Google Self-Driving Car Involved in First Injury Accident
127 replies, posted
Honestly from a programming standpoint it wouldnt be too hard to program something like this to observe the average speed of cars in the lanes it is merging into, and to match their speed even if it technically violates the law to do so. I think that the safety of its own driver would be the priority for the programmers, not following the law to the letter.
Its not like its impossible for a google car to break the law if its programmed to, its entirely possible, and if the programmers are using common sense there isnt really anything preventing them from making it go above the speed limit for safety reasons.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;48229603]Which is exactly why nobody below the age of 50 will use them.
Who seriously wants to drive at 50km/h all the time?[/QUOTE]
fuck that i want my car to drive me home from the bar
i like to drive but once these things go on the market i'll deffo buy it
[QUOTE=Rar;48231090]Why where the cars in front just sitting there at a green light?
The guy who rammed the google car was clearly at fault regardless.[/QUOTE]
pretty common really, the cars further up front were crammed in and not moving, likely due to a nearby light ahead being red. The drivers chose the reasonable option and waited near the line for their own intersection, so they don't end up blocking up the intersection if their light turns red before traffic ahead of them moves
around my home and work cities, there's plenty of garbage intersections with 2 or more badly timed stoplights mucking up traffic, and you can [i]guarantee[/i] somebody's gonna be that shitheel who blocks the intersection because they couldn't wait for traffic to move.
some notable ones
[t]http://i.imgur.com/wg4O9r4.png[/t]
there's 7 stoplights across a quarter mile with these in the middle. This intersection was worse a few years back, now they've built the whole road underneath the tracks so freight trains don't clog up the whole area for 10 straight minutes
[t]http://i.imgur.com/EwaoQaA.png[/t]
the county wants to connect the two roads because it's a huge chokepoint for our area, but the miniature town where it all converges is 100% historic landmarks and they can't do anything without bulldozing that, or half of a nearby subdivision
[t]http://i.imgur.com/wZUWIkZ.png[/t]
fuckin shit everything's stoplights and rush hour means there's commuter trains passing through a major chokepoint every 3 minutes
design-by-afterthought infrastructure is a curse and probably holds a good portion of fault for driving risk factors outside of general human error
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;48231290]You can't ever expect or rely on the others doing anything beyond what's defined by law, and sometimes not even that.
Of course, even in car lessons my lecturer told me to pass a a yellow light rather than break sharply and risk somebody rear-ending me, but people react in all kids of bizarre ways all the time.[/QUOTE]
this is a huge problem with red light cameras, people fear the punishment for clearing a yellow light, slam hard, and cause an accident. Minor collisions often go [i]up[/i] after they're installed
[QUOTE=draugur;48230233]Obsolete my ass. The average driving ability of most people is fucking disgraceful at best and our drivers education system is absolute trash. In completely ideal conditions and with distraction-less drivers I would agree but that's not possible because [I]unlike computers, humans can be easily distracted from driving.[/I] Now when auto driving cars are the norm, yeah I would agree that an increase in speeds is perfectly fine, because the risk is mitigated by the ever vigilant computer driver.
In 2013 there were 33,804 people killed by vehicle accidents, 10.7 per 100,000 people. There were by comparison 33,636 people killed in [I]all[/I] firearms deaths, or 10.6 per 100,000. (Only ~8500 of those are murders)
This is almost 20% of the total deaths caused by injuries that year. (~17.5%)
Source:
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf[/url]
If you really think that we need to be making roads more dangerous you're honestly delusional.
Seriously, it's not Google's fault that idiots can't obey simple laws or pay attention on a completely basic level to avoid rear-ending a slowing vehicle.[/QUOTE]
more speed does not mean more dangerous. Sometimes it is more dangerous to slow down on some roads, it's counterintuitive but thats the mechanics of it.
yeah a lot of people in this thread are making the mistake that faster means more accidents. By a huge margin the main thing is you need to be the same speed as everyone else especially on a highway.
