Earlier quoted context omitted.
We let people kill more than a few of us. We let people wreck our cars and endanger our lives in situations that would have been easily avoidable.
And we don't have a choice but to live with people. Selling a random person an item and asking them to give over control to said item, when the item carries the very real possibility of causing harm, is a harder sales pitch. You have to remember that not everyone is sold on technology, just for the sake of technology.
The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
311–320 of 455 posts
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a sometime cyclist, I agree that cyclists should abide by traffic laws. I assume this was downvoted for tone. The premise is undeniable. Bicycles should obey the laws. Greater rule adherence means a more predictable, and thus safer, street.
Stopping at a stop sign in residential neighborhoods as a cyclist is frequently stupid. Idaho even has a law that lets cyclists treat stop signs as yield signs, which makes perfect sense. Cyclists aren't a large threat to other road users (pedestrians/cars/other cyclists) the way cars are.
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans have a tendency to focus on the bizarre while dismissing the average. Perhaps a self-driving car will not see this debris, although I would be surprised if that was true. The robot car has far superior sensors, compared to yours, and it never looks at anything else. Probably the consequences of hitting the debris would have been minor anyway. On the other hand, meat-drivers are constantly murdering hundreds of…
Your basic argument is that, although robots will make mistakes, we'll let them kill just a few of us to save many more. That seems like it's not going to go over well with most people. And I would say that mowing down little kids at the local farmer's market would be one of those 'bizarre' incidents, unless there has been a rash of farmer's market mow-downs that I'm not aware of. I've never hit anyone, and I'd rathe…
What's the alternative? The argument that, although humans will make mistakes, we'll let them kill lots of us to avoid saving some by having robots instead?
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#314Everyone seems really concerned with the edge cases right now. What about insurance and liability? What about when X happens and it's raining? These are (usually pretty minor) technical challenges, and I haven't heard one yet that we won't be able to overcome with today's technology. Under given circumstances the car will be safer than a human or it isn't. The moment it crosses that threshold (for most conditions) th…
There's the simple issue of legal liability, though. If you crash into someone, it's your fault and you can be taken to court for it. If a Google driverless car crashes into someone then it's Google's fault. That's an extremely large number of potential crashes and legal challenges. Absent any higher concern, Google has to be very careful about this out of their own self-interest.
People have to drive the same distance regardless. Whether it's human or computer error leading to the accident is irrelevant to your premium. To a car insurance company it's all about rates and risks.
Assuming driverless cars are shown to be safer than humans - and they'll have to be in order to get approval - your car insurance company would be stupid not to cover them. From their perspective it's simple economics. The accident rate is lower, thus the potential liability is lower.
If your insurer isn't willing to insure your driverless car, you'll switch to someone who does. If no established provider insures driverless, that's a no-brainer company to start. Similar payments in a high-margin industry with lower average payouts? Yes, please.
Liability is the easy part.
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet, you would think that the side of your "battle" with the tendency to kill should be expected to behave better?
I ride a bike and drive a car. And while doing both, I do my best to obey the laws and not injure other people. In Boston, and more specifically in my area of Cambridge we have major issues with drivers turning without looking at the bike lane and bikers running through red lights or riding on sidewalks. In MA, we have very specific laws regarding how bikes are to be treated under the law and whenever riding I abide…
When I have right-of-way and use my turn signal ahead of time, shouldn't I have the ability to turn right without waiting for the bike to pass (similar to how the cars behind me must wait for me to make my turn before continuing?)
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a cyclist, I was shocked to see the cyclist change his mind like that —unless he was a tester too, that’s how you get bumped– but I really hope Google Cars learn that most cyclists actually don’t signal their turn that well. Cars don’t bother either, and the last frame show how most non-car drivers get killed: don’t notice what passing just being, shift in gear, swerve and… bang. Seeing how Google taught its car t…
don’t notice what passing just being, shift in gear, swerve and… bang Can you rephrase this? I can't understand it.
Anyway: what they show is that, just behind the car, just at its right, there is a cyclist. But it is in the dead spot. That cyclist is most likely going steady because the path is clear: cars were waiting at the intersection, but what was blocking them just passed, so you can move along. My experience is that cars always forget to signal they are turning, and they never think about check the deadspot.
This is how most cyclists die.
