Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#11

Post by MikeCapone » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:35 PM UTC

That's very promising. Living in a pretty safe place (Canada), driving is probably the most dangerous thing that I regularly do. I'm very happy with the safety advances of the past decade (more airbags, electronic traction control, brake force distribution, better crumple zones, more high-strength materials, etc), but it's not quite "active" enough to make me feel truly safe (especially because it doesn't address human error).

Truly looking forward to the commercialization of technology.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#12

Post by alalonde » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:40 PM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #10

And in the event of an accident, who would be liable — the person behind the wheel or the maker of the software? The insurance company, just like today. Possibly paid for by the manufacturer and entirely included in the sales price, or possibly paid for by the driver/owner like today.

Either way, expect a discount, at least after the technology is proven. I know I'd rather insure a robot than an often sleepy, distracted, intoxicated human!

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#13

Post by dandelany » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:41 PM UTC

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 were identified as being particularly dangerous for pedestrians, and pedestrian crossing signs with big flashing lights were installed at these locations over the past 5 years. This spring, a report was released[1] that showed accidents at many of these crosswalks had actually increased since the lights were installed. "Taken together, the data suggests that approximately eight additional crossing accidents per year occur at these locations," says the report.

There are lots of theories about why, but I think it boils down to one thing: when pedestrians can hit a button and light up these big signs which are supposed to make everyone stop, it makes them feel much safer, to the point that many people will hit the button and start walking almost immediately, without taking the time to make sure that all lanes of traffic are aware of their presence and stopping.

The prospect of automated cars scares me because, obviously, they cannot be perfect, and they will not be able to identify every dangerous driving scenario. Of course, there is a manual override, but I fear that the car being right 99% of the time will lead to such a complacency in "drivers" that, in the 1% of cases where the car is wrong and about to hit something, we will not be able to stop in time. The more accurate the car is, the more safe we feel, and the less likely we are to monitor it as closely and notice when it is wrong.

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.

[1] http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_14859190

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#14

Post by nighthacker » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:41 PM UTC

MikeCapone wrote: post #11

That's very promising. Living in a pretty safe place (Canada), driving is probably the most dangerous thing that I regularly do. I'm very happy with the safety advances of the past decade (more airbags, electronic traction control, brake force distribution, better crumple zones, more high-strength materials, etc), but it's not quite "active" enough to make me feel truly safe (especially because it doesn't address hum…

Me too. I bet this could bring accident rates down substantially and maybe we will also get rid of those insidious traffic jams. But the best part: I'll have a ton of free time on my hands during transit!

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#15

Post by gdl » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:42 PM UTC

gatsby wrote: post #6

"The only accident, engineers said, was when one Google car was rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light." Google robot > Humans

Let us all pray that it doesn't agree with you.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#16

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:43 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#17

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:45 PM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #13

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 were identified as being particularly dangerous for pedestrians, and pedestrian crossing signs with big flashing lights were installed at these locations over the past 5 years. This spring, a report was released[1] that showed accidents at many of these crosswalk…

[deleted]

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#18

Post by Groxx » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:46 PM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #13

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 were identified as being particularly dangerous for pedestrians, and pedestrian crossing signs with big flashing lights were installed at these locations over the past 5 years. This spring, a report was released[1] that showed accidents at many of these crosswalk…

>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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#19

Post by Udo » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:47 PM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #13

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 were identified as being particularly dangerous for pedestrians, and pedestrian crossing signs with big flashing lights were installed at these locations over the past 5 years. This spring, a report was released[1] that showed accidents at many of these crosswalk…

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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#20

Post by reader5000 » Sat, Oct 09, 2010, 7:49 PM UTC

dandelany wrote: post #13

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 were identified as being particularly dangerous for pedestrians, and pedestrian crossing signs with big flashing lights were installed at these locations over the past 5 years. This spring, a report was released[1] that showed accidents at many of these crosswalk…

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.