[QUOTE=Cmx;48228979]I mean when you are watching the driver in front of you, you know what they are going to do.[/QUOTE]
I don't know what driving school you went to, but everyone I know was told that you should never assume you know what the drivers around you are going to do next.
#1 threat to highway conditions is a dude going slow or even at a legally posted speed in the wrong lane.
from my experience, imagine there's a 4-lane highway. Min speed posted at 45, normal signs posted for 55, average highway speed expectation around 65. The right-most lane is the enter/exit lane and signs say 'slow traffic keep to the right'. It's expected, the slowest cars will be there, so people who want to drive fast will get further left. Trucks go slow and aren't allowed in the left two lanes in many cases, save for passing slower traffic.
so the average situation in OK conditions is, from left to right: 75-80 | 70-75 | 65-70 | 60-65
If someone's doing 50mph and they're in the second-to-left lane for some god awful reason, traffic behind them is doing [i]20-25mph[/i] more than them. If someone waits til they're on his tail to move over a lane, and you were right behind that guy and didn't see the slow poke, [i]you're faced with a vehicle traveling that speed toward you[/i] and very little comfort room to slow down or swerve without worry that you'd side-swipe somebody in the process or get rear ended
and you're at fault for ramming him. Only saving grace could be dashcam proof he was going way too slow in the middle of traffic and could have been asking to get hit for insurance fraud or out of general malice
Ah the whole "flow of the traffic" argument for speeding, possibly the worst one ever for justifying speeding
[editline]18th July 2015[/editline]
If theyre in an overtaking lane daudling fair enough, but if you complain about people going the speed limit when your invisible rulebook says go everyone go 10 over in the normal lane you can't complain
i can't believe the speed limit on inter-city roads is 55 in the usa like we have 70 and that is slow as heck
only good speed is 125mph on the autobahn and that's perfectly safe
[editline]18th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;48236234]Ah the whole "flow of the traffic" argument for speeding, possibly the worst one ever for justifying speeding
[editline]18th July 2015[/editline]
If theyre in an overtaking lane daudling fair enough, but if you complain about people going the speed limit when your invisible rulebook says go everyone go 10 over in the normal lane you can't complain[/QUOTE]
lol have you ever been to germany
No but how does it still justify it? I know you have some limitless motorways, but not everyone is comfortable going 10000000mph? Not everyone has a car capable of going 90+ but still needs to use that motorway? You still need to use the over taking lane if you aren't going super fast on a limitless motorway. Some people are stupid and when going slower than you can pull out in front of you sure, but on a limited road and you're the one speeding, it's your fault
All you guys saying how its ok to drive over the speed limit are why I'm afraid to drive. Driving with ADD is bad enough but in Alabama where people are speeding just make it worse
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;48236275]No but how does it still justify it? I know you have some limitless motorways, but not everyone is comfortable going 10000000mph? Not everyone has a car capable of going 90+ but still needs to use that motorway? You still need to use the over taking lane if you aren't going super fast on a limitless motorway. Some people are stupid and when going slower than you can pull out in front of you sure, but on a limited road and you're the one speeding, it's your fault[/QUOTE]
well if they aren't comfortable doing 125mph they can stick to the inside lane and dawdle
speed limits are not necessarily always appropriate to the road, conditions and such.
if it's raining, on some roads you'd be hard pressed to catch anyone in their right mind doing NSL on a country lane but during sunny weather, you could easily cruise the same road at 70.
stopping distances aren't always a valid argument either because of advances in brakes and tyres most cars short way short of what is expected. if a driver is [I]good enough[/I] to be going a high speed then it is safe.
question: would you drive through edinburgh city centre at 20 mph? they just introduced a blanket speed limit on the majority of roads, would you adhere to it?
