Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#131

Post by rue » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 4:03 AM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #127

rue wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

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…

Even discounting buggy software; think hardware, wiring. It is quite possible that a malfunction will take place (they do, constantly).

I could go for "fully computerised traffic would be significantly safer than human traffic", but absolutes about the former being unfailing are just silly.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#132

Post by Cushman » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 4:53 AM UTC

palish wrote: post #114

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned one of the biggest issues with general acceptance of this system: Police will be able to force anyone to pull over anywhere, at any time, and for any or no reason. Even though they can do that now, people still decide to pull over. They are not forced to. And what if there becomes a database that police forces compile, showing the history of movements of everyone? That database coul…

Doubt it. When this system becomes commonplace, the most common traffic violation will be operating a vehicle in manual-only mode.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#133

Post by erikpukinskis » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 4:56 AM UTC

Niten wrote: post #130

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…

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 ha…

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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#134

Post by SMrF » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 4:57 AM 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…

"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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#135

Post by lambda » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 5:10 AM UTC

SMrF wrote: post #134

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…

"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 tak…

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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#136

Post by dustyreagan » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 5:14 AM 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…

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.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#137

Post by dreeves » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 5:25 AM 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.

For years, even decades, I've heard this cited as if it's a legal can of worms that makes the whole notion of automated driving a political impossibility, so to speak, in the foreseeable future. Sure, it would save a lot of lives, the argument goes, but the rare failures would bring down a deluge of lawsuits that would crush any manufacturer foolish enough to try to mass-produce something like this.

I don't think that's the case, even taking as a given America's disgusting obsession with lawsuits. There's an obvious answer to the liability question, and one that I think Google is already depending on in allowing their robot cars to drive all over California: The person in the driver's seat is responsible as always. That person can choose to press the autopilot button but it's not fundamentally different than cruise control. Touching the brakes (or the steering wheel) immediately transfers control back to the driver. The car is doing what it does, as always, strictly as the driver's proxy.

Now of course it will happen that some driver sues the manufacturer because there was an accident they believe wouldn't have happened if they'd never gone on autopilot. Just like there have been (I blithely presume) lawsuits over cruise control. But the manufacturer will weather those lawsuits and reasonable legal precedent will be established soon enough.

But now suppose you press autopilot, go to sleep, and wake up to find you've committed vehicular homicide. That's a scary thought, but is it a potential dealbreaker in bringing this to the mass market? I think the answer is no, because we've already established the liability question: You were, officially and legally speaking, criminally negligent to go to sleep. Unofficially it might well have been a perfectly reasonable risk to have taken, if the probability of it ending in tragegy is sufficiently low. Logically, you could argue, citing statistics on human and robot drivers, that going to sleep with the car on autopilot was markedly less negligent than not putting the car on autopilot at all. I don't know if that would fly in court. But as far as legal obstacles to adoption of robot cars, I don't see it as much of an issue.

PS: I'm not a lawyer.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#138

Post by dreeves » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 5:31 AM UTC

Niten wrote: post #130

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…

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 ha…

It does seem tricky for the car to properly account for the presence of a cyclist using just the cameras and radar and whatnot. What if as a cyclist you carried a special RFID that robot cars would all be programmed to recognize?

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#139

Post by DavidSJ » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 5:59 AM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #133

Niten wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

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 exactl…

Where do you live that drivers through bottles at cyclists, and how common is this?

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#140

Post by queensnake » Sun, Oct 10, 2010, 6:04 AM UTC

cletus wrote: post #111

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…

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…

Pedestrians rule in NYC, at least on upper Broadway, ie Harlem. Crowds will cross, disregarding the state of any light. Just stay in the middle.