably too strong/literal of a phrase to use to tie-in my observation.
- berns 11y ago
  Then we'll have the problem of us humans trying to predict the behaviour of the machine that unintuitively will be harder than predicting that of other humans. Of course the system will be much safer when there are no more humans involved in the decisions.
- jonknee 11y ago
  They're probably not, they're giving the car enough real world experience that it can learn on its own that busses don't always slow down.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- andbberger 11y ago
  They're almost certainly using a Bayesian approach (in part, if not in full) which by nature elegantly handles uncertainty
atonse 11y ago
Technically, even if self driving cars are more safe than human drivers (even if they're not perfect), should be good enough. But my lizard brain tells me that I'm putting my life in the hands of a machine that potentially has bugs, and that's a little scary. Most of us are going to expect nothing short of perfection from these machines to really trust them.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Exactly this. When I was trying to get my pilots license for small aircraft I wasn't afraid of flying at all. But my lizard brain tells me that when I fly commercial I should be terrified because I'm not in control. Even though the commercial pilot is statistically magnitudes safer than me driving, and considerably safer than me flying.
  - atonse 11y ago
    Agreed. When I explain why autonomous cars are always going to be better than humans, I use this example: When you drive, you only look at one thing. If you glance at the rear view mirror, you're no longer processing the front. If you look at a side view mirror, you're no longer looking at the front or back. All this is not counting blind spots. But imagine if you could see all around the car, all the time, and process all of it with the same level of importance. That's what self-driving cars can do. People I speak to are usually receptive to that, but there's still the lizard brain aspect, one even I'm victim to. ;)
- DannoHung 11y ago
  > But my lizard brain tells me that I'm putting my life in the hands of a machine that potentially has bugs, and that's a little scary. > Most of us are going to expect nothing short of perfection from these machines to really trust them. I am not sure if this is satire or oblivion.
- WillKirkby 11y ago
  And yet we routinely trust other people to drive us around, when we know that they're imperfect.
krschultz 11y ago
It was inevitable, so I'm sure they're quite pleased it was a minor issue and not something catastrophic. Someday in the future a self driving car is going to hurt or kill a person and then the real legal tests will begin, but this is the first step on the pathway to normalcy. My personal fear is that Google and maybe one or two others will get self driving cars right, but then the imitations from other manufacturers will fall short. The liability needs to end up on the manufacturer of the self driving car system, this is not something to be taken lightly at all.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  I expect self driving car liability to end up similar to vaccine liability. A fund and adjudication process is created to compensate those who have an adverse outcome. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Which are controversial in some circles because they're a rare example of a "get out of jail free" card for big companies. (I'm not agreeing with that POV but noting that it's pretty widespread.) I actually agree that vaccines (and really drugs more broadly) are a rather unusual example of products that can be used as directed and things can still go bad--without the manufacturer necessarily being "at fault." [Edit: Where it's not the fault of the user or other human.]
    - cornellwright 11y ago
      Another way to do it would be for each manufacturer to have to price in liability coverage to their vehicle. This could be done as a yearly or monthly software license fee that the current owner/operator of the vehicle has to pay. It creates the right incentive for manufacturers because they can charge less (or make more money) if their cars are safer and have fewer claims. We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals.
lyle_nel 11y ago
This just in ... one vehicle on the road hit another vehicle on the road.
- chairleader 11y ago
  I'm finding the description of the accident a little... passive. Has anyone found other reporting or even video of the incident itself?
  - theklub 11y ago
    I mean they aren't trying to advertise this.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mattzito 11y ago
> The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." Clearly the algorithm does not take into account the classic attitudes of bus drivers.
- junto 11y ago
  Even more lucky it wasn't a BMW. Here in Europe the attitudes of BMW drivers are not highly regarded.
  - gradi3nt 11y ago
    Here in the US we stand with you on the issue of BMW drivers.
  - johansch 11y ago
    Not even in Germany?
    - chefkoch 11y ago
      Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
      - johansch 11y ago
        I guess old BMW's get more cred, while with newer ones you swear "tax evader" under you breath as it overtakes you in the left lane?
    - chefkoch 11y ago
      Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
    - chefkoch 11y ago
      Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
    - aluhut 11y ago
rmcpherson 11y ago
Is there any information available about how these cars take evasive action or attempt to reduce damage in the event of an imminent impact? The article's wording makes it sound like the car was at fault for the crash by re-entering the lane: > "But three seconds later, as the Google car reentered the center of the lane it struck the side of the bus" Presumably the car's software predicted the crash before it occurred but was unable to completely avoid it. I'd love to know what the programmed behavior is in these 'unavoidable' crash scenarios. edit: formatting
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
AdmiralAsshat 11y ago
So what happened when the bus driver walked over to the self-driving car in order to exchange insurance information?
- jonknee 11y ago
  The human in the car exchanged it and thanks to the multitude of sensors and cameras this will be the single best documented fender bender in the history of the planet.
  - Animats 11y ago
    Yes, especially since the New Flyer buses also have cameras and data recorders.
known 11y ago
Uber + Self-driving = Mayhem
deckar01 11y ago
It is going to be difficult to predict the actions of irrational actors like bus drivers. You can usually assume that a driver has a vested interest in not damaging their vehicle, but my experience navigating California's city streets has consistently suggested otherwise when busses are involved. I would group them into a category along with police cars and ambulances due to the prioritization of speed over safety. (Although, in my experience ambulances, are usually very good a prioritizing safety.)
cpprototypes 11y ago
There is a common assumption that humans = bad drivers. And that these self driving cars will be much better than people at driving. I think this belief greatly underestimates the difficulty of what Google and others are trying to do. Humans are actually great drivers when the situation requires thinking. Lot of snow and can't see the lane markers? Millions of people adapt every day to this during winter. Lots of pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. doing somewhat unpredictable things? Again, look at any Asian mega city, people can adapt very fast. Basically, if the situation requires being alert, people are very good at driving. When are people bad a driving? Whenever it's monotonous. Bumper to bumper traffic or a free flowing freeway. Constant repetition of red/green cycles while going down a suburban street. These boring situations make a lot of people basically turn off their alert thinking. Then they do other things like texting, talking on phone, etc. And these boring situations are exactly where AI self driving is better at driving than people. Computers never get bored. The self driving car will be at 100% attention even during the most boring traffic. But when boring suddenly turns to not boring? The current state of AI is very very bad at this. And unfortunately there's no easy way to use the best of both sides. If the AI is fully driving, then it will do great while the driving is boring. But by the time the AI decides, this is too much, can't handle this, it's too late to alert the human driver to take over. But if the human driver is required to always pay attention, what's the point of the self driving car? Self driving cars will get there someday, but I think it's much farther away than many assume it will be.
