What I wonder most about: whenever the Car gets a minor software update, will they (be required to) do again 10,000 hours of test-driving?
Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
31–40 of 83 posts
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#32I think the only way to have safe driving with autonomous vehicles is to have roadways that are autonomous vehicles only. When autonomous vehicles become commercially viable, I think having dedicated autonomous freeways can really remove a lot of the randomness and dangers of driving. We might be a 100 years away from this prospect, but it would be great if we lost no more lives on freeways due to car accidents.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#33I'm fascinated by the accidents. The AV is stopped at a light. Someone rear-ends it. Minimal damage. Probably similar accidents are occurring every minute between human drivers, going unreported as the rule. AVs might one day even avoid this "victimization," if these events keep following a predictable pattern. AVs could exaggerate the gap, leave a precisely calibrated amount of extra space. When anticipating a rear…
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
> You as a human are supposed to avoid getting killed even in cases where you aren't legally liable.
The bar is much higher than that. You are supposed to protect others, not just yourself, and including people who are at fault.
If a pedestrian is jaywalking and you provably have plenty of time and ability to avoid them, but you strike and kill them, you are definitely guilty of something like manslaughter. Although people somethings believe otherwise, the law (and morality) do not have the property that initial minor transgressions by one party absolve the other party of all fault in a resulting interaction.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#34Here's a non-pdf version without some of the padding: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vgjC5VeySpjqzcHj1_4_-5MN... Side note: Google should whip up a google doc only url shortner... so people know its a document and not a risky link, but its still short enough to share easily...
So ... http://goo.gl/drive/???
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
I've been taught to always hold the break when at a stop light. If you get rear-ended, you won't roll into the intersection. Also, always hold the steering wheel, so you keep control if you get rear-ended.
I've always assumed you can press the brake post fact to prevent rolling into an intersection, which I assumed was better than absorbing a lot of G-force.
Fundamentally, I think, if the impact is too strong for you to be able to react in time to brake before rolling too far, you would have rolled into the intersection despite holding the brake. Except it would be a skid not a roll.
I could be wrong, obviously.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
DO hold the brake if you are about to be rear ended. It results in less acceleration, and you are less likely to be projected into an obstacle.
Well that depends in where you want the momentum to go and how rapidly do you want to and can afford to dissipate it, does it not?
I mean, if the impact is strong enough, you'll be sent flying whether you are or aren't holding the brakes. Just that if you're not, your steering wheel is still going to steer.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider another problem the vehicle already solves. The AV wisely yields to those running a red light, even though the AV has the right of way. If it didn't, but was instead frequently t-boned... Google could technically still say its vehicle "never caused an accident," right? It'd never be at fault for these, but the AVs are still designed to avoid them anyway. Is this inconsistent with a choice not to avoid rear…
I've been taught to always hold the break when at a stop light. If you get rear-ended, you won't roll into the intersection. Also, always hold the steering wheel, so you keep control if you get rear-ended.
I was taught to engage the hand brake when stopping at a junction or lights for this reason, a rear end impact would generally be at low speed compared to the speed of the potentail traffic in the crossing lane.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#38Have any of the AV teams said anything about testing in hazardous road conditions yet? Driving rain, thick fog, heavy snow, sleet, the like. Maybe the answer they'll give is, "Don't drive you dummy", but that's not really an acceptable solution for most people.
Isn't it interesting that people who relinquish their mobility to a computer will loose their driving skills? Maps nicely to other things.
Just because all of my needed math is done on a calculator doesn't mean I can no longer add.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#39What I wonder most about: whenever the Car gets a minor software update, will they (be required to) do again 10,000 hours of test-driving?
I'm quite sure that those 10k hours are not with a single version but they are already being updated all the time.
A human driver on the other hand similarly also updates his driving behavior throughout his life.
Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]
#40While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim, it would save a fair number of people from gruesome deaths if they would build some sort of rear collision avoidance logic for situations where it may be possible for the system to get the car out of harm's way. There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at…
"There seem to be hundreds of accidents like this [1] annually where large trucks smash into cars stopped at red lights or that have slowed down during traffic jams."
Isn't that solved by the automatic collision detection with emergency braking, as implemented by Volvo?[1]