Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#261

Post by summerdown2 » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 9:53 PM UTC

modernshoggoth wrote: post #197

VBprogrammer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Google have simply done a better job of creating a self-driving car than you are willing to let yourself believe. They have done this by attacking the problem from the 'Big Data' mindset which Google are intimately familiar with. Instead of trying to crack hard AI problems (computer vision being the most obvious) they are simply counting on being able to record and use enough information both before and…

Indeed. The whole self-driven car isn't a new idea - various individuals and university disciplines have been trying the idea for the last decade over in Europe - it's legal to test these ideas on the road in some countries over there. If you make the assumption that all cars will be AI, then traffic-handling becomes very, very simple. It's not obstacles or accidents that cause serious problems for traffic, it's the…

> If all vehicles behaved to a certain rule set then all vehicles actions could be predicted.

... or, potentially, hacked.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#262

Post by alwaysinshade » Wed, Aug 08, 2012, 10:46 PM UTC

nandemo wrote: post #256

alwaysinshade wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster meant cities where the road rules amount to a functioning car horn. The roads of Japan are nothing like Cairo/Istanbul etc. There are a lot of cars - but they drive in an orderly, predictable manner. On a related note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurikamome In Tokyo they already have an automated transit system that is basically a truck on rails. See this image to get a better picture: http…

Yurikamome is just a driverless train.

It's not a train in the classical sense - it has rubber tires. More like a truck confined to a rail.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#263

Post by ericd » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 2:06 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #181

ericd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really reasonably cost effective for most people.

Having a full-time driver on retainer 24x7 is not cost effective, but using one a few times a year might well be.

For an 8 hour drive? Still not true, especially with a limo.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#264

Post by thrownaway2424 » Thu, Aug 09, 2012, 3:11 AM UTC

andybak wrote: post #244

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really just a negative externality of inefficient suburban development. If the 'burbs didn't exist in the first place, there would be no need to subsidize their barely-used mass transit services.

"That's really just a negative externality of inefficient suburban development." Shouldn't public transit cover rural areas and small towns also? Or is the only way to get an efficient transport system to have the entire world living in huge urban centres? Personal mass transit could allow a much wider range of city sizes to be served with relative efficiency.

Mass transit doesn't need "huge urban centers" and indeed can and does serve cities of all sizes. What it requires, though, is a minimum density. You can't serve a small, sprawling city. You can easily serve small, compact cities. Compare, for example, the transit effectiveness between Zurich and Tulsa, cities of comparable population.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#265

Post by wbeaty » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 3:07 AM UTC

andybak wrote: post #171

stephengillie wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too live in the Seattle area, and I've heard of this technique. Sadly, when implementing it, all you see is the angry drivers behind you who rush to pass and gobble up the traffic bubble you've been saving.

I thought that this was covered by the Traffic Waves guy who said his method deals with that problem quite well?

Yep: it doesn't happen, FAQ: http://trafficwaves.org/tfaq.html#five

- if truckers can maintain a bubble, how can it be impossible?

- yes, aggressively weaving drivers sometimes jump in ...then they jump out again.

- at merge zones, the entire point is to let people into your lane.

- In theory, everyone else wants your precious bubble. In practice, not.

...and in a burning building, we all know the best way to escape, eh? EVERYONE AGGRESSIVELY PUSH FORWARD, DON'T LET ANYONE ELSE GET PAST, COOPERATION AND TEAMWORK ARE FOR LOSERS! Yep, that certainly won't trigger a huge clogged mess where everyone dies.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#266

Post by GFischer » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

lsc wrote: post #222

Tycho wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My suspicion is that the figures quoted around these Google cars and their safety record, if you take them at face value, lead to a ludicrous level of optimism.

really? 300,000 miles without an accident is not particularly amazing for a human. I mean, it's good, but not amazing.

I work for an insurance company that specializes on auto insurance. It'd be filthy rich if people only had an accident every 300,000 miles.

The company is pretty well off, but pays 95% of the premiums in claims payment.

Doing a very back-of-the-envelope calculation, 22.5% of our insured cars had a claims payment this year (august to august), so an average insured person has a traffic accident every 4 years or so, and does way less than 300,000 miles every 4 years (more like 100,000 being generous).

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#267

Post by GFischer » Fri, Aug 10, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

kayoone wrote: post #238

may i remind people here cheering for automated cars that most of the world hasnt even accepted automatic transmission because they want to control their car themselves? This will take decades

Erm, at least over here (Uruguay) we don't buy automatic transmission because it's more expensive.

If they were priced the same, I'd probably buy automatic.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#268

Post by lsc » Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 12:35 AM UTC

GFischer wrote: post #266

lsc wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

really? 300,000 miles without an accident is not particularly amazing for a human. I mean, it's good, but not amazing.

I work for an insurance company that specializes on auto insurance. It'd be filthy rich if people only had an accident every 300,000 miles. The company is pretty well off, but pays 95% of the premiums in claims payment. Doing a very back-of-the-envelope calculation, 22.5% of our insured cars had a claims payment this year (august to august), so an average insured person has a traffic accident every 4 years or so, and…

I was saying not that it wasn't better than average but that it wasn't amazingly good. I'm pretty sure my mom has gone 300,000 miles between accidents; (growing up, we went on a lot of road trips.)

all I was trying to say is that I think the best human drivers can pull off three hundred thousand miles; it's not inhuman. and that's what we are going to need for self-driving cars to become widely accepted; something that would seem impossibly good to a human. And I bet they will do it, eventually.

I was responding to

>My suspicion is that the figures quoted around these Google cars and their safety record, if you take them at face value, lead to a ludicrous level of optimism.

and I don't think 300,000 miles without an accident is a ludicrous number; it's something a human can achieve, (even if it's something most humans don't.) It's a milestone, sure, but like I said, for self-driving cars to be accepted, they can't just be better than the average driver; they need to be better than the best drivers.

Re: Google's Autonomous cars complete 300,000 miles without an accident

#269

Post by GFischer » Sat, Aug 11, 2012, 1:08 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #268

GFischer wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for an insurance company that specializes on auto insurance. It'd be filthy rich if people only had an accident every 300,000 miles. The company is pretty well off, but pays 95% of the premiums in claims payment. Doing a very back-of-the-envelope calculation, 22.5% of our insured cars had a claims payment this year (august to august), so an average insured person has a traffic accident every 4 years or so, and…

I was saying not that it wasn't better than average but that it wasn't amazingly good. I'm pretty sure my mom has gone 300,000 miles between accidents; (growing up, we went on a lot of road trips.) all I was trying to say is that I think the best human drivers can pull off three hundred thousand miles; it's not inhuman. and that's what we are going to need for self-driving cars to become widely accepted; something th…

Ah, ok :) , I hadn't understood your statement correctly.

I'm looking forward to self driving cars because of their convenience ! Imagine being able to sleep during road trips, using them as a taxicab for places where there's no parking (and ask it to park itself :) ), sending them to pick up somebody... the possibilities are endless !!