- jonknee 11y ago
  On the other hand Google has driven a lot of miles without an incident and this minor accident doesn't change the fact that their system is safer than a human behind the wheel. And unlike humans who don't improve after an accident, Google's whole fleet just got even more safe.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    This is false. Google's cars have only gone as far as they have without an incident BECAUSE of human drivers. In a 12 month period, human drivers prevented Google Self-Driving Cars from causing ten accidents. And 272 times the car's software outright failed and dropped control of the car to the human driver. This is all in Google's recent report to the California DMV, but it's not a reality they like to advertise openly. Statistically, Google's Self-Driving Car would've lost it's license by now, if not for human drivers keeping it in check.
bch 11y ago
The linked report doesn't say Google is accepting responsibility, so it'll be interesting to see what tact they take here. In _Toronto_, from talking with acquaintances that are drivers, I understand they work in near constant fear of accidents. They are expected to at least practically always be able to avoid accidents, and the feeling is that if something happens, they're presumed guilty (within management), and proceed from there. I don't know if all professional bus drivers' conditions are the same as Toronto, but I can imagine this could be extremely distressing for the bus driver involved. At least nobody was injured.
- euyyn 11y ago
  In Spain if a bus hits you, you can go eff yourself because you're going to pay it no matter what happened.
  - dredwerker 11y ago
    I was at a junction in Spain and I had no idea what to do. It was the most hectic thing in the world, you just sort of went and hoped. I guess its simialr to some roundabouts in London. I have no idea how an AV would handle that(unless they were all AVs at the junction)
- obsurveyor 11y ago
  > The linked report doesn't say Google is accepting responsibility That's for insurance reasons. You're never supposed to admit fault at the collision in the US. You let the police decide and that's that. It's like the first thing listed on the guidelines for collisions on your insurance card.
  - bch 11y ago
    Agreed re: insurance reasons. That said, the phrasing of the event is interesting "...self-driving car hits municipal bus..." and (in article) "...self-driving car struck a municipal bus...", and the co-driver (and vehicle) is quoted as "believed the bus would slow or allow the the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue.", sound a little "soft", more like "yeah, I think that's my fault". I don't have 'favourite to win', regardless. There's another article[0] that I didn't see earlier that does in fact accept at least partial fault, and additionally mentions that the software was updated as result of this event. Thankfully it seems to be a low-cost (in terms of injury and damage) event, but fascinating given the young state of autonomous driving. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUSKCN0W22DG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUS...
trjordan 11y ago
> The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." Love this. I'm shamelessly rooting for self-driving cars, and crashes are inevitable. Having the human in the car agree with the computer brings a lot of credibility to the report and follow-up.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- chairleader 11y ago
  OCR'd from the incident report: A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle ("Google AV") was traveling in autonomous mode eastbound on El Camino Real in Mountain View in the far right-hand lane approaching the Castro St. intersection. As the Google AV approached the intersection, it signaled its intent to make a right turn on red onto Castro St. The Google AV then moved to the right-hand side of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight. However, the Google AV had to come to a stop and go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later. as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane it made contact with the side of the bus. The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and traveling at less than 2 mph, and the bus was travelling at about 15 mph at the time of contact. The Google AV sustained body damage to the left front fender, the left from wheal and one of its driver's-sidde sensors. There were no injuries reported at the scene.
ikeboy 11y ago
Can the URL be changed to a source that at least links to the report, like http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-drivi... or http://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/ http://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-ca...
ChuckMcM 11y ago
Ok, I laughed out loud on that one. This quote in particular, "The vehicle and the test driver 'believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue.'" Bus drivers in the Bay Area are notorious for ignoring traffic (and pedestrians). Apparently there is some indemnity or statutes that make suing either the transportation agency or the driver nearly impossible and so pretty quickly people learn that the bus drivers drive with impunity. Plenty of stories posted to the local traffic column in the paper, and shared amongst neighbors and in the department of safety's "blotter" feature. Google needs to go back and program their cars to always assume that buses are out to get them and avoid them at all cost, They are an active traffic hazard often operated by a disinterested and distracted driver. The only way to "win" is to not be where ever the bus is.
- drchiu 11y ago
  Agreed. Google needs to increase the settings on "Defensive Driving". Just because the Google robot drives in a reasonable manner doesn't mean the humans around it will.
  - theklub 11y ago
    Made me think, someone can wave you ahead, etc. There won't be that option with a robot unless they install a indicator.
    - timv 11y ago
      But once they're all robots they can communicate far more efficiently than a hand wave, and can actually agree on a fairly complex plan (to take over the world)
      - theklub 11y ago
        So we'll all be dead by then probably haha.
- technofiend 11y ago
dsp1234 11y ago
And here is the actual accident report [0] "A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle ("Google AV") was traveling in autonomous mode eastbound on El Camino Real in Mountain View in the far right-hand lane approaching the Castro St. intersection. As the Google AV approached the intersection, it signaled its intent to make a right turn on red onto Castro St. The Google AV then moved to the right-hand sid of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight. However, the Google AV had to come to a stop to go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later, as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane, it made contact with the side of the bus. The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and travelling less than 2 mph, and the bus was travelling at about 15 mph at the time of contact. The Google AV sustained body damage to the left front fender, the left front wheel and one of its driver's-side sensors. There were no injuries reported at the scene." [0] - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52-8f80-b33948df34b2/Google+Auto+LLC+02.14.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52...
- DannyBee 11y ago
