10 ms·

Very cool, but I sometimes worry that the illusion of safety is more dangerous than the original danger itself. In Boulder, where I live, several crosswalks we

• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
• Groxx 16y ago
  >they cannot be perfect Two things: 1) neither are people; far from it. (you already knew this though, so...) 2) I wholly agree... as long as other people are driving. Get rid of people's irrationality / drunken behavior on the road, and automated car driving becomes a much easier problem. A computer can take more into account than a human, and decide faster. The transition is almost guaranteed to occur at some point, unless we reach mass transit for everyone prior to that (and who drives those?). It has to start somewhere, and that start will probably be harder than at any other point along the road.
  • andreyf 16y ago
    2) I wholly agree... as long as other people are driving. Get rid of people's irrationality / drunken behavior on the road, and automated car driving becomes a much easier problem. A computer can take more into account than a human, and decide faster. Even if you have near perfect data about where the other cars are there's always uncertainty about other objects on the road: tree branches, deer, a child running after her puppy. I'd speculate that it's better to rely on a vision system that can recognize those as well as cars well enough to be safe instead of treating different classes of objects differently.
    • Groxx 16y ago
      True, but once you know what other cars are doing, and get data from cars ahead, you should be able to identify things like that before you even encounter them. A tree falling on a car while it's driving: relatively unavoidable. Cars hitting that car: far less likely with computers. They don't get "shocked", or hit the wrong pedal, and have faster reaction times. And pile-ups due to an accident are often far more deadly than the accident itself, especially in busy areas where automated driving could make its biggest improvement in safety. Deer / kids / unexpected obstacles: can be detected prior to them even entering the road by cars ahead, and flagged for caution for cars behind. IR cameras will spot living things for you, motion / blockage detection will spot things near / in the road. Once such a thing is flagged, it's reasonable to assume that other cars would leave more room between each other and around the obstacle, and probably slow down. All things which people should do, but only actually do rarely, and never collaboratively except at extreme cost and increased risk over something organized.
      • rue 16y ago
        > They don't get "shocked", or hit the wrong pedal, and have faster reaction times. Yes they do. You could perhaps argue they do so less.
        • Groxx 16y ago
          OK, kernel panics aside. Unless they're using a random number generator seeded with outside data, all computer operation can be called deterministic and 100% predictable. Because it's 100% repeatable given identical preconditions. People? Not so / not currently doable. If the wrong operation for a situation were performed, it'd be due to a higher-level decision going wrong, not the command. Meanwhile, people can "hit the brakes" (high-level command) and instead slam the accelerator (command not carried out). And fully believe they hit the brakes, and that the car accelerated uncontrollably.
• Udo 16y ago
  If anything goes wrong, there won't be time to hit the manual override. Mainly because we as passengers won't be paying much attention to whatever is going on outside. At the same time, panicky breaking maneuvers made by humans randomly overriding their steering system would probably be a bad idea anyway. Besides, humans are really lousy drivers. They should not be trusted to operate such vehicles at all. Machines will makes mistakes too, but I bet we'll see a lot less of them compared to the era of human pilots.
• reader5000 16y ago
  If the computer driver is correct 99% of the time and the human driver 98%, then it is a vast improvement. I imagine that ultimately this technology would result in almost 0 human input other than e.g. typing in a destination.
  • andreyf 16y ago
    typing in a destination You mean speaking, right? ;)
    • ph0rque 16y ago
      You mean thinking it, right? ;~)
      • mdwrigh2 16y ago
        Didn't Eric Schmidt say they'd know what you want even before you did? So no thinking required!
        • skorgu 16y ago
          I know you were joking but you're also right. I go food shopping every week at about the same time. I email trip plans between friends and schedule them. I don't drive to work but certainly if I did that's an obviously predictable event. Between synergy among the various google properties and good pattern-recognition in the google cars (or whatever) system itself I'd be surprised if predicted trips didn't hugely overwhelm explicitly-ordered ones.
• forgottenpaswrd 16y ago
  "The prospect of automated cars scares me because, obviously, they cannot be perfect." They can, at least 1000 times more perfect that humans are. A computer could have and exact model of the road, and compare it to what it sees, could report bugs in an objective way, the same way computers on airplanes work, having made flying way more secure.
  • brianpan 16y ago
    Oh, god. On my motorcycle, nothing scares me on the road more than people driving cars. Not only are they not perfect, they are far from perfect.