It was notoriously how the first death involving a Vélib, (Paris’ free bike scheme); it actually happened meters away from where I was at the time.
More importantly, this is something that most car drivers don’t care to check: they always blame the cyclist for “showing up out of nowhere” and usually do so violently. They completely neglect that the don’t have the right of way at all, nor that it would make no sense for them to pretend to have it if the vehicle was anything else than a bicycle: I’ve seen them always apologise profusely when they caught a motorbike in the same situation.
I was living in a very busy street (the largest in Paris, actually) where there are dozens of such intersections, and it used to happen to me everyday. By ‘happen’, I mean that I had to bang on the car side to prevent the blow daily; there was visible damage to either the car or the bike weekly. I had to drop my bike at the last minute, letting it be crunched by the car wheel, or jump on the car front/engine to avoid being crushed almost every other month. That’s why I rapidly switched from my beloved bike to Vélib, to be able to afford such frequent accidents. I was hit badly twice, fell on the macadam both time: the first time, my front teeth cut my lip open (still have a scar, and one front tooth is still visibly broken in half); the second time, I busted my knee and couldn’t walk for a month. I have less of a limp now, but I can predict the weather quite accurately; and I can’t play tennis, basketball, ski, skate or do anything remotely fun, really.
In a dense city, there is nothing you can do to prevent it, except never cross a street: cars would come out and turn at any time when the light is green to cross. You are inches away from the car (because that’s how much space city planning grants you) and a ton of steel is going full Bruce-Lee finger-length punch on you. It’s very hard to describe the feeling it gives you: imagine a car willingly crushing you to death. That’s about as reassuring at that. It’s unexpected, sudden and overwhelmingly violent.
This is why cyclists insist one staying one meter away from deadly machines as much as they can. Most drivers reaction is “I didn’t touch you! Why do you care?!” -- including when the bicycle wheel was torn under the car front wheel. Taxi drivers are particularly violent in that circumstance -- and their parent company don’t care, at all, when you mention the problem, and a need for training.
Out of principle, I refused to yield and stop cycling around: I felt I was right, and should be respected for it. Once you’ve experience Paris with a bicycle (and I had for a decade) walking in painfully slow, metro stinks and driving is absurd on every level.
I’ve asked several Police officers to do something, from warning, surveilling the most common intersection; offer training; all those I talked to (including a Commissioner’ aid) felt clueless and said that they only thing they can do is scrape away the leftovers… I never dared to ask how much gore was in those. Official statistics purposely downplay the issue. I’ve challenged every local ‘Open data’ initiative to let me cross-reference hospital, morgue and police reports and sort death by vehicle driven and exact location — in vain.
Someone in my family worked on car electronics, and I did challenge him to implement a side radar on the right side to prevent it -- his reaction was the usual, dis-heartening reaction from all drivers and car makers: it doesn’t threaten people inside the car, why should I care? I’ve called this the “I have a tank! Fuck You!” mentality.
Notice how until couple of years ago, not a single security feature, or even measurement was about people outside the car? That’s how you ended up with a ton of reinforced metal with narrower and narrower windows, up to the point now where standard cars are actually stronger than the first armored tanks.
I have banged on car side windows at the last minute as much as I could, but my life remained in constant danger. After seeing that the Police was powerless, I have investigated the idea that in this particular situation, my life was expressly at stake; no public authority could do something. I even asked them to sign affidavit confirming that was what they told me. Therefore, I believed I was left in a state of nature, i.e. a legal void in principled law systems, meaning should be allowed to defend myself using deadly force. I had started to learn how to use a firearm, and working on a campaign saying that cyclists were now armed, would not hesitate to shoot in that particular case. I considered some scary premiss around the idea that the blood would stop being ours, and start being those of the actual culprits.
I considered the very likely scenario that would lead me in jail for manslaughter, i.e. for a decade. As someone who had taught classes at the local security jail, I knew what that meant: daily, violent anal rape; possibly forced drug addition if I wasn’t cooperative.
This is something that made me have nightmares for years. Imagine having bruises from living your worst dream on a regular basis, and contemplating rape for a decade as your only way out.
The friend who showed me how to shoot noticed I was more scared of the gun that beginners usually are; I was more scared after. I mentioned why, or rather, I said that I wasn’t sure I could stop a car swerving by killing the driver -- which was true; that just wasn’t the main reason holding a gun scared me. He thankfully pointed how far I had gone -- ignoring the main extent of it.