  I'm actually curious who had the right of way in this one. It sounds like the bus just plowed through them while accelerating the whole way.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's the bus. Generally a already moving vehicle with a green light on straight road has right of way. The correct action for the autonomous vehicle (or a human driver) would be to wait for all traffic in the lane to clear (for example, after the previous light turns red and there is a lull in the traffic), then make it's way around the sandbags. Here's my artists rending. The vertical lane is just the right hand lane, and is "wide", but still one lane. The bus is traveling "up" and the Google AV tries to manenouver around the sandbags blocking it's way. Thinking that it can get around in time, the AV starts moving to the left and crashes into the bus. I guess the "one lane" aspect is the confounding variable, but since the autonomous vehicle was stopped, then it takes on the aspect of any other stopped vehicle on the side of the road (ie giving up it's right of way). Just like if you have a road where cars are allowed to park on the side of the road, those cars cannot enter traffic unless it is safe to do so. Edit: Actually, I have no idea. Did a quick read of California's right of way laws, and couldn't find anything that jumped out that would cover this situation. | | | | +---- | SS+---- <-[G]| | ^ | | | |[B] | [B] | | |
donpdonp 11y ago
The description of events is slightly suspicious. For all the predictive smarts of the car and its impressive LIDAR, keeping from bumping into things seems like it would be the highest priority possible second only to loss of life. The corners of the car have some kind of distance sensor so the car would have to have known it was about to collide with something. In CPU time there was plenty of time to react and its always looking at all four corners. The article make it sound like the AI blindly changed lanes into the bus. It seems most likely that the AI knew about the impending collision and decided colliding was safer than any other option. It'd be great to know what the other options were, but I imagine we'll probably never get more detail.
- euyyn 11y ago
  Notice that it doesn't say it changed lanes; rather, it shifted to the leftmost-side of its lane, later to return to the center of the lane (which is when the bus hit it). I get your point, though, and I imagine it could have gone something like this: Car predicts bus will slow down (as reported), moves back to center of lane. Bus doesn't, and the car's sensors inform of it. During the seconds (or the fraction of a second) before the collision, the car came up with the safest avoidance maneuver, and started executing it. Crash.
- djrogers 11y ago
  It didn't change lanes, which is why the description didn't say it did. The entire event took place in a single extra-wide right lane, which are pretty common. The extra width is to accommodate on-street parking as well as right hand turns.
Animats 11y ago
Here's the Autonomous Vehicle Accident Report filed with the CA DMV.[1] "The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and traveling at less than 2 mph and the bus was traveling around 15 mph." The other vehicle was a 2002 Newflyer Lowfloor Articulated Bus, which is 61 feet long including the "trailer" part. Here's where it happened.[2] You can see traffic cones around the storm drain. This is a subtle error. Arguably, part of the problem was that the AV was moving too slowly. It was trying to break into a gap in traffic, but because it was maneuvering around an unusual road hazard (sandbags), was moving very slowly. This situation was misread by the bus driver, who failed to stop or change course, perhaps expecting the AV to accelerate. The AV is probably at fault, because it was doing a lane change while the bus was not. Fixing this requires that the AV be either less aggressive or more aggressive. Less aggressive would mean sitting there waiting for a big break in traffic. That could take a while at that location. More aggressive would mean accelerating faster into a gap. Google's AVs will accelerate into gaps in ordinary situations such as freeway merges, but when dealing with an unusual road hazard, they may be held down to very slow speeds. I wonder if Google will publish the playback from their sensor data. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52-8f80-b33948df34b2/Google+Auto+LLC+02.14.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52... [2] https://goo.gl/maps/QzvVXQGxhX72 https://goo.gl/maps/QzvVXQGxhX72
- jessriedel 11y ago
  > The AV is probably at fault, because it was doing a lane change while the bus was not. Yes, probably true, but not crystal clear. The Google car never left the lane, so it comes down to subtle questions about appearing to be parked or impromptu division of lanes near right-hand turns.
evunveot 11y ago
If you're having trouble visualizing what happened (like me), here's the intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3859058,-122.0843836,3a,75y,180.9h,70.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT2jrKcM8pLU8MPq1hj60xQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3859058,-122.0843836,3a,75y,... Looks like the far right lane has double the normal lane width to accommodate on-street parking. The Google car, looking to turn right on red, attempted to use the right-most part of the lane to pass cars that were waiting to go straight, but there were sandbags covering the storm drain near the corner, so it had to stop. When the light changed, the cars it had passed continued on while the Google car waited for a gap, which ended up being in front of a bus, likely caused by the bus accelerating more slowly than the cars in front of it. The Google car tried to use the gap to get around the sandbags, assuming that the bus wouldn't just plow into it, but the bus plowed into it. Perhaps the bus driver assumed the Google car was parked and wasn't paying much attention to it.
- duderific 11y ago
  The question is, how much room did the AV have in front of the bus to merge out in front of it? I'm wondering if the bus was cruising along and saw the AV inching out into its lane and just thought "Oh, once they see this big-ass bus coming along, they'll stop trying to merge." And the AV thought "Once that bus sees me inching out, it'll slow to let me merge." And neither one was right.
awqrre 11y ago
That was not a small target...
kisstheblade 11y ago
The country where I live buses have right of way when leaving bus stops. They seem to actually try to hit cars which are in the next lane (even when the car has almost passed and it of course isn't a "right of way" situation anymore)... So if you program an autonomous car it would be smart to program it to never get next to a bus :)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
ClarkGable 11y ago
A self-driving car bng tested by Google struck a public bus on a Silicon Valley street, a minor accident that appears to be the first time one of the ... While the report does not address fault, Google said in a written statement, “We ... http://getfollowerslikes.co http://getfollowerslikes.co
Swizec 11y ago
"The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue."" This sounds like a very strong assumption. When was the last time you saw a bus slow down for a car or anything much? There's a reason "Fuck you I'm a bus" is a meme.
- wtallis 11y ago
  Since the light had just turned green, the assumption was probably that the bus would cease accelerating long enough for the Google car to get around the obstacle, not that the bus driver would hit the brakes.
stefap2 11y ago
In related article http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUSKCN0W22DG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUS... "Google said in the filing the autonomous vehicle was traveling at less than 2 miles per hour, while the bus was moving at about 15 miles per hour." Google said in a statement on Monday that "we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn’t moved, there wouldn’t have been a collision. That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that."
- trhway 11y ago
  >That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that." it was a [double] bus. It isn't the kind of vehicle one stops out of courtesy to let the other car to merge (until such courtesy is the only option for the other car to merge, obviously) Anyway, it is an obvious software failure as the Google car hit the side of the bus at slow speed. There is no reason to blame it on somebody.
- DrScump 11y ago
  And if it was going 15MPH, that's not a sudden movement, as these accelerate fairly slowly even when empty.
Gratsby 11y ago
