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

Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

static.googleusercontent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#51

Post by Hytosys »

gambiting wrote: post #40
downandout wrote: post #11

While 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] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridS396W2BY

If I'm not mistaken, the OP is postulating an avoidance mechanism for the front ("victim") car, not the rear car. Indeed the rear car is at a higher risk of injury than the front car in read-end accidents.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#52

Post by dsfyu404ed »

crottypeter wrote: post #45
jfoster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?

No. Rapid acceleration from being rear-ended causes whiplash. Having brakes on reduces the initial acceleration.

In modern bucket seats the risk of whiplash injury is incredibly minimal. Your head doesn't have the distance to travel far enough to hurt your neck. On the other hand, standing on the brake will cause both vehicles more damage and cause the other car to decelerate more quickly, causing the occupants to experience more acceleration in a direction in which the restraints are less effective (getting pressed into seat-belts and airbags hurt more than getting pressed into a seat).

Standing on the brake is simply shifting the energy around at the expense of the other party

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#53

Post by dsfyu404ed »

downandout wrote: post #11

While 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…

>While most human drivers have a hard time avoiding rear-end collisions in which they are the victim This happens every day. -car A comes to a sudden stop for a less than legitimate reason (e.g "I need to be in that stopped left turn lane, not this moving through lane but I was too busy being distracted") -car B (behind A) begins to come to a stop as fast as possible -car B sees car C in rear-view -car B moves right one lane -car C manages to avoid rear ending A by less than the length of B Obviously this is set off by A having jack shit for situational awareness and B picks up the slack

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#54

Post by SuperChihuahua »

If anyone is interested in learning more, I've found a free online-course called "Programming a Robotic Car" (https://www.udacity.com/course/artificial-intelligence-for-r...)

The lecturer is the same guy behind the Stanley car that won the DARPA challenge a few years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge)

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#55

Post by foxhedgehog »

michaelt wrote: post #46
brownbat wrote: post #5

I'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…

Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? [...] Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear- ended? While I was in college I worked on some wheeled robots that played a competitive ball game. We wanted to avoid collisions between robots, and to win the game. One of the things we foun…

As a general rule, I feel that technologists routinely underestimate the ability of people to acclimate to new technology. This is an insightful post.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#56

Post by rwmj »

michaelt wrote: post #46
brownbat wrote: post #5

I'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…

Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? [...] Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear- ended? While I was in college I worked on some wheeled robots that played a competitive ball game. We wanted to avoid collisions between robots, and to win the game. One of the things we foun…

The Googlecar is collecting all this information about the behaviour of the other drivers: number plates, accurate time and location, LIDAR, possibly even video. No idea about the US, but in the UK such driving is itself an offence, you just need a way to prove it.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#57

Post by Denvercoder9 »

Mimu wrote: post #43
DannoHung wrote: post #19

Have 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.

Given the fact that half of the miles done if with a human drivers I would say this is not ready for complete autonomy yet, at all.

When you look at just the miles driven in June (by comparing the totals with those in the May report), more than two-thirds were driven autonomous this month.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#58

Post by jjoonathan »

michaelt wrote: post #46
brownbat wrote: post #5

I'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…

Does blame change though if there are ways the AI can prevent this series of similar accidents, but they choose not to? [...] Is it inconsistent to expect the AV to avoid getting t-boned, but not expect it to avoid getting rear- ended? While I was in college I worked on some wheeled robots that played a competitive ball game. We wanted to avoid collisions between robots, and to win the game. One of the things we foun…

Since the AV would be keeping detailed records of everything, legal remedies are possible. I imagine someone would quickly lose interest in cutting off AVs if after a modest threshold they would start getting a bill every month.

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Project Monthly Report [pdf]

#59

Post by jfoster »

ferongr wrote: post #26
jfoster wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this depend on what is in front of you? If you can safely move forward, wouldn't not holding the brake be better?

Assuming an intersection, wouldn't it be better to be rear-ended hard than having a vehicle slam into the driver's side door?

Yep, which is why I think it depends on what's in front of you. A human probably doesn't have enough time to analyze the situation and determine whether or not they could do better than holding down the brake. A computer can probably do better in some situations.
Post reply on HN