• Google Self-Driving Car Involved in First Injury Accident
    127 replies, posted
[b]Google Self-Driving Car Involved in First Injury Accident[/b] Source: [url=http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/google-driving-car-involved-injury-accident-32505795]ABC News[/url] ____________________ [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/5gm4dqC.jpg[/img] [i]FILE - In this May 13, 2015, file photo, Google's self-driving Lexus car drives along street during a demonstration at Google campus in Mountain View, Calif. Google says that one of its self-driving cars has been involved in an injury accident for the first time. The tech giant disclosed Thursday, July 16, 2015, that one of its SUVs was rear-ended in its home city of Mountain View, and the three people on board complained of minor whiplash. All were released from the hospital soon after the July 1 collision. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar, File)[/i] - - - Google Inc. revealed Thursday that one of its self-driving car prototypes was involved in an injury accident for the first time. In the collision, a Lexus SUV that the tech giant outfitted with sensors and cameras was rear-ended in Google's home city of Mountain View, where more than 20 prototypes have been self-maneuvering through traffic. The three Google employees on board complained of minor whiplash, were checked out at a hospital and cleared to go back to work following the July 1 collision, Google said. The driver of the other car also complained of neck and back pain. In California, a person must be behind the wheel of a self-driving car being tested on public roads to take control in an emergency. Google typically sends another employee in the front passenger seat to record details of the ride on a laptop. In this case, there was also a back seat passenger. Google has invested heavily as a pioneer of self-driving cars, technology it believes will be safer and more efficient than human drivers. This was the 14th accident in six years and about 1.9 million miles of testing, according to the company. Google has said that its cars have not caused any of the collisions — though in 2011 an employee who took a car to run an errand rear-ended another vehicle while the Google car was out of self-driving mode.[/quote] Ouch...
Bit of a click-baitey title. The self-driving car slowed down at a green light because traffic was backed up ahead and the human-driven car behind them didn't pay attention and plowed straight into them. That's entirely the human driver's fault.
[QUOTE]was rear-ended [/QUOTE] Involved, but not at fault. Still an awesome track record.
Yeah but it was rear ended, not the car's fault
[B]Click-bait,[/B] drivers fault, Google's car was just involved in an accident but didn't cause it...
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;48228497]Bit of a click-baitey title. The self-driving car slowed down at a green light because traffic was backed up ahead and the human-driven car behind them didn't pay attention and plowed straight into them. That's entirely the human driver's fault.[/QUOTE] Yup. I seem to remember that most of the other accidents where the cars were involved, were pretty much rear-ended all the time.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;48228499]Involved, but not at fault. Still an awesome track record.[/QUOTE] you can still be at fault for causing the accident if you were rear ended. Not in this case, but you can
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtLp2f-vM14[/media]
So again, it's not actually the car's fault ( they got rear-ended ) and just reinforces that these cars are safer than the bloody driven ones!
[QUOTE=Scratch.;48228557][media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtLp2f-vM14[/media][/QUOTE] Clearly the driver wasn't paying attention seeing that the cars in front already halted, then the google car did and he just kept driving Was he/she on his/her phone or something?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;48228594]So again, it's not actually the car's fault ( they got rear-ended ) and just reinforces that these cars are safer than the bloody driven ones![/QUOTE] Of course they are safer. The car can keep track of its entire environment at the same time with much more details than a human can. For example, if a bicycle suddenly turns out in front of the car, a computer would've been able to detect it, calculate that you two are on a collision course, calculate the safest action to avoid it, and applied the evasive maneuver before your reflexes has managed to kick in.
You can tell that greedy corporations are just ready to pounce on Google as soon as they can get the chance to insist that these are dangerous and not the future.
[QUOTE=FlandersNed;48228497]Bit of a click-baitey title. The self-driving car slowed down at a green light because traffic was backed up ahead and the human-driven car behind them didn't pay attention and plowed straight into them. That's entirely the human driver's fault.[/QUOTE] Could the problem lie in the cars being unpredictable to other drivers? I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do. With the driverless cars it could just be putting its brakes on at times that the driver behind isnt expecting.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48228979]Could the problem lie in the cars being unpredictable to other drivers? I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do. With the driverless cars it could just be putting its brakes on at times that the driver behind isnt expecting.[/QUOTE] They should be more predictable to human drivers than other human drivers - the algorithms they're following are entirely logical, humans not so much - because the latter can be distracted etc.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48228979]Could the problem lie in the cars being unpredictable to other drivers? I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do. With the driverless cars it could just be putting its brakes on at times that the driver behind isnt expecting.[/QUOTE] What exactly would be the difference between driving behind a human who breaks in front of you and a driverless car? A human is probably more unpredictable then a computer.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48228979]Could the problem lie in the cars being unpredictable to other drivers? I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do. With the driverless cars it could just be putting its brakes on at times that the driver behind isnt expecting.[/QUOTE] Look at the youtube video in the thread though, it's programmed to take care of these things. This accident could've happened to anyone.
[QUOTE=Killervalon;48229010]Look at the youtube video in the thread though, it's programmed to take care of these things. This accident could've happened to anyone.[/QUOTE] Oh, I thought that video was the one explaining how it seen the world by its thumbnail. But yeah accident was clearly the other drivers fault.