I live in the area. The stinking buses around here ... They crowd the lanes regularly. Us human drivers I suppose are used to it, but it is a serious pain in the butt. The buses will drive right next to the lane marker, with their mirrors hanging over into your lane. This makes it so everybody has to creep over a little bit into the drivers side lane and hopefully everybody in traffic has a small enough car to deal with it. Otherwise, you have to hang back behind the bus as if it's in your lane and wait for it to get to a stop. I've had my issues with Google autonomous cars (they drive slow and they used to be exceptionally slow at making right hand turns, causing traffic problems), but in this instance I'm happy to throw VTA under the bus, if you will, and lay blame 100% at their feet.
- esolyt 11y ago
  Seems like Google acknowledged this: "From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles"
  - mojuba 11y ago
    I will probably get downvoted for this, but: this is why I am skeptical about self-driving vehicles. Driving in general and adjusting to each country/locality, then to vehicle types is such a human thing that you'd need a thousand more "deep understanding" things like this. It will be an endless process for an algorithm driven car. Buses in Dublin will be so much different from buses in London, or trucks in the US different from trucks in Germany. Then there are the bikes, pedestrians. When human drivers/bikers/pedestrians look at each other and know what to expect. These are the things that would be incredibly difficult to formalize, if possible at all. Unless you have something like a Deep Mind on board, but even then I wouldn't be so sure.
    - jonesb6 11y ago
      Wouldn't this be a great application for machine learning? Collect traffic data locally, run it through the system a few bazillion times, them you realize the only way to avoid a car crash is to drive like a maniac in certain places.
copremesis 11y ago
skynet?
copremesis 11y ago
skynet?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tobbyb 11y ago
Some of these discussions seem to severely underestimate human intelligence and the ability to reason and take decisions rapidly. There are hundreds of millions of cars operating in all sorts of conditions with little incident. There are literally hundreds of thousands of preemptive actions, foresight, experience and instinctive actions at play for every possibility on roads that millions of people adopt easily. To say that's not good enough one must articulate a system that is clearly better or has the potential while avoiding a broad brush with 0.1% incidents or diminishing human drivers. That's an argument of convenience and could reflect a lack of understanding of the scope and scale of the problem. This is just sandbags, there are literally millions of obstacles and scenarios negotiated without incident everyday. Crashes in snow is not always about bad decisions. It could also be extremely poor conditions that cars should not be in, inadequate vehicle or tyres and computing will not help if hardware is deficient. Presuming the worst of others or jumping to conclusions about their intelligence levels is unsavory and dangerous if used to push something. An AI vehicle in any crowded Asian city is going to be literally stranded by indecision. On relatively empty and organized roads the computing power needed will barely scratch the surface of what a proper self driving AI system needs to be unless you redesign the roads and place constraints, which then becomes a different discussion to approach carefully.
smoyer 11y ago
The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." If the test driver stated that s/he thought the car should yield to the bus, would the test driver still have a job? I would have been shocked if the test driver said the software was at fault.
tn13 11y ago
I hate El Camino road. The right most lane is always far too wide which means if a bus has stopped everyone expects you to still squeeze from the limited space. If you don't they will honk. If you do there is always a possibility that the giant bus might miss you and hit you. However an important take away for all bay area drivers from the article is You are supposed to HUG the right shoulder when making a right turn. I am yet to see a single driver who embraces that principle. It is not just for your safety and convenience of the traffic behind you but also because of the safety of bike riders, if you make a sudden right turn they might hit you and get injured.
bfrog 11y ago
Seems like this was inevitable. Its astounding to me that it took this long and that there was no one hurt! It is even more amazing that there have been apparently 0 injuries or fatalities. I wonder how these autonomous cars compare in terms of hours on the road to # of incidents (not accidents mind you, I hate that term).
Animats 11y ago
This story is getting a lot of press coverage. Reuters, CNBC and Wired are already covering it. When Cruise (YC 14)'s car hit a parked car at 20 mph in SF last month, there was no press attention.[1] Even though it was across the street from the main police station. That Cruise crash is an example of the "deadly valley" between manual driving and fully automatic driving, The vehicle made a bad move which prompted the driver to take over, but too late. This is exactly why AVs can't rely on the driver as backup. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/bc21ef62-6e7c-4049-a552-0a7c50d92e86/Cruise_Automation_01.08.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/bc21ef62-6e7c-4049...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
randomacct44 11y ago
My question is - why are bus drivers such assholes (as depicted by the comments here)? Serious question I'm curious about. Is this societal, is it a technology problem (do the way buses work somehow encourage this behavior towards other motorists), is it likely a combination of both?
aidenn0 11y ago
It's interesting to observe the highly varying amount that other cars will allow for merging. Merging onto the freeway during a busy day (maybe 35MPH traffic), I tried to merge and the car I was planning on going in front of moved up until their bumper was about a meter from the vehicle in front of them and leaned on their horn. "I technically have the right of way in this situation and by God, I won't yield it to you!" This was a situation where there were about 40 cars merging onto the freeway and they mostly just do a fairly standard zipper merge.
mannykannot 11y ago
This incident hints at what I believe is going to be a big issue in the transition to autonomous vehicles in busy urban areas. If AVs are too passive, human drivers will take advantage of them. If they are too aggressive, the accident rates will be high, and the risk of an AV causing a major accident increases. Threading this dichotomy is more difficult than solving the physics of driving.
bryanrasmussen 11y ago
It would be great if it turned out google car swerved into the bus to avoid hitting a fat man.
- ant6n 11y ago
  'Sand bag' turns out to be a euphemism.
jaza 11y ago
Google needs to program their AVs to be aware of the universal "law of anything bigger"! http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntersholosuite/images/6/6c/Spaceball_One_001.jpg http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntersholosuite/ima...
jfoster 11y ago
I think this minor accident is actually a good thing for self-driving cars. It sets the expectation that they may not be perfect, and isn't a PR disaster in the way that a fatal accident may have been. From here, more accidents are able to happen without being huge news stories. Undoubtedly, the first time someone dies in an accident involving a self-driving car, there will still be lots of questioning of the technology, but it won't come as a complete surprise, now that smaller accidents have occurred.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
romuloab42 11y ago
I don't know in US, but at least where I live when somebody hits you from behind, it's his fault. The idea is that you are supposed to drive cautiously and therefore be prepared if the vehicle in front of you behave erratically -- that is, even if the vehicle's driver is wrong (say, it's not his right of way), you still should be in a safe distance.
la6470 11y ago
No it's the municipal bus that hit the Google car. The municipal buses have become increasingly reckless
la6470 11y ago
Instead of self driving car they should have self driving bus
stretchwithme 11y ago
Maybe Google should train their cars at demolition derbies instead of on public roads. Have one group of vehicles trying to crash into another. And let competing teams of students program the crashers. Winning team gets $25K. And play with touch football rules to keep the costs down. Cover vehicles with touch sensors and cameras that record each crash.

