Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
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.
Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
171–180 of 216 posts
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#172Very 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 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 tel…
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#173Ha, I saw these cars multiple times this past week in San Francisco, including turning from Broadway onto Columbus in heavy traffic. If that was done autonomously, then I'd be very impressed since I have trouble navigating through those intersections without hitting the many bold pedestrians.
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 tel…
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.
Which is not saying this effort shouldn't continue. Human drivers don't always handle cyclists well either.
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
And of course, there will be the Android app the pedestrian can use as a last resort to avoid beng run over that stops any cars heading for the phone. :-)
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#176Earlier 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…
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#177The key question is why would Google produce this technology and enter the autonomous driving market? I think one of the key issues for Google, from a corporate strategy standpoint, is "freeing up people's time." Driving is one of last places where we spend significant time awake without being able to use the Internet and hence any of Google's services (except if you use a smartphone, which is now illegal in some sta…
Google currently hires people to drive their streetview cars. They could save a significant amount by automating that collection process. Beyond not having to pay drivers, you also don't have to have vehicles designed to keep their occupants safe, which could be significantly cheaper to produce, operate, and maintain. And even though it's not a core part of their business today, the first company that can offer a via…
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#179Very 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…
Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 poi…
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…