[quote]This was the 14th accident in six years and about 1.9 million miles of testing, according to the company. Google has said that its cars have not caused any of the collisions [/quote] Driving like a Grandma will get you fucking killed so fast where I live. If they obey the speed limit and gingerly accelerate and brake, then there's no hope for them to work well here. 14 accidents in 1.9m miles is an accident every 135,000 miles and that's not as good as the average human driver. Google says it wasn't their fault because being rear ended usually means it isn't. But see the statement above
Yeah I'm excited for driverless cars but the downside is that they're gonna obey speed limits, and fuckin' nobody drives 50km/h here, which is understandable because that's wayyy too slow. I'm hoping you'll be able to jailbreak them somehow and tell them to drive up to 30 over the limit
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229164]Yeah I'm excited for driverless cars but the downside is that they're gonna obey speed limits, and fuckin' nobody drives 50km/h here, which is understandable because that's wayyy too slow. I'm hoping you'll be able to jailbreak them somehow and tell them to drive up to 30 over the limit[/QUOTE]The whole point of these cars is that they work together and you don't jailbreak or mess with their software in any way not permitted to the user. I'm sure when driverless cars become a thing laws will be adjusted for them.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229164]Yeah I'm excited for driverless cars but the downside is that they're gonna obey speed limits, and fuckin' nobody drives 50km/h here, which is understandable because that's wayyy too slow. I'm hoping you'll be able to jailbreak them somehow and tell them to drive up to 30 over the limit[/QUOTE] That's fucking dumb, the limits are there for a reason and people like you are part of the problem
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229164]Yeah I'm excited for driverless cars but the downside is that they're gonna obey speed limits, and fuckin' nobody drives 50km/h here, which is understandable because that's wayyy too slow. I'm hoping you'll be able to jailbreak them somehow and tell them to drive up to 30 over the limit[/QUOTE] I always thought they attempt to match the speed of everyone else, or if not, then they should program that in. It's dangerous to go slower than everyone else even if it's the limit
[QUOTE=A Noobcake;48229183]That's fucking dumb, the limits are there for a reason and people like you are part of the problem[/QUOTE] Yeah well except if there's a straight stretch of road with absolutely nothing next to it everyone does 70-80 there, but occasionally you get some fuckin pansy doing 50 that everyone has to overtake, which is way more dangerous than speeding a bit [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] Keep in mind I'm talking about km/h, not mp/h, 50 km/h is really slow
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229164]Yeah I'm excited for driverless cars but the downside is that they're gonna obey speed limits, and fuckin' nobody drives 50km/h here, which is understandable because that's wayyy too slow. I'm hoping you'll be able to jailbreak them somehow and tell them to drive up to 30 over the limit[/QUOTE] 30 over the limit sounds a bit much. Or maybe I just drive like a grandma.
How long until all the luddites to come out of the wood work yet again because "I can drive better than a machine, I don't trust them machines cuz they ain't perfect!" Bonus points when that argument eventually devolves into "But robot cars can drive you home when you're drunk! It's totally a good thing!" and then we get "I can drive just fine when high/drunk/on drugs too!" I hope I'm wrong this time, but every thread about the google car devolves into this. It's practically a law at this point. [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Cmx;48228979]Could the problem lie in the cars being unpredictable to other drivers? I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do. With the driverless cars it could just be putting its brakes on at times that the driver behind isnt expecting.[/QUOTE] If [I]obeying the law and common safe driving practice(1)[/I] is "unpredictable" to you as a driver you need to shred your licence and stop driving until that changes. (1) Common safe driving practice being as would be taught by driving education courses and such, things that are documented as general proper practice and clear common sense. (Such as slowing down in preparation of an inevitable stop due to considerable traffic back up)
[QUOTE=draugur;48229220]How long until all the luddites to come out of the wood work yet again because "I can drive better than a machine, I don't trust them machines cuz they ain't perfect!" Bonus points when that argument eventually devolves into "But robot cars can drive you home when you're drunk! It's totally a good thing!" and then we get "I can drive just fine when high/drunk/on drugs too!" I hope I'm wrong this time, but every thread about the google car devolves into this. It's practically a law at this point.[/QUOTE] It's already happening, it seems. The question is more if it will ever stop happening, or will there always be a large or smaller group of people going "manually controlled cars are better because I am better, even in general traffic" outside of the motorsports circles? [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229207]Yeah well except if there's a straight stretch of road with absolutely nothing next to it everyone does 70-80 there, but occasionally you get some fuckin pansy doing 50 that everyone has to overtake, which is way more dangerous than speeding a bit [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] Keep in mind I'm talking about km/h, not mp/h, 50 km/h is really slow[/QUOTE] This just in: obeying the law that's put in place to protect you and people around you is for fucking pansies, real men know better than the authorities and do what they want because moving near twice as fast as the fastest running man ever is really slow and collateral damage isn't a thing.
[QUOTE=Hanso;48229217]30 over the limit sounds a bit much. Or maybe I just drive like a grandma.[/QUOTE]It's from 50 to 80, that's not really a lot.
Man the Media doesn't like self driving cars don't they.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48229266]It's from 50 to 80, that's not really a lot.[/QUOTE] That's a lot. Edit: Try driving trough a somewhat-sharp turn with 50 and with 80.
I still can't fucking believe how far we've come with this. This shit was science fiction a couple of years ago. [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Thunderbolt;48229207]Yeah well except if there's a straight stretch of road with absolutely nothing next to it everyone does [I]70-80 there[/I], but occasionally you get some fuckin pansy doing 50 that everyone has to overtake, which is way more dangerous than speeding a bit [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] Keep in mind I'm talking about km/h, not mp/h, 50 km/h is really slow[/QUOTE] As long as you're outside a town, that is. The speed limit outside of a town is 90 km/h. Inside is 50, in the hours between 5-23, and 60 for the rest. And if you're speeding inside of a town you deserve to have your license taken away, and most likely will seeing how they sharpened up the laws lately. [editline]17th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=cartman300;48229333]That's a lot. Edit: Try driving trough a somewhat-sharp turn with 50 and with 80.[/QUOTE] If we're talking km/h both are doable, as long as the surface isn't icy or wet. Not that it's recommended.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.