344 points by sajal83 11y ago

ars 11y ago

I'm actually more impressed that they are trying to code "believed the bus would slow". Understanding the expected behavior of other drivers is critical to making self driving cars work. And that seems like a pretty hard thing for a computer to figure out.

cfontes 11y ago
It's hard even for humans...
- nashashmi 11y ago
  I think I have achieved 95% accuracy in attempting to predict driver behavior as much as much as 6-10 cars ahead of me. I say 95% conservatively. Though I have not exactly ever found myself making the wrong guess.
privong 11y ago
> Understanding the expected behavior of other drivers is critical to making self driving cars work. And that seems like a pretty hard thing for a computer to figure out. You're definitely right. With regard to this particular instance, based on my experiences in many cities in different countries, buses pulling out into traffic when they don't technically have the right of way is an expected behavior. :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- steveax 11y ago
  Unless I'm reading the report wrong, it appears that the bus did have the right of way. Indicating intent and hoping will get you in trouble with more than just busses.
  - privong 11y ago
    > Unless I'm reading the report wrong, it appears that the bus did have the right of way. Yeah, I was more trying to make an observation about general behavior of buses. When I read the article there was no mention of fault or reference to a report, so I didn't know. But I do know that buses disregarding right of way is fairly common. "With regard to this instance" was probably too strong/literal of a phrase to use to tie-in my observation.
berns 11y ago
Then we'll have the problem of us humans trying to predict the behaviour of the machine that unintuitively will be harder than predicting that of other humans. Of course the system will be much safer when there are no more humans involved in the decisions.
jonknee 11y ago
They're probably not, they're giving the car enough real world experience that it can learn on its own that busses don't always slow down.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
andbberger 11y ago
They're almost certainly using a Bayesian approach (in part, if not in full) which by nature elegantly handles uncertainty

atonse 11y ago

Technically, even if self driving cars are more safe than human drivers (even if they're not perfect), should be good enough. But my lizard brain tells me that I'm putting my life in the hands of a machine that potentially has bugs, and that's a little scary. Most of us are going to expect nothing short of perfection from these machines to really trust them.

merpnderp 11y ago
Exactly this. When I was trying to get my pilots license for small aircraft I wasn't afraid of flying at all. But my lizard brain tells me that when I fly commercial I should be terrified because I'm not in control. Even though the commercial pilot is statistically magnitudes safer than me driving, and considerably safer than me flying.
- atonse 11y ago
  Agreed. When I explain why autonomous cars are always going to be better than humans, I use this example: When you drive, you only look at one thing. If you glance at the rear view mirror, you're no longer processing the front. If you look at a side view mirror, you're no longer looking at the front or back. All this is not counting blind spots. But imagine if you could see all around the car, all the time, and process all of it with the same level of importance. That's what self-driving cars can do. People I speak to are usually receptive to that, but there's still the lizard brain aspect, one even I'm victim to. ;)
DannoHung 11y ago
> But my lizard brain tells me that I'm putting my life in the hands of a machine that potentially has bugs, and that's a little scary. > Most of us are going to expect nothing short of perfection from these machines to really trust them. I am not sure if this is satire or oblivion.
WillKirkby 11y ago
And yet we routinely trust other people to drive us around, when we know that they're imperfect.

krschultz 11y ago

It was inevitable, so I'm sure they're quite pleased it was a minor issue and not something catastrophic. Someday in the future a self driving car is going to hurt or kill a person and then the real legal tests will begin, but this is the first step on the pathway to normalcy. My personal fear is that Google and maybe one or two others will get self driving cars right, but then the imitations from other manufacturers will fall short. The liability needs to end up on the manufacturer of the self driving car system, this is not something to be taken lightly at all.

toomuchtodo 11y ago
I expect self driving car liability to end up similar to vaccine liability. A fund and adjudication process is created to compensate those who have an adverse outcome. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/ http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/
- ghaff 11y ago
  Which are controversial in some circles because they're a rare example of a "get out of jail free" card for big companies. (I'm not agreeing with that POV but noting that it's pretty widespread.) I actually agree that vaccines (and really drugs more broadly) are a rather unusual example of products that can be used as directed and things can still go bad--without the manufacturer necessarily being "at fault." [Edit: Where it's not the fault of the user or other human.]
  - cornellwright 11y ago
    Another way to do it would be for each manufacturer to have to price in liability coverage to their vehicle. This could be done as a yearly or monthly software license fee that the current owner/operator of the vehicle has to pay. It creates the right incentive for manufacturers because they can charge less (or make more money) if their cars are safer and have fewer claims. We'd probably also need some amount of limits on full tort liability though since the manufactures would be bigger targets for lawyers than individuals.

lyle_nel 11y ago

This just in ... one vehicle on the road hit another vehicle on the road.

chairleader 11y ago
I'm finding the description of the accident a little... passive. Has anyone found other reporting or even video of the incident itself?
- theklub 11y ago
  I mean they aren't trying to advertise this.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mattzito 11y ago

> The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." Clearly the algorithm does not take into account the classic attitudes of bus drivers.

junto 11y ago
Even more lucky it wasn't a BMW. Here in Europe the attitudes of BMW drivers are not highly regarded.
- gradi3nt 11y ago
  Here in the US we stand with you on the issue of BMW drivers.
- johansch 11y ago
  Not even in Germany?
  - chefkoch 11y ago
    Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
    - johansch 11y ago
      I guess old BMW's get more cred, while with newer ones you swear "tax evader" under you breath as it overtakes you in the left lane?
  - chefkoch 11y ago
    Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
  - chefkoch 11y ago
    Depends on the model / style and how old it is.
  - aluhut 11y ago

rmcpherson 11y ago

Is there any information available about how these cars take evasive action or attempt to reduce damage in the event of an imminent impact? The article's wording makes it sound like the car was at fault for the crash by re-entering the lane: > "But three seconds later, as the Google car reentered the center of the lane it struck the side of the bus" Presumably the car's software predicted the crash before it occurred but was unable to completely avoid it. I'd love to know what the programmed behavior is in these 'unavoidable' crash scenarios. edit: formatting

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

AdmiralAsshat 11y ago

So what happened when the bus driver walked over to the self-driving car in order to exchange insurance information?

jonknee 11y ago
The human in the car exchanged it and thanks to the multitude of sensors and cameras this will be the single best documented fender bender in the history of the planet.
- Animats 11y ago
  Yes, especially since the New Flyer buses also have cameras and data recorders.

known 11y ago

Uber + Self-driving = Mayhem

deckar01 11y ago

It is going to be difficult to predict the actions of irrational actors like bus drivers. You can usually assume that a driver has a vested interest in not damaging their vehicle, but my experience navigating California's city streets has consistently suggested otherwise when busses are involved. I would group them into a category along with police cars and ambulances due to the prioritization of speed over safety. (Although, in my experience ambulances, are usually very good a prioritizing safety.)

cpprototypes 11y ago

There is a common assumption that humans = bad drivers. And that these self driving cars will be much better than people at driving. I think this belief greatly underestimates the difficulty of what Google and others are trying to do. Humans are actually great drivers when the situation requires thinking. Lot of snow and can't see the lane markers? Millions of people adapt every day to this during winter. Lots of pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, etc. doing somewhat unpredictable things? Again, look at any Asian mega city, people can adapt very fast. Basically, if the situation requires being alert, people are very good at driving. When are people bad a driving? Whenever it's monotonous. Bumper to bumper traffic or a free flowing freeway. Constant repetition of red/green cycles while going down a suburban street. These boring situations make a lot of people basically turn off their alert thinking. Then they do other things like texting, talking on phone, etc. And these boring situations are exactly where AI self driving is better at driving than people. Computers never get bored. The self driving car will be at 100% attention even during the most boring traffic. But when boring suddenly turns to not boring? The current state of AI is very very bad at this. And unfortunately there's no easy way to use the best of both sides. If the AI is fully driving, then it will do great while the driving is boring. But by the time the AI decides, this is too much, can't handle this, it's too late to alert the human driver to take over. But if the human driver is required to always pay attention, what's the point of the self driving car? Self driving cars will get there someday, but I think it's much farther away than many assume it will be.

