Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#71

Post by lumberjack »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #19

Being a cyclist in Amsterdam, the lack of driver eye contact and understanding of body language is what worries me about the application of self driving cars. Amsterdam traffic is a chaos in which pedestrians and cyclists mix with cars, and the former two frequently (some would say always) ignore the rules. Not out of some anarchistic impulse, but for mutual convenience. Especially with cyclists, for whom coming to a…

You bring up a valid point.

In highly congested areas the traffic does not simply follow the traffic code.

It's more of a distributed system of traffic routing whereby drivers/riders let each other know that they will be letting the other one pass or would like to go ahead first. And bicyclists and mopeds signal their turns with their hands.

Can a self driving car recognize my slight nod or my hand gesture indicating to it that I ain't stopping?

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#72

Post by logfromblammo »

olalonde wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

I am simply ebullient with anticipation over the thought of the first copbot arresting its own human supervisor.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#73

Post by logfromblammo »

sschueller wrote: post #28

Two driverless cars are about to crash into each other on a tight mountain pass (maybe a bug that couldn't for see the accident). There are 3 possible outcomes: 1. Car 1 and Car 2 crash into each other killing all passengers. 2. Car 1 with 3 passengers drives of the cliff, car 2 with 1 passenger survives. 3. Car 2 with 1 passenger drives of the the cliff, car 1 with 3 passengers survives. The cars can communicate wit…

If the cars can communicate with each other enough to negotiate which one should drive off the cliff, they can communicate with each other enough to negotiate an emergency stop for both vehicles, or even plan out a more survivable wreck.

The only way to enforce the limited choice domain you presented is for the automated drivers to be operating the vehicles unsafely prior to the collision event. In that case, never mind the other car, because either car could be forced off the cliff due to a goat standing in the middle of the road.

Also, I'll program my driver to believe that its car always contains MAXINT passengers.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#74

Post by lumberjack »

olalonde wrote: post #32
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I'm playing the devil's advocate here but another alternative would be to write laws that are meant to be literal and enforced 100% of the time.

Or maybe there could be a second traffic code for autonomous driving cars that is basically the same code but with lots of exceptions such as "you can never cross a solid double line except when...".

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#75

Post by jerf »

tclark225 wrote: post #33
jerf wrote: post #5

'“It’s always going to follow the rules, I mean, almost to a point where human drivers who get in the car and are like ‘Why is the car doing that?’” said Tom Supple, a Google safety driver during a recent test drive on the streets near Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters.' This is a drum that, like privacy and encryption, we techies need to start banging hard before it's too late. The fact that laws are fundamentall…

I definitely agree with this, but how could you specifically change the laws in this case such that they are still, by some measure, "fair" and "just"? Most people would probably agree that there is no reason to adhere to the letter of driving laws all the time. Speeding on an empty highway to get somewhere more quickly is mostly harmless. Running a red light in a dangerous neighborhood might be safer than waiting. T…

"definitely agree with this, but how could you specifically change the laws in this case such that they are still, by some measure, "fair" and "just"?"

This is a really deep question, which is part of why I dropped the entire discussion on the topic in my initial post so I wouldn't get too sidetracked.

One problem we have is that if we can encode laws into computer programs, which is to say, basically math, we also become subject to the problems that creates. For instance, raise your hand if you enjoy min-maxing in an RPG or MMO or something. Now, keep your hands raised and add a big evil grin for me if you'd love the opportunity to minmax real laws with such impunity.

In theory, even human enforcement is a computational system which could in theory be attacked the same way, but in its own weird way, its own enormous complexity and frankly at times random enforcement prevents the really terrible gaming of the law by preventing an attacking entity from fully accurately simulating the system for the purposes of attacking it.

(I said something that may trigger some knee-jerk reactions in some people about "gaming" the system. But however bad you think it is in the real world... and I would agree that it is bad in many places... it has nothing on the gaming you can do on something specified with programmatic precision and with no human in the loop to prevent truly stupid states from emerging. This isn't making your way to the top over the years by bribery and flattery, this is waking up one day and discovering that one person has literally all the money now.)

