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

Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

blog.waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 182 posts

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#151

Post by bkor »

mschuster91 wrote: post #85
spike021 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The rear-ending problem will be solved as automatic emergency braking becomes standard on cars. Already, it's shipping on almost all high-end cars and 70-80% of midrange cars. There's a US auto industry goal of it being standard by 2022. That's probably the main feature needed for self-driving cars to coexist with human-driven cars. I really wish we could just enforce proper education of being observant. Most times…

> I really wish we could just enforce proper education of being observant. The problem: on long stretches of road, especially with tunnels or trees acting as side wall, human biology gets in the way - we literally don't perceive stuff happening properly anymore (and as usual, German has a word for it: Tunnelblick , tunnel vision). The additional factors of people being (too) tired to drive or stressed out by children…

> The problem: on long stretches of road

In Netherlands some of those are mitigated. Long straight roads have found to be more accident prone (doesn't matter if it's a highway or some local street). So infrastructure now tries to avoid such long stretches. It won't solve it, it's the Swiss cheese model of airplanes (try to allow multiple things to go wrong before it results in a failure/accident).

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#152

Post by bogwog »

> Road safety is a major, global public health crisis. More than 1.3 million people die on the world’s roads every year, according to WHO. That’s more people than die from HIV/AIDS, and is equivalent to a passenger plane’s worth of people crashing every single hour—or one death every 30 seconds.

> I’ve spent over 20 years working in crash avoidance research, in the belief that improved driving technology is the key to reducing these needless deaths.

This is a noble goal, but I find it really damn hard to ignore the possibility that this is all just another ploy by Google to steal our data and violate our privacy. Just imagine trying to push back against a technology that saves lives for something as "frivolous" as privacy.

Why does it seem like the consumer can never win? The free market is supposed to be self balancing, yet I can't remember a time where it actually felt that way in the technology sector.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#153

Post by Strilanc »

I really dislike the way the data is being summarized as "100% avoided or mitigated*".

First, they're omitting the types of case they're failing to mitigate (rear endings in this case). Cue "60% of the time it works every time" anchorman scene.

Second, "mitigated" is defined to mean a 25% relative reduction in chance of serious injury. Which is good, but again smacks of "60% of the time it works every time".

Basically, it looks to me like someone wanted to be able to show a bold blue 100% and required the definitions they were using to be massaged to match. And apparently they got their way. This has damaged my trust in future summaries put out by Waymo.

A more truthful summarization style would be e.g. "X fewer serious injuries over 72 incidents", referring to expected injuries and simulated incidents of course.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#155

Post by bogwog »

Rule35 wrote: post #46
starpilot wrote: post #41

But what about choosing between hitting one doctor versus a group of school kids? /s

This is why we need a social credit-rating type system, then it just totals the points. Kids are faster, less likely to be hit, and generally have worse credit so it all works out.

Plus making more kids is easier than making more doctors. It's a no-brainer!

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#156

Post by tablespoon »

bumbada wrote: post #76

They can use it to start fixing the roads, not the cars. Just look at the cross intersection they use as an example, typical of the US. The ROAD is the death trap there. People are crossing each other at high speed, this is the BUG, and should be fixed. The proper solution is putting there a roundabout, and you will have instantly less fatal accidents. The US was the first to use roundabouts, but those early designs…

> Just look at the cross intersection they use as an example, typical of the US. The ROAD is the death trap there. People are crossing each other at high speed, this is the BUG, and should be fixed.

> The proper solution is putting there a roundabout, and you will have instantly less fatal accidents.

People are only "crossing each other at high speed" in these simulations because the scenario involves someone running a red light:

> Here, for example, you can see on the bottom of the screen that the simulated Waymo Driver avoids a reconstructed version of a real-life fatal crash by obeying the speed limit—and not running a red light, as the initiator did in real life [emphasis mine]...