jonknee 11y ago
On the other hand Google has driven a lot of miles without an incident and this minor accident doesn't change the fact that their system is safer than a human behind the wheel. And unlike humans who don't improve after an accident, Google's whole fleet just got even more safe.
- ocdtrekkie 11y ago
  This is false. Google's cars have only gone as far as they have without an incident BECAUSE of human drivers. In a 12 month period, human drivers prevented Google Self-Driving Cars from causing ten accidents. And 272 times the car's software outright failed and dropped control of the car to the human driver. This is all in Google's recent report to the California DMV, but it's not a reality they like to advertise openly. Statistically, Google's Self-Driving Car would've lost it's license by now, if not for human drivers keeping it in check.

bch 11y ago

The linked report doesn't say Google is accepting responsibility, so it'll be interesting to see what tact they take here. In _Toronto_, from talking with acquaintances that are drivers, I understand they work in near constant fear of accidents. They are expected to at least practically always be able to avoid accidents, and the feeling is that if something happens, they're presumed guilty (within management), and proceed from there. I don't know if all professional bus drivers' conditions are the same as Toronto, but I can imagine this could be extremely distressing for the bus driver involved. At least nobody was injured.

euyyn 11y ago
In Spain if a bus hits you, you can go eff yourself because you're going to pay it no matter what happened.
- dredwerker 11y ago
  I was at a junction in Spain and I had no idea what to do. It was the most hectic thing in the world, you just sort of went and hoped. I guess its simialr to some roundabouts in London. I have no idea how an AV would handle that(unless they were all AVs at the junction)
obsurveyor 11y ago
> The linked report doesn't say Google is accepting responsibility That's for insurance reasons. You're never supposed to admit fault at the collision in the US. You let the police decide and that's that. It's like the first thing listed on the guidelines for collisions on your insurance card.
- bch 11y ago
  Agreed re: insurance reasons. That said, the phrasing of the event is interesting "...self-driving car hits municipal bus..." and (in article) "...self-driving car struck a municipal bus...", and the co-driver (and vehicle) is quoted as "believed the bus would slow or allow the the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue.", sound a little "soft", more like "yeah, I think that's my fault". I don't have 'favourite to win', regardless. There's another article[0] that I didn't see earlier that does in fact accept at least partial fault, and additionally mentions that the software was updated as result of this event. Thankfully it seems to be a low-cost (in terms of injury and damage) event, but fascinating given the young state of autonomous driving. [0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUSKCN0W22DG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUS...

trjordan 11y ago

> The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." Love this. I'm shamelessly rooting for self-driving cars, and crashes are inevitable. Having the human in the car agree with the computer brings a lot of credibility to the report and follow-up.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

chairleader 11y ago
OCR'd from the incident report: A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle ("Google AV") was traveling in autonomous mode eastbound on El Camino Real in Mountain View in the far right-hand lane approaching the Castro St. intersection. As the Google AV approached the intersection, it signaled its intent to make a right turn on red onto Castro St. The Google AV then moved to the right-hand side of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight. However, the Google AV had to come to a stop and go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later. as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane it made contact with the side of the bus. The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and traveling at less than 2 mph, and the bus was travelling at about 15 mph at the time of contact. The Google AV sustained body damage to the left front fender, the left from wheal and one of its driver's-sidde sensors. There were no injuries reported at the scene.

ikeboy 11y ago

Can the URL be changed to a source that at least links to the report, like http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-drivi... or http://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/ http://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-ca...

ChuckMcM 11y ago

Ok, I laughed out loud on that one. This quote in particular, "The vehicle and the test driver 'believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue.'" Bus drivers in the Bay Area are notorious for ignoring traffic (and pedestrians). Apparently there is some indemnity or statutes that make suing either the transportation agency or the driver nearly impossible and so pretty quickly people learn that the bus drivers drive with impunity. Plenty of stories posted to the local traffic column in the paper, and shared amongst neighbors and in the department of safety's "blotter" feature. Google needs to go back and program their cars to always assume that buses are out to get them and avoid them at all cost, They are an active traffic hazard often operated by a disinterested and distracted driver. The only way to "win" is to not be where ever the bus is.

drchiu 11y ago
Agreed. Google needs to increase the settings on "Defensive Driving". Just because the Google robot drives in a reasonable manner doesn't mean the humans around it will.
- theklub 11y ago
  Made me think, someone can wave you ahead, etc. There won't be that option with a robot unless they install a indicator.
  - timv 11y ago
    But once they're all robots they can communicate far more efficiently than a hand wave, and can actually agree on a fairly complex plan (to take over the world)
    - theklub 11y ago
      So we'll all be dead by then probably haha.
technofiend 11y ago

dsp1234 11y ago

And here is the actual accident report [0] "A Google Lexus-model autonomous vehicle ("Google AV") was traveling in autonomous mode eastbound on El Camino Real in Mountain View in the far right-hand lane approaching the Castro St. intersection. As the Google AV approached the intersection, it signaled its intent to make a right turn on red onto Castro St. The Google AV then moved to the right-hand sid of the lane to pass traffic in the same lane that was stopped at the intersection and proceeding straight. However, the Google AV had to come to a stop to go around sandbags positioned around a storm drain that were blocking its path. When the light turned green, traffic in the lane continued past the Google AV. After a few cars had passed, the Google AV began to proceed back into the center of the lane to pass the sand bags. A public transit bus was approaching from behind. The Google AV test driver saw the bus approaching in the left side mirror but believed the bus would stop or slow to allow the Google AV to continue. Approximately three seconds later, as the Google AV was reentering the center of the lane, it made contact with the side of the bus. The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and travelling less than 2 mph, and the bus was travelling at about 15 mph at the time of contact. The Google AV sustained body damage to the left front fender, the left front wheel and one of its driver's-side sensors. There were no injuries reported at the scene." [0] - https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52-8f80-b33948df34b2/Google+Auto+LLC+02.14.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52...