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48232007]Honestly from a programming standpoint it wouldnt be too hard to program something like this to observe the average speed of cars in the lanes it is merging into, and to match their speed even if it technically violates the law to do so. I think that the safety of its own driver would be the priority for the programmers, not following the law to the letter.
Its not like its impossible for a google car to break the law if its programmed to, its entirely possible, and if the programmers are using common sense there isnt really anything preventing them from making it go above the speed limit for safety reasons.[/QUOTE]
Purposely programming your vehicle to break the law is a sure-fire way to get it banned from use on public roads.
I don't give one shit about how safe this thing is I get motion sickness when I'm not the one in direct control of the vehicle and I'm not at all prepared to feel nautious every time I want to go somewhere
[QUOTE=hexpunK;48231085]Awesome, so in the future where a lot of cars are automated and driving in near-perfect synchrony thanks to the nature of such a thing, you're happy to be that one asshole who starts causing minor problems in the system because "fuck nerds i'm a better car than u".
You're nowhere near as good a driver as your mind wants you to believe. Nobody is.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me if I misinterpreted the tone of this, but you sound extremely virulent on something that is frankly, a personal opinion.
I don't want a self driving car. Sitting in the seat of a car with nothing to do, for me, is A: Completely boring and B: I, to be honest, enjoy the heightened awareness you must exhibit to safely operate a car.
There is validity to the "unposted" speed lmit law, and most of us are too young to know about it [at least in the United States] Old speed limits could have been possibly [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law"]80 MPH[/URL], the painfully slow standard set today [and correct me if I'm wrong, but they're only [I]just[/I] now rising] is in response to a temporary, politically motivated fuel crisis.
I don't profess to be better than a car, what I do profess is my brain can't get hacked into, I enjoy driving, and I don't want some mandate declaring: "Even less individuality allowed: All cars must ditch steering wheels."
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48236736]
Sitting in the seat of a car with nothing to do, for me, is A: Completely boring[/QUOTE]
Pull your phone/laptop out. Turn music on. Have a conversation. Go to sleep. Don't cause accidents.
[QUOTE] and B: I, to be honest, enjoy the heightened awareness you must exhibit to safely operate a car.[/QUOTE]
Then go skiing, hang-gliding, surfing, or literally anything else to get your high. DO NOT get your rush from driving. There are other people around you who do not want to be put in danger.
[QUOTE]I enjoy driving, and I don't want some mandate declaring: "Even less individuality allowed: All cars must ditch steering wheels."[/QUOTE]
"Individuality" has no place in driving. I don't care if you enjoy driving, I enjoy living, and I'm sure you also enjoy that more than driving. You should never be allowed to drive once self-driving cars become easily available.
[QUOTE=butre;48236380]I don't give one shit about how safe this thing is I get motion sickness when I'm not the one in direct control of the vehicle and I'm not at all prepared to feel nautious every time I want to go somewhere[/QUOTE]
That's because you're not looking out the window when you aren't in control. Motion sickness is caused by a disconnect in what you see and what you feel. Look out the window like you normally would while driving, you'll be fine.
Also, because I don't think anyone's posted this:
[IMG]http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/googlecrash.gif[/IMG]
EDIT:
[QUOTE=Scratch.;48237460]It was the [del]fourth[/del] Eighth post :v:
I don't have dyslexia I swear[/QUOTE]
My bad, flash player was showing all google driverless car videos as black.. weird.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48236736]Excuse me if I misinterpreted the tone of this, but you sound extremely virulent on something that is frankly, a personal opinion.
I don't want a self driving car. Sitting in the seat of a car with nothing to do, for me, is A: Completely boring and B: I, to be honest, enjoy the heightened awareness you must exhibit to safely operate a car.
There is validity to the "unposted" speed lmit law, and most of us are too young to know about it [at least in the United States] Old speed limits could have been possibly [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law"]80 MPH[/URL], the painfully slow standard set today [and correct me if I'm wrong, but they're only [I]just[/I] now rising] is in response to a temporary, politically motivated fuel crisis.