I realised how this had repeatedly triggered very problematic psychiatric issues over the years. It’s strange and yet very empowering to have a paranoia directly triggered by a perfectly rational inference from regular lucid experience.
This is the actual reason why I left Paris, the city I spent my life in, and whom I will always love. I have swore to not come back until taxi drivers, by far the worst offenders, are gone.
That’s why I’m so supportive of Uber, other similar services, and Google Self driving cars: there offer a working solution. I can recognise the tiny license Uber cars have, and they have consistently respected road rules. I never considered owning a car myself, or even moving around in such a violent mean of transport. But those became the only ways for me to come back home without having crippling, yet rational, nightmares.
That last five seconds, that “side death”, has been a haunting companion for years. This exact situation, so let me answer your question precisely: a car turns right without checking there is a bike there in the blind-spot (one that actually has the right of way, and more importantly a body about to be crushed).
Detecting it, and waiting for the bike to pass first might be some engineers’ couple of month of work, but it is far more to me.
I have never mentioned this to anyone. I just though the discrepancy between what that means to cyclist and your misunderstanding mattered.
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human drivers can't predict that either, and the Google car should have a much faster reaction time than a human driver.
Reaction time isn't the problem. Cars can't make moral decisions. It's not uncommon that a pedestrian will jump in the road (sometimes intentionally to commit suicide). This happens to me personally on a daily basis in San Francisco. Sometimes the driver has a moral choice to ether run the car off the road killing people on the sidewalk or killing the pedestrian. What do you expect a Self-Driving car to do in that si…
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#318Everyone seems really concerned with the edge cases right now. What about insurance and liability? What about when X happens and it's raining? These are (usually pretty minor) technical challenges, and I haven't heard one yet that we won't be able to overcome with today's technology. Under given circumstances the car will be safer than a human or it isn't. The moment it crosses that threshold (for most conditions) th…
There must be at least 50 million residential garages in the US alone. If we automate all cars and switch to a Cars-as-a-Service model that is 50 million large rooms suddenly available. That's a lot of reclaimed real estate. Edit: If the average garage is 250 sq ft (pretty small), average cost of real estate is $100/sq ft (pretty low), then this is a $1.25 trillion windfall. Not bad for a small side-effect of autonom…
But owning a self-driving car sounds pretty sweet as well. Not only will you be able to get the status symbol car you want, you'll also be able to leave your stuff in it (without paying extra to rent it for times you aren't driving). And it's better than the cars of today! You don't need to worry about parking! You can drive when drunk or tired! You never need to worry about your cars-as-a-service being unable to send you a car during peak times!
Cars are popular to own today. Self-driving cars would be more valuable to own than normal cars are today. You have to imagine immense benefits to cars-as-a-service for it to displace most of the market for self-owned cars.
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
There must be at least 50 million residential garages in the US alone. If we automate all cars and switch to a Cars-as-a-Service model that is 50 million large rooms suddenly available. That's a lot of reclaimed real estate. Edit: If the average garage is 250 sq ft (pretty small), average cost of real estate is $100/sq ft (pretty low), then this is a $1.25 trillion windfall. Not bad for a small side-effect of autonom…
Well, that's if you assume that Cars-as-a-Service don't need to be stored anywhere and magical disappear when they are not in use. I know Google has magical fairy powers, but last I checked, a self-driving car is exactly the same size as a regular car, and takes the same storage space.
Re: The latest chapter for the self-driving car: mastering city street driving
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for all the LIDAR info! A human seems to be able to differentiate pretty reliably (although not perfectly) between dry spots and drywall. And at 50 meters, I expect that binocular vision doesn't do much. I wonder if people can use parallax (i.e. road being revealed differently) for a 2 inch object like drywall at those kinds of distances and speeds. Parallax is uses in Google's latest software lens blur, so I'…
Less that perceive the depth (2 inches at 50 meters is tough, especially from above) but that we're really good at pattern matching (vague square thing in the road? likely not road). You can think of parallax as stereo vision repeated over and over again with different cameras. Cameras/depth sensing has a hard time at range, since the resolution for depth decreases rapidly towards subpixel.