DannyBee 11y ago
I'm actually curious who had the right of way in this one. It sounds like the bus just plowed through them while accelerating the whole way.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's the bus. Generally a already moving vehicle with a green light on straight road has right of way. The correct action for the autonomous vehicle (or a human driver) would be to wait for all traffic in the lane to clear (for example, after the previous light turns red and there is a lull in the traffic), then make it's way around the sandbags. Here's my artists rending. The vertical lane is just the right hand lane, and is "wide", but still one lane. The bus is traveling "up" and the Google AV tries to manenouver around the sandbags blocking it's way. Thinking that it can get around in time, the AV starts moving to the left and crashes into the bus. I guess the "one lane" aspect is the confounding variable, but since the autonomous vehicle was stopped, then it takes on the aspect of any other stopped vehicle on the side of the road (ie giving up it's right of way). Just like if you have a road where cars are allowed to park on the side of the road, those cars cannot enter traffic unless it is safe to do so. Edit: Actually, I have no idea. Did a quick read of California's right of way laws, and couldn't find anything that jumped out that would cover this situation. | | | | +---- | SS+---- <-[G]| | ^ | | | |[B] | [B] | | |

donpdonp 11y ago

The description of events is slightly suspicious. For all the predictive smarts of the car and its impressive LIDAR, keeping from bumping into things seems like it would be the highest priority possible second only to loss of life. The corners of the car have some kind of distance sensor so the car would have to have known it was about to collide with something. In CPU time there was plenty of time to react and its always looking at all four corners. The article make it sound like the AI blindly changed lanes into the bus. It seems most likely that the AI knew about the impending collision and decided colliding was safer than any other option. It'd be great to know what the other options were, but I imagine we'll probably never get more detail.

euyyn 11y ago
Notice that it doesn't say it changed lanes; rather, it shifted to the leftmost-side of its lane, later to return to the center of the lane (which is when the bus hit it). I get your point, though, and I imagine it could have gone something like this: Car predicts bus will slow down (as reported), moves back to center of lane. Bus doesn't, and the car's sensors inform of it. During the seconds (or the fraction of a second) before the collision, the car came up with the safest avoidance maneuver, and started executing it. Crash.
djrogers 11y ago
It didn't change lanes, which is why the description didn't say it did. The entire event took place in a single extra-wide right lane, which are pretty common. The extra width is to accommodate on-street parking as well as right hand turns.

Animats 11y ago

Here's the Autonomous Vehicle Accident Report filed with the CA DMV.[1] "The Google AV was operating in autonomous mode and traveling at less than 2 mph and the bus was traveling around 15 mph." The other vehicle was a 2002 Newflyer Lowfloor Articulated Bus, which is 61 feet long including the "trailer" part. Here's where it happened.[2] You can see traffic cones around the storm drain. This is a subtle error. Arguably, part of the problem was that the AV was moving too slowly. It was trying to break into a gap in traffic, but because it was maneuvering around an unusual road hazard (sandbags), was moving very slowly. This situation was misread by the bus driver, who failed to stop or change course, perhaps expecting the AV to accelerate. The AV is probably at fault, because it was doing a lane change while the bus was not. Fixing this requires that the AV be either less aggressive or more aggressive. Less aggressive would mean sitting there waiting for a big break in traffic. That could take a while at that location. More aggressive would mean accelerating faster into a gap. Google's AVs will accelerate into gaps in ordinary situations such as freeway merges, but when dealing with an unusual road hazard, they may be held down to very slow speeds. I wonder if Google will publish the playback from their sensor data. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52-8f80-b33948df34b2/Google+Auto+LLC+02.14.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3946fbb8-e04e-4d52... [2] https://goo.gl/maps/QzvVXQGxhX72 https://goo.gl/maps/QzvVXQGxhX72

jessriedel 11y ago
> The AV is probably at fault, because it was doing a lane change while the bus was not. Yes, probably true, but not crystal clear. The Google car never left the lane, so it comes down to subtle questions about appearing to be parked or impromptu division of lanes near right-hand turns.

evunveot 11y ago

If you're having trouble visualizing what happened (like me), here's the intersection: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3859058,-122.0843836,3a,75y,180.9h,70.85t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT2jrKcM8pLU8MPq1hj60xQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4!6m1!1e1 https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3859058,-122.0843836,3a,75y,... Looks like the far right lane has double the normal lane width to accommodate on-street parking. The Google car, looking to turn right on red, attempted to use the right-most part of the lane to pass cars that were waiting to go straight, but there were sandbags covering the storm drain near the corner, so it had to stop. When the light changed, the cars it had passed continued on while the Google car waited for a gap, which ended up being in front of a bus, likely caused by the bus accelerating more slowly than the cars in front of it. The Google car tried to use the gap to get around the sandbags, assuming that the bus wouldn't just plow into it, but the bus plowed into it. Perhaps the bus driver assumed the Google car was parked and wasn't paying much attention to it.

duderific 11y ago
The question is, how much room did the AV have in front of the bus to merge out in front of it? I'm wondering if the bus was cruising along and saw the AV inching out into its lane and just thought "Oh, once they see this big-ass bus coming along, they'll stop trying to merge." And the AV thought "Once that bus sees me inching out, it'll slow to let me merge." And neither one was right.

awqrre 11y ago

That was not a small target...

kisstheblade 11y ago

The country where I live buses have right of way when leaving bus stops. They seem to actually try to hit cars which are in the next lane (even when the car has almost passed and it of course isn't a "right of way" situation anymore)... So if you program an autonomous car it would be smart to program it to never get next to a bus :)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ClarkGable 11y ago

A self-driving car bng tested by Google struck a public bus on a Silicon Valley street, a minor accident that appears to be the first time one of the ... While the report does not address fault, Google said in a written statement, “We ... http://getfollowerslikes.co http://getfollowerslikes.co

Swizec 11y ago

"The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue."" This sounds like a very strong assumption. When was the last time you saw a bus slow down for a car or anything much? There's a reason "Fuck you I'm a bus" is a meme.

wtallis 11y ago
Since the light had just turned green, the assumption was probably that the bus would cease accelerating long enough for the Google car to get around the obstacle, not that the bus driver would hit the brakes.

stefap2 11y ago

In related article http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUSKCN0W22DG http://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-selfdrivingcar-idUS... "Google said in the filing the autonomous vehicle was traveling at less than 2 miles per hour, while the bus was moving at about 15 miles per hour." Google said in a statement on Monday that "we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn’t moved, there wouldn’t have been a collision. That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that."

trhway 11y ago
>That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that." it was a [double] bus. It isn't the kind of vehicle one stops out of courtesy to let the other car to merge (until such courtesy is the only option for the other car to merge, obviously) Anyway, it is an obvious software failure as the Google car hit the side of the bus at slow speed. There is no reason to blame it on somebody.
DrScump 11y ago
And if it was going 15MPH, that's not a sudden movement, as these accelerate fairly slowly even when empty.