I don't profess to be better than a car, what I do profess is my brain can't get hacked into, I enjoy driving, and I don't want some mandate declaring: "Even less individuality allowed: All cars must ditch steering wheels."[/QUOTE]
lmao "individuality". mate you're driving the same roads, at the same speeds in the same ways as everybody else. If you aren't them how the fuck were you allowed to pass your tests?
If you want your rush from driving, go to a fucking track or something, you shouldn't be looking for thrills on public roads where you have the very real possibility of injuring or killing others who just want to get home from work or whatever.
Automated cars are not going to be the "death" of driving, they are going to shake things up a bit and change how we perceive the privilege to drive. No more driving your cars along busy roadways when the distributed network of smart cars can handle it all for you (and hacking isn't a unfixable problem, we have plenty of mechanisms to protect against that stuff, it just needs implementing correctly). Instead you get to drive in areas designed for just that, with all the focus put in to making it actually fun and exciting.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48236986]
Also, because I don't think anyone's posted this:
[IMG]http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/googlecrash.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
It was the [del]fourth[/del] Eighth post :v:
I don't have dyslexia I swear
When the hell did I ever say ANYTHING about a rush? Don't join a debate team, because you just put words straight in my mouth.
Not only have you completely ignored my mentioning of higher speed limits, but you have now ditched the idea of the term "summer road trip"
If you don't think individuality exists in cars, then you must think everyone drives a Honda Prius straight home, straight to work, and never changes the pattern. Ever done a trip down Highway 1 in California? Highway 81, a highway going the length of the country? [United States]
I hate inner city driving as much as the next guy, its slow, infuriatingly difficult to find parking, and ruined perfectly good infrastructure, but to imply I meant "I want to be different, so I'll rush everything, kill myself, or land a giant medical bill and get sued for reckless and moronic driving" then you should read more carefully next time and not implant your reading in between the lines of a post that I purposefully made as clear cut as I could.
Picking your own route in your own car with your own personal goals is what I consider individuality, an entire culture has formed around the classic car culture, restoring or modifying cars to better express their own ideas in their dream car. I've never in my life seen someone drive a 1941 Lincoln Continental at maximum speed down a 2 way road.
It is utterly ridiculous that the minute I say "I enjoy driving" I'm made out to be a maniac, fixated on speed and adrenaline.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48229266]It's from 50 to 80, that's not really a lot.[/QUOTE]
That's almost the difference between in town speed limit (50) to nonhighway non urban street limit (90) here. So yes, that's a lot.
Keep in mind, that's an extra 30 meters of break distance among other things.
But yes, it does seem that the google cars are involved in quite a bit of accidents where they aren't at fault. It's possible that they don't drive fully according to the traffic flow and as such there's a higher chance of someone plowing into them.
[QUOTE=MedicWine;48231287]With the advent of self driving cars comes faster speeds. We no longer need stoplights, because we dont need to alert the drivers using antiquated tech like light bulbs, we can communicate directly to the 'driver' with actual data. With that we no longer need the intersection altogether, because you can just design a road system that routes traffic safely, especially considering that your car can tell another car to speed up so you can merge, or that you need to be in a lane they're blocking, so on. You could have seamless roundabouts at whatever speed the cars control (things like traction, weight of the car...) allow for. If a single person breaks the system, it becomes dangerous for all the other cars, right? You can imagine all the ways your jailbreak could hinder this process especially considering the resources of who is going to be owning these cars and building their systems and networks vs who is going to hack them.
Now we have a 100mph collision as apposed to a 30mph collision. That's very risky so there's a speed restriction is busy places to avoid extreme accidents. So in a hypothetical world I took every human driver off the road, resigned all of earths roadways to accommodate drivers that can process decisions near instantly as well as hyper-communicate with every other driver in range of it, we still have to drive slow.[/QUOTE]
You kinda forgot your pedestrians.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48236986]Pull your phone/laptop out. Turn music on. Have a conversation. Go to sleep. Don't cause accidents.
