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

Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 216 posts

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#191

Post by sbov »

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…

> 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?

So pedestrians can do whatever they want because its more dangerous for them? Did you know that a flashing red hand means "don't walk"? You can be ticketed by entering the crosswalk when it is flashing. How many of your close calls would that eliminate?

As a driver, what is your first instinct when you see someone in the middle of your path on the road? I also hate people who jaywalk onto medians - how do I know they're going to stop when they get there? Especially if they're running at full speed. I've also had several pedestrians almost jaywalk right out infront of my car before, some not noticing me until I honked at them (too close to stop).

We would all be safer if we all followed the rules. Not just cars.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#192

Post by sliverstorm »

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…

Problem is, while a robot car for every person is far from the optimal solution, there's a very large gap between the current public transit technology and the required technology to allow public transit to approach or match the advantages of a personal car.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#193

Post by sliverstorm »

mcantor wrote: post #186

Have they tested it in the rain? Have they tested it in the snow? Have they tested it driving on ice? Does it know when its fuel gets low? Can it tell when a head gasket blows and the engine is overheating? Have they driven it on the highway? Have they driven it on the countryside? How does it treat cyclists? How does it treat pedestrians? How does it treat deer, squirrels, birds and other fauna on the road? How does…

> Can it tell when a head gasket blows and the engine is overheating?

Sorry, how do YOU know when your head gasket has blown and the car is overheating? What's that, your first indicator is the electronic temperature sensor on your dashboard!? My, there certainly is no way a computer could detect that.

If you are about to say, you detect it through loss of power, steam from the engine bay, coolant in the oil... I got news for you, you just detected it slower than a computer would have. A properly designed automatic driving system would monitor the vitals of the engine, and pull over in the event something goes critical, much the same way your PC shuts off when the CPU hits some predetermined temperature. Even better, if all cars were automatically driven, it would communicate this abnormality with the other cars on the road. It would be able to determine that this is unusual (it's not just a hot day), and it would also be able to co-operate with the other cars on the road to pull over safely as fast as possible.

The things you list are not "this is why automatic driving is impossible". They are just "here's special cases we have to make sure to catch". In the case engineers miss a case, good feedback control systems can often cope for the unexpected event, and in the event they can't, there's always manual control. Hell, let's be honest here- most drivers would not detect a blown head gasket until the car simply stopped functioning, and the engine was completely destroyed anyway. There's tons of case where humans perform terribly, including some on your list. Accidents are caused all the time by people braking for squirrels when they shouldn't.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#194

Post by nradov »

toast76 wrote: post #180
andreyf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pedestrian collision avoidance technology is already available in the Volvo S60.

Except it doesn't actually work. http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/27/volvo-pedestrian-avoidanc...

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#195

Post by sliverstorm »

I am very happy to be an engineer. I would be very uncomfortable turning the world over to robots if I was some other kind of job, but as I am an engineer I will hopefully be the one MAKING those robots, which is the only end of the stick I want to be on when robots reach the critical point in taking care of us.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#196

Post by nradov »

kjksf wrote: post #99
megablast wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a solution to much, apart from getting stupid people away from control of vehicles. We still need to move to mass transportation, to reduce pollution, decrease traffic, stop our reliance on fossil fuels, increase productivity, remove noise, free up space in cities, and lots of other reasons.

While cars that drive themselves are not the final solution they could be a necessary stepping stone to mass transportation. Imagine a future where cars are not owned by individuals but are owned by few companies (or maybe even government, the way public transport is) and participate in what is essentially a global taxi network. Instead of using your own car you would just step out of your home, enter destination add…

That would be nice for commuters, but not practical for parents of small children. They need a bunch of stuff in the car all the time (child seats, diapers, clean clothes, sand toys, stroller, etc.).

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#197

Post by joe_the_user »

Groxx wrote: post #18
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 poi…

Suppose a robot driver is 1/10th as likely to hit and kill a person as a human driver. It would still be something that would happened. And when it did, the results would very messy since the law presently sees any accident through the lens of finding a person at fault. When a robot kills (and a robot will kill if they are "out there") is the fault that of the owner or the manufacturer or the programmer?

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#198

Post by lsc »

DavidSJ wrote: post #139
erikpukinskis wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

depends on where you are. I've never seen it happen in the sf bay area, but it was a pretty common occurrence where I grew up in the central valley, several hundred miles away.

Re: Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic

#199

Post by _djo_ »

reader5000 wrote: post #21

I had no idea the technology was this advanced. Last I heard was the DARPA challenge where they were still struggling to navigate traffic-free dirtroads. Google blows mind once again.

DARPA had two follow-on challenges, a second Grand Challenge in 2005 that five vehicles successfully completed and the 2007 Urban Challenge in which vehicles had to autonomously navigate closed-off urban area, obey traffic rules, merge into traffic and avoid obstacles.

So much of the groundwork for what Google is doing today was already in place three years ago thanks to DARPA. Google's contribution, as far as I can tell, has been to pour more funding into the project and contribute its extensive mapping data and its phenomenal capabilities in collecting and crunching huge datasets.

When fully autonomous road transport does finally become a reality, it'll owe as much for its inception to DARPA, with its innovative X-Prize-style Grand Challenges, as it does to Google. And naturally to all the competing teams who over the course of three DARPA challenges drastically advanced the state of the art and overturned previous assumptions about what was believed possible.

This is a fascinating example of academic research, innovative government funding and long-sighted private funding combining to create something really cool and useful. I hope this sort of thing will continue.

Post reply on HN