  • InfinityX0 16y ago
    This is true, but the fear that could prevent implementation is that you want that fear in your own hands, not the hands of something else. It's like trusting someone to catch you when you fall - statistically you know it's pretty likely, but there's something unsettling knowing you're relying on an extraneous factor, not YOU, to prevent harm.
    • nene 16y ago
      But don't you also have to trust a bus-driver, airplane-pilot, etc. And all kind of things can go wrong with these human drivers: they might be drunk or under some medication, they can die in a sudden hart attack, they can just make bad decisions, or even worse - they can be commanded to land the plane into some tower.
• cletus 16y ago
  I walk a lot and the times where I've been nearly hit by a car have ALWAYS been at crosswalks and traffic lights (where the pedestrian light is green and cars should be stopping). Crosswalks are a problem because you can't predict car behaviour: some will stop. Some will completely ignore them (for reasons unknown). If there were no crosswalk you know exactly what cars will do. That's much safer for both parties. The "illusion of safety" is most dangerous at traffic lights. 2-3 times I've had cars just sail through, completely oblivious. Note: they're sailing through on RED lights. Not amber going red. It's not one of those borderline cases. Once I had a cop have a chat to me about jaywalking but I've never been fined. I would be pissed if I ever was. In a fight between a car and a pedestrian the pedestrian loses (big time) so pedestrians have a higher vested interest in their own safety. I know what the light changes are at intersections I cross a lot. Where are these cops when cars sail through red lights or nearly run over pedestrians when turning when the pedestrians have right of way? I get the distinct impression these skills will come in handy when I move to New York next month! Anyway, back to the self-driving cars: this I believe will be a painful transition that will take many, many years. It's nice to see Google working on this.
  • dedward 16y ago
    WHere I live the govenrment is putting up big fences in the middle of the road to prevent jaywalking, because people sprint across roads at night, even the highway, and there are lots, lots, lots of car -vs- pedestrian accidents because of people running across the street to catch a bus instead of using hte pedestrian bridge or crosswalk not far away. At night. Wearking dark clothing. (No, I'm not making any of this up)
  • jeff18 16y ago
    "Once I had a cop have a chat to me about jaywalking but I've never been fined. I would be pissed if I ever was. In a fight between a car and a pedestrian the pedestrian loses (big time) so pedestrians have a higher vested interest in their own safety" Look at how many people drive off cliffs, into trees, or into other cars when a deer runs across the road. Vested interests in safety aside, it's always dangerous to do something unexpected in traffic.
  • bostonvaulter2 16y ago
• Niten 16y ago
  This especially scares me as a cyclist. I'm sure they'll put a lot of effort into preventing automated cars from hitting other vehicles or slow-moving pedestrians. Now what about bicycles traveling around 20 mph in the right-hand side of the lane? Many people seem to neglect or completely fail to understand the risk of increased perception of safety leading to an overall decreased safety in these systems. We can't have the best of both worlds – a machine's constant attention and reaction time coupled with a human driver's intuition – because the moment you give him an autopilot that he thinks will keep him out of trouble, the human sits back and stops paying attention to the road. These automated systems may eventually become all-around better than any human driver, but it will be take many iterations to get there, and the first versions will certainly lack a human's ability to anticipate trouble before it arises. It will be a long while before an autopilot can say "hey, that car ahead is weaving unnervingly, the driver might be drunk so I should keep my distance" or "the cars ahead of me are curving slightly to the left, there might be a cyclist riding on the shoulder so I should slow down a bit and do likewise." And until we have that level of automation, I'm afraid our roads are about to become a lot more dangerous.
  • siculars 16y ago
    I am a cyclist who was run off the road by an suv while training for the Westchester half ironman. Was fortunate to walk (ride) away with only one broken bone (4th metacarpal). I've been riding my entire life in NYC without ever having an incident (thankfully) and the one time I go ride in the 'country' I get my ass handed to me. My gut tells me that drivers in unpopulated areas are less aware and less able to 'share the road'.
  • erikpukinskis 16y ago
    I'm an avid cyclist. I think I'd prefer a deterministic, law abiding driver to the average human. What makes me feel unsafe are the drivers who break the law (you don't know who you are) and the drivers who hate cyclists and pass us as closely as possible, throw bottles at us, etc (you do know who you are). What makes me feel unsafe is the unpredictability. I would expect a computer would just follow the rules exactly and be very easy to bike around.