Then go skiing, hang-gliding, surfing, or literally anything else to get your high. DO NOT get your rush from driving. There are other people around you who do not want to be put in danger.
"Individuality" has no place in driving. I don't care if you enjoy driving, I enjoy living, and I'm sure you also enjoy that more than driving. You should never be allowed to drive once self-driving cars become easily available.
That's because you're not looking out the window when you aren't in control. Motion sickness is caused by a disconnect in what you see and what you feel. Look out the window like you normally would while driving, you'll be fine.
Also, because I don't think anyone's posted this:
[IMG]http://blog.caranddriver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/googlecrash.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
I do look out the window while I'm not driving. what else am I supposed to do?
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48237495]When the hell did I ever say ANYTHING about a rush? Don't join a debate team, because you just put words straight in my mouth.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48236736]
Sitting in the seat of a car with nothing to do, for me, is A: Completely boring and B: I, to be honest, enjoy the heightened awareness you must exhibit to safely operate a car.
[/QUOTE]
There is... a [B][U]VERY[/U][/B] heavy implication. I don't even think re-phrasing that will save you
[QUOTE]
Not only have you completely ignored my mentioning of higher speed limits,
[/QUOTE]
Really didn't see anything wrong with that part.
[QUOTE]but you have now ditched the idea of the term "summer road trip"[/QUOTE]
.... ?
You do realize self-driving cars can still drive and go on road trips right? The only difference is you don't need one person to be occupied, and you don't put everyone's safety at the hands of a person.
[QUOTE]If you don't think individuality exists in cars, then you must think everyone drives a Honda Prius [/QUOTE]
If THAT'S what you're worried about, don't. There will probably be several different brands of cars so you can go shopping buy the latest designer brands etc
[QUOTE]
Picking your own route in your own car with your own personal goals is what I consider individuality
[/QUOTE]
Right, and self-driving cars can have the route chosen... So this is no reason here to avoid switching to one.
So, SURELY you can understand when you said "I don't want a self driving car." While implying that removing the steering wheel causes the loss of individuality, that someone might POSSIBLY interpret it as:
"I don't want a robocar because I want to drive and if robots drove it wouldn't be interesting"
and then tear you apart for it.
Even if there was some validity to "individuality" as in the route chosen, I would gladly remove the privilege to drive in favor of the right to life, just like the right to life wins over a privilege to drink and drive. Sure, maybe it's less fun. Don't care. It's unsafe to others.
[QUOTE=butre;48238177]I do look out the window while I'm not driving. what else am I supposed to do?[/QUOTE]
Hmm, if your motion sickness persists(and is, somehow, from lack of control of the car), you may want to get a fake steering wheel and see if that helps. Or drink and drive. Or sleep during your commute. Or if this is a common occurrence, maybe they'll make cars that only take over when you make a mistake.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48242906]I love the google self-driving car, but I always snort when Google says "It's not the car, it's the people! The car is working fine!" Whenever it crashes.
The only difficult part of making a self-driving car is smart navigation/accident prevention. The express purpose of the project is to build a car that can forsee and avoid human-caused accidents. Google, when it fails at this purpose, [B]that means the car did not work.[/B] It's [I]literally in the product summary that the focus is navigation.
[/I]
It's not perfect until it can calculate whether the person behind it is gonna stop and inch forward to the next car.[/QUOTE]
No, a self-driving car's goal is to drive safely and not cause accidents through its actions; once self-driving cars can do that (though it seems they already can), the process of phasing out human driven cars can start.
Of course, I'm sure in the mean time self-driving cars will get better at dealing with distracted idiots on the road, but to say that is express goal of the project, and thus critical to the success of self-driving cars, is short-sighted to say the least.