Gratsby 11y ago

I live in the area. The stinking buses around here ... They crowd the lanes regularly. Us human drivers I suppose are used to it, but it is a serious pain in the butt. The buses will drive right next to the lane marker, with their mirrors hanging over into your lane. This makes it so everybody has to creep over a little bit into the drivers side lane and hopefully everybody in traffic has a small enough car to deal with it. Otherwise, you have to hang back behind the bus as if it's in your lane and wait for it to get to a stop. I've had my issues with Google autonomous cars (they drive slow and they used to be exceptionally slow at making right hand turns, causing traffic problems), but in this instance I'm happy to throw VTA under the bus, if you will, and lay blame 100% at their feet.

esolyt 11y ago
Seems like Google acknowledged this: "From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles"
- mojuba 11y ago
  I will probably get downvoted for this, but: this is why I am skeptical about self-driving vehicles. Driving in general and adjusting to each country/locality, then to vehicle types is such a human thing that you'd need a thousand more "deep understanding" things like this. It will be an endless process for an algorithm driven car. Buses in Dublin will be so much different from buses in London, or trucks in the US different from trucks in Germany. Then there are the bikes, pedestrians. When human drivers/bikers/pedestrians look at each other and know what to expect. These are the things that would be incredibly difficult to formalize, if possible at all. Unless you have something like a Deep Mind on board, but even then I wouldn't be so sure.
  - jonesb6 11y ago
    Wouldn't this be a great application for machine learning? Collect traffic data locally, run it through the system a few bazillion times, them you realize the only way to avoid a car crash is to drive like a maniac in certain places.

copremesis 11y ago

skynet?

copremesis 11y ago

skynet?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tobbyb 11y ago

Some of these discussions seem to severely underestimate human intelligence and the ability to reason and take decisions rapidly. There are hundreds of millions of cars operating in all sorts of conditions with little incident. There are literally hundreds of thousands of preemptive actions, foresight, experience and instinctive actions at play for every possibility on roads that millions of people adopt easily. To say that's not good enough one must articulate a system that is clearly better or has the potential while avoiding a broad brush with 0.1% incidents or diminishing human drivers. That's an argument of convenience and could reflect a lack of understanding of the scope and scale of the problem. This is just sandbags, there are literally millions of obstacles and scenarios negotiated without incident everyday. Crashes in snow is not always about bad decisions. It could also be extremely poor conditions that cars should not be in, inadequate vehicle or tyres and computing will not help if hardware is deficient. Presuming the worst of others or jumping to conclusions about their intelligence levels is unsavory and dangerous if used to push something. An AI vehicle in any crowded Asian city is going to be literally stranded by indecision. On relatively empty and organized roads the computing power needed will barely scratch the surface of what a proper self driving AI system needs to be unless you redesign the roads and place constraints, which then becomes a different discussion to approach carefully.

smoyer 11y ago

The vehicle and the test driver "believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue." If the test driver stated that s/he thought the car should yield to the bus, would the test driver still have a job? I would have been shocked if the test driver said the software was at fault.

tn13 11y ago

I hate El Camino road. The right most lane is always far too wide which means if a bus has stopped everyone expects you to still squeeze from the limited space. If you don't they will honk. If you do there is always a possibility that the giant bus might miss you and hit you. However an important take away for all bay area drivers from the article is You are supposed to HUG the right shoulder when making a right turn. I am yet to see a single driver who embraces that principle. It is not just for your safety and convenience of the traffic behind you but also because of the safety of bike riders, if you make a sudden right turn they might hit you and get injured.

bfrog 11y ago

Seems like this was inevitable. Its astounding to me that it took this long and that there was no one hurt! It is even more amazing that there have been apparently 0 injuries or fatalities. I wonder how these autonomous cars compare in terms of hours on the road to # of incidents (not accidents mind you, I hate that term).

Animats 11y ago

This story is getting a lot of press coverage. Reuters, CNBC and Wired are already covering it. When Cruise (YC 14)'s car hit a parked car at 20 mph in SF last month, there was no press attention.[1] Even though it was across the street from the main police station. That Cruise crash is an example of the "deadly valley" between manual driving and fully automatic driving, The vehicle made a bad move which prompted the driver to take over, but too late. This is exactly why AVs can't rely on the driver as backup. [1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/bc21ef62-6e7c-4049-a552-0a7c50d92e86/Cruise_Automation_01.08.16.pdf?MOD=AJPERES https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/bc21ef62-6e7c-4049...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

randomacct44 11y ago

My question is - why are bus drivers such assholes (as depicted by the comments here)? Serious question I'm curious about. Is this societal, is it a technology problem (do the way buses work somehow encourage this behavior towards other motorists), is it likely a combination of both?

aidenn0 11y ago

It's interesting to observe the highly varying amount that other cars will allow for merging. Merging onto the freeway during a busy day (maybe 35MPH traffic), I tried to merge and the car I was planning on going in front of moved up until their bumper was about a meter from the vehicle in front of them and leaned on their horn. "I technically have the right of way in this situation and by God, I won't yield it to you!" This was a situation where there were about 40 cars merging onto the freeway and they mostly just do a fairly standard zipper merge.

mannykannot 11y ago

This incident hints at what I believe is going to be a big issue in the transition to autonomous vehicles in busy urban areas. If AVs are too passive, human drivers will take advantage of them. If they are too aggressive, the accident rates will be high, and the risk of an AV causing a major accident increases. Threading this dichotomy is more difficult than solving the physics of driving.

bryanrasmussen 11y ago

It would be great if it turned out google car swerved into the bus to avoid hitting a fat man.

ant6n 11y ago
'Sand bag' turns out to be a euphemism.

jaza 11y ago

Google needs to program their AVs to be aware of the universal "law of anything bigger"! http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntersholosuite/images/6/6c/Spaceball_One_001.jpg http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntersholosuite/ima...

jfoster 11y ago

I think this minor accident is actually a good thing for self-driving cars. It sets the expectation that they may not be perfect, and isn't a PR disaster in the way that a fatal accident may have been. From here, more accidents are able to happen without being huge news stories. Undoubtedly, the first time someone dies in an accident involving a self-driving car, there will still be lots of questioning of the technology, but it won't come as a complete surprise, now that smaller accidents have occurred.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

romuloab42 11y ago

I don't know in US, but at least where I live when somebody hits you from behind, it's his fault. The idea is that you are supposed to drive cautiously and therefore be prepared if the vehicle in front of you behave erratically -- that is, even if the vehicle's driver is wrong (say, it's not his right of way), you still should be in a safe distance.

la6470 11y ago

No it's the municipal bus that hit the Google car. The municipal buses have become increasingly reckless

la6470 11y ago

Instead of self driving car they should have self driving bus

stretchwithme 11y ago

Maybe Google should train their cars at demolition derbies instead of on public roads. Have one group of vehicles trying to crash into another. And let competing teams of students program the crashers. Winning team gets $25K. And play with touch football rules to keep the costs down. Cover vehicles with touch sensors and cameras that record each crash.