• SMrF 16y ago
  "Anyway, I rather hope I'm wrong. I'd really like to drink my coffee and read during my commute as my car drives me to work." I was struck by this comment, because I do this every day...by riding the train. Automated cars, flying cars, double-decker highways, etc. are fantastic innovations, but I sometimes wonder if we couldn't do better than the car, at least in terms of our regular commuting. I ride my bike and take the train because I have that option where I live and I love it.
  • lambda 16y ago
    I commute via bike in good weather and train in bad weather, but that option isn't available for many people, nor for many potential trips. The problem with trains is that the whole train goes on one route, so if you want to go elsewhere, you need to change trains, and have all the extra hassle and delay of switching trains and waiting for another train (and of course, there are many places that aren't served by subways, or are served only by commuter trains that come only once an hour). In a car, you can choose your own route, which makes a lot more routes feasible to do in a reasonable amount of time. Plus, in an automated car, you can spend your entire trip reading and drinking coffee, instead of having the walk to and from the train, trying to juggle your coffee and umbrella and laptop all while trying to hurry to catch the train.
  • maigret 16y ago
    Very simple. It takes me 30 min to drive to work in my car and 1 hour in the good case with the train. The train can take up to 2 hours overall in the worst case. And this is partly time to switch train, going to the train station etc. Not much time you can use to read or take breakfast quietly.
  • maigret 16y ago
    OK, forget my dumb last comment... So imagine... cars are automated, and possibly pooled. Bus is the most energy efficient way of transport. So you want to go from A to B. Instead of looking up static train/bus schedules, you just type that into your phone. A server system looks at how many people wants to do a similar trip, and automatically starts an automated taxi that would have just the needed size and will come up 10/15 min later. That way you get the best of both worlds. And if that's not enough space privacy for some, you could just plug mini-cars together, eliminating air resistance but with everyone having its close module transport. Even better, you could switch module transports between road trains. The possibilities are unthinkable. I think this marks the beginning of a new ear in transport.
• dustyreagan 16y ago
  I know we're talking hypothetical percentages here, but if the automated car is right/safe in 99% of driving circumstances, how much help do you think a human will be? It's not as if humans are right 100% of the time. I'd gander we're closer to 97% or so, or possibly even less. It seems to me, at some point, computers will easily out drive humans.
• stretchwithme 16y ago
  I agree. They'll have to accurately distinguish between toddlers walking into traffic and birds flying in front of cars. One thing I read said the human driver had to take control because of a cyclist. Obviously there's more work to do. But eventually these systems will get there. And they'll probably be able to share information with other vehicles too. So robotic vehicles will be able to see around corners. And tell each other exactly what they'll do before they start doing it. Safety could wind up being 6 sigma instead whatever is currently. And we'll actually have the ability to measure it because collecting such statistics will be more feasible. Right now, most of our screw ups don't end causing accidents and they never get recorded. And we prefer it that way! But we'll be able to do data mining on every little thing robotic cars do.
  • btilly 16y ago
    I strongly suspect that the reason the human took control was because there was a journalist in the car. In videos I've seen, the vehicles are able to handle bicycles just fine.
    • stretchwithme 16y ago
      And they choose which videos they show, correct? So its all carefully presented. Which means the way they are not completely confident with how the situation is handled. Which is not saying this effort shouldn't continue. Human drivers don't always handle cyclists well either.
      • btilly 16y ago
        I don't think there is as much filtering on stuff for internal consumption as external. (I'm an employee. Internal videos are the ones I was referring to.)
• mkramlich 16y ago
  > I'd really like to drink my coffee and read during my commute as my car drives me to work. unfortunately, I think a lot of Americans are already doing this, or something close to it, today -- but without an AI driving the car. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen women driving huge SUV's with kids in the back, and the woman is yapping on a cellphone while checking her makeup in the mirror, etc. Oh and, while driving.
• loewenskind 16y ago
  I recall an article on here not too long ago about mine cars (I believe in Australia) that ran 20kph and 10 meters apart when driven by human, but over 120kph and 6cm apart when driven by robots (numbers completely pulled by memory and almost certainly all wrong). Robotic drivers will be better in almost every way. All of your concerns go for people as well and people have proven themselves very bad at driving. My biggest fear is that there will be a manual override.