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#76

Post by joeclark77 »

logicallee wrote: post #3
seibelj wrote: post #2

I'm a big self-driving cars skeptic. Expecting humans to "drive less idiotic" is basically saying that google's cars won't work until human drivers are banned. Driving is something of an art, and it's full of edge cases. So many edge cases. I'll just keep reading articles that say they are 5 years away, just as I did 5 years ago, and the armchair futurists will keep dreaming...

except driverless cars have been driving around in California for a couple of years thanks to Google (and the fact that it's legal). Soon the term "driverless" will be like "horseless". Why would you keep your eyes on the road when a machine will do it for you, and with more awareness of its surroundings at 360 degrees, and the ability to judge the position and trajectory/velocity of any object to within a couple of…

Cars give you the freedom to go anywhere, any time, without having to file a plan or ask permission from the government or from Google. You want to give up that freedom in exchange for a little safety? Go ahead, but a lot of people will never be converted.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#77

Post by logicallee »

joeclark77 wrote: post #76
logicallee wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except driverless cars have been driving around in California for a couple of years thanks to Google (and the fact that it's legal). Soon the term "driverless" will be like "horseless". Why would you keep your eyes on the road when a machine will do it for you, and with more awareness of its surroundings at 360 degrees, and the ability to judge the position and trajectory/velocity of any object to within a couple of…

Cars give you the freedom to go anywhere, any time, without having to file a plan or ask permission from the government or from Google. You want to give up that freedom in exchange for a little safety? Go ahead, but a lot of people will never be converted.

joe you did not give this serious thought. Cars are highly regulated, you need to get a state-issues driver's liccense just to drive one, they need to be registered, etc.

I was going to just reply with "Horses give you the freedom to go anywhere, any time, without having to build roads or get a drivers ..." and then I'm like, wait a minute.... there's all sorts of stuff you need for a car...

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#78

Post by ortusdux »

Shorel wrote: post #44
makeitsuckless wrote: post #19

Being a cyclist in Amsterdam, the lack of driver eye contact and understanding of body language is what worries me about the application of self driving cars. Amsterdam traffic is a chaos in which pedestrians and cyclists mix with cars, and the former two frequently (some would say always) ignore the rules. Not out of some anarchistic impulse, but for mutual convenience. Especially with cyclists, for whom coming to a…

Until you actually live surrounded by self-driving cars, your speculation is nothing more than that. As someone who also commutes by bicycle, I would vastly prefer predictable, 100% consistent car behavior.

I wonder if a few e-ink displays on the outside of the cars could be used to smooth out these interactions by conveying actions and intents in plain English. I would be comforting to see 'Stopped, waiting for bicyclist to pass' flash up on the front display when I bike up to a 4-way stop.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#79

Post by linkregister »

makeitsuckless wrote: post #19

Being a cyclist in Amsterdam, the lack of driver eye contact and understanding of body language is what worries me about the application of self driving cars. Amsterdam traffic is a chaos in which pedestrians and cyclists mix with cars, and the former two frequently (some would say always) ignore the rules. Not out of some anarchistic impulse, but for mutual convenience. Especially with cyclists, for whom coming to a…

1. In my opinion, the primary reason for establishing eye contact with drivers is to confirm they actually see the bicyclist and agree to not get in a collision. Automation-driven cars with good computer vision processing and sufficient sensors/LIDAR have this problem solved. That is, the Google car automatically takes the most conservative and lawful approach.

2. I don't think I will ever understand the rationale behind bicylists failing to make a complete stop at traffic signals and stop signs. I bicycle to work every day; every traffic stop is an opportunity for a slight increase in cumulative exercise. If the bicyclist is in the center of the lane, swerving (I've never noticed this myself) will not be an issue. More importantly, predictably driving a bicycle decreases driver rage and reduces the probability of being hit by a driver who understandably cannot predict what an erratic bicyclist will do next.

tl;dr: if you bike in a predictable manner in accordance with traffic laws, then human and robot drivers will be much less likely to hit you.

Re: Google Says It’s Not the Driverless Car’s Fault. It’s Other Drivers’

#80

Post by linkregister »

joeclark77 wrote: post #35
fizzbatter wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll just keep reading articles that say they are 5 years away, just as I did 5 years ago, and the armchair futurists will keep dreaming... I'm quite surprised that you can be a skeptic on the concept as a whole. Being skeptical about the given timeframes is perfectly reasonable (and probably correct), but humans do so, so many things terribly. We have automated away so many tasks in our world, both for efficiency…

Cars give us freedom. The reason that technocrats love "self-driving" cars is the same reason they love trains of all kinds: it means that "the system" controls who may go where, and when. A lot of us are skeptical of self-driving cars because a lot of their advocates want the next step to be banning private citizens from driving , which you've just confirmed, thanks.

Given the current electorate in the United States, I think it would be nigh-impossible that human-driving cars would be banned. Notwithstanding the fact that the cost to equip every vehicle on the road with self-driving technology would be wildly expensive in the short term, Americans respond vigorously to threats to freedoms that are ingrained in their culture (visceral freedoms, not freedoms that are less tangible, such as electronic privacy). Examples: firearms, tobacco, alcohol.

I could foresee this happening in one or two Western European countries, though I would expect Germany and Central Europe to hold out (the German electorate resists regulation that impedes the speed and power of their automobiles).

An aside: how would a car being self-driving affect the owner's ability to direct it wherever he or she pleases?

Post reply on HN