[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]
Even if that were true (unlikely), if you are following too closely to provide sufficient time to respond, it's your fault, end of discussion. I still maintain that the google cars are nowhere near "road ready" given their current limitations, but regardless of potential unusual behavior or not, someone who is tailgating is not driving correctly.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48242906]It's not perfect until it can calculate whether the person behind it is gonna stop and inch forward to the next car.[/QUOTE]
It can't tell if someone is going to ram it at some point in the future. It's a computer, not a psychic. Google never claimed to be making psychic computers anyway, and if they were, I doubt putting them in a car would be at the top of their list.
[QUOTE=cyanidem;48228925]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]
I wouldn't be surprised. Just look at poor ol Tesla.
Fortunately for Google they also have a massive pool of resources and I imagine fucking with google wouldn't be a good idea anyway.
Aren't the google cars programmed to speed up to 10mph if it would be safer to do so anyway?
[QUOTE=willtheoct;48241142][/B] :words:[/QUOTE]
I don't want to argue with someone who reads between lines and cherry picks my words.
People complained that no one goes by 60 mph speed limits, turns out the speed limit was closer to 80 at one time.
Single line quotes to try and misrepresent the post don't exactly impress me, and it doesn't impress me either that you seem to think "You should never be allowed to drive once self-driving cars become easily available", and anyone who enjoys driving, and the stresses associated with it is automatically reckless.
Heightened awareness to SAFELY operate a car. You ignore SAFELY, even when you quote the damn word.
Read it over again, now I have a bit more time. No, I'm not concerned about a lack of brands, neither am I implying it wouldn't be [I]interesting[/I], per say, its a technological triumph, but it is insane to think everyone should bow down to the great AI behind a car.
You ignored half of the point I made about individuality, in an attempt to dumb it down to a steering wheel. It's more than that. I don't want every facet of my life controlled by emotionless machines, because I don't need it, because I'll never be a moron like some people. Half of driving is looking for others mistakes and I enjoy it.
[QUOTE=Incoming.;48245401]People complained that no one goes by 60 mph speed limits, turns out the speed limit was closer to 80 at one time.[/QUOTE]
This was also a time when a few worker deaths was acceptable, and police officers were authorised to shoot runners. Times change, and in recent times society has become more concerned with preserving human life. Regulations designed to reduce vehicular fatalities is an obvious step in doing that.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;48247463]This was also a time when a few worker deaths was acceptable, and police officers were authorised to shoot runners. Times change, and in recent times society has become more concerned with preserving human life. Regulations designed to reduce vehicular fatalities is an obvious step in doing that.[/QUOTE]
Maybe now it is, but the original reason for lowering the speed was simply for fuel saving. [they expected 2% reduction, but it was likely less than 1%]
I am completely for safe driving, but rabidly fixated opinions are never good, and usually end in regret. I have no problem with self driving cars, they're an asset to those who may not be able to drive. But don't tell me I can't drive simply because "a machine can do it better than you."
Even if it were the case, it bugs me. I don't plan on speeding like a madman, never checking my mirrors, or driving under any influence [alcohol or otherwise]. The rash statement "You should never be allowed to drive once self-driving cars become easily available" is what really gets me. It frankly polarizes something that should be uniformly cheered upon, and such Big Brother attitudes do nothing to help the situation, especially when the technology is so young! It would do nothing but delay something that should be supported.
There is a reason some people still listen to vinyl records, and its not just the ill-informed reason of "it sounds better", it's because people enjoy it. Driving may be a novelty at one point, too! [most sports cars already are] But does this mean it should be stripped from the general public in 20 years? I don't think so.
[QUOTE=PelPix123;48242906]
It's not perfect until it can calculate whether the person behind it is gonna stop and inch forward to the next car.[/QUOTE]
This is the same retarded bullshit that another fucking idiot on youtube spouted.
There's too many variables to have this work. Just having the hypothetical offending car be on full load, or having its brakes be slightly too worn would just mean that your "inch forward to next car" will just mean "three car pileup with Google car in the middle"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.