I don't think "roundabout all the things" is the answer to every traffic and road safety problem. This looks like an intersection between two 3/4 lane roads, and you'd need monster roundabout for it that seems like it would be confusing and/or slow. Also, a road can "have instantly less fatal accidents" by being closed or turned it into a traffic jam. IMHO, the road engineers need to balance accident avoidance, throughput, and user-friendliness.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#157

Post by zip1234 »

Laarlf wrote: post #141
zip1234 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cars were limited to a certain speed it would for certain cut down on crashes. It would also cut down on fatalities. When the news article says "speed was not a factor", they are only referring to the fact that the driver was going at or under the posted speed. That does not mean speed was not a factor. You think it would not work because driving is boring? Perhaps if you can't handle driving responsibly, you shou…

Europe has built roads forever that makes driving engaging. Europe has a lot less issues with phones while driving etc. Germany also solves that problem by having no speed limit when it gets boring. Making driving engaging is the best way to create mindful drivers.

What do you think makes for an engaging road? One thing that comes to mind is road width. A narrower road forces a driver to pay more attention.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#158

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Laarlf wrote: post #141
zip1234 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If cars were limited to a certain speed it would for certain cut down on crashes. It would also cut down on fatalities. When the news article says "speed was not a factor", they are only referring to the fact that the driver was going at or under the posted speed. That does not mean speed was not a factor. You think it would not work because driving is boring? Perhaps if you can't handle driving responsibly, you shou…

Europe has built roads forever that makes driving engaging. Europe has a lot less issues with phones while driving etc. Germany also solves that problem by having no speed limit when it gets boring. Making driving engaging is the best way to create mindful drivers.

See also: fewer accidents at rotarys because people know they need to be on their A-game.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#159

Post by xyzzyz »

tablespoon wrote: post #139
Animats wrote: post #18

You can read the California DMV's set of autonomous vehicle accident reports.[1] Almost all the Waymo reports are "vehicle was entering intersection, detected cross traffic, stopped, was rear-ended by human driver". There's one Waymo report where someone ran a stop sign and hit them. The rear-ending problem will be solved as automatic emergency braking becomes standard on cars. Already, it's shipping on almost all hi…

> The rear-ending problem will be solved as automatic emergency braking becomes standard on cars. Already, it's shipping on almost all high-end cars and 70-80% of midrange cars. There's a US auto industry goal of it being standard by 2022. That's probably the main feature needed for self-driving cars to coexist with human-driven cars. Not necessarily. I have a Honda, and the system in my car is deliberately designed…

The system I have in my Subaru is pretty useful, and warned me a few times when the vehicle in front of me has suddenly slowed down or stopped. However, it has too many false positives, and if it actually tried to brake every time, the false positives would have been very annoying and I would disable it.

Re: Replaying real life: how the Waymo Driver avoids fatal human crashes

#160

Post by throwaway0a5e »

tablespoon wrote: post #142
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Cars have been pervasive for over a century and virtually none of the actual improvements in safety have come from "hoping humans do better". Improvements to signage and traffic controls, cracking down on reckless and intoxicated driving and the massive campaign to get people to actually wear their seat-belts (listed in no particular order) seem to fall solidly in the "make humans do better" category.

>>> I really wish we could just enforce proper education of being observant. >> Cars have been pervasive for over a century and virtually none of the actual improvements in safety have come from "hoping humans do better". > Improvements to signage and traffic controls, cracking down on reckless and intoxicated driving and the massive campaign to get people to actually wear their seat-belts (listed in no particular or…

>They either involve implementing technical solutions or preventing humans in certain conditions from driving at all.

I disagree, they facilitate (signs, markings), persuade (public awareness campaigns) and incentivize (DUI penalties) "doing better". Arguably road design, markings and signage are a technical solution but the humans involved are heeding them of their own free will. It's not like an airbag that goes off based on certain criteria regardless of how you feel about the matter.

Post reply on HN