• Google’s Self-Driving Cars Are Ready for the Road.
    131 replies, posted
I'd much prefer auto-driving cars everywhere world-wide. Humans are too retarded to be allowed to control vehicles.
[QUOTE=Gunner th;47734068]Reminds me of the morality question my dad and co-workers posed. The self-driving car is about to collide with a vehicle and cannot stop in time. The only way to avoid crashing is to swerve to one side. However, on one side is a cyclist with no helmet on, and on the other is a cyclist with a helmet. So does the car crash into the other car, hit the cyclist with a helmet since they're more likely to survive, or hit the cyclist without the helmet to punish them for it. Our conclusion was the car self-destructs 25mph is also really slow. That's residential speed, but most areas where I am are minimum 35mph. And it's already really fucking annoying to be behind people doing less then the speed limit. No one is going to be happy behind one of those.[/QUOTE] Best option is to hit the car because colliding with a cyclist almost guarantees serious injury or death. Cars are much safer.
Perhaps the 25 mph limit is just while they are testing it.
I have to admit, I'm very wary of how these cars will perform. Their automated system might be 100 percent awesome, but there are always going to be plenty of drivers who refuse to use this. No matter what, unless you physically forced people, there will be people that will be driving like we always have been. I don't know that I trust these cars to be able to interact with other, people drivers successfully. It's not like we'll all convert and driving will become some orderly grid, it'll still be chaotic.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;47734974]I have to admit, I'm very wary of how these cars will perform. Their automated system might be 100 percent awesome, but there are always going to be plenty of drivers who refuse to use this. No matter what, unless you physically forced people, there will be people that will be driving like we always have been. I don't know that I trust these cars to be able to interact with other, people drivers successfully. It's not like we'll all convert and driving will become some orderly grid, it'll still be chaotic.[/QUOTE] Except they already have? Google self-driving cars are being tested on real roads with real non-self-driving car traffic. [quote]The cars have self-driven nearly a million [...] miles, and we’re now averaging around 10,000 self-driven miles a week (a bit less than a typical American driver logs in a year), mostly on city streets.[/quote] Source: [url]https://medium.com/backchannel/the-view-from-the-front-seat-of-the-google-self-driving-car-46fc9f3e6088[/url]
I wonder how these cars would perform in traffic full of motorcyclists who follow no traffic rules ? The number of scooters(Vespa and similar) and motorcycles on American roads if much smaller then in Europe and Asia, so basically these test are missing one critical element here.
As long as I get to keep driving my own car, I will welcome self-driving cars with open arms. I like driving. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] But if they're eyesores like the one posted on the first page, then fuck that get off my road.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47734310]Best option is to hit the car because colliding with a cyclist almost guarantees serious injury or death. Cars are much safer.[/QUOTE] Well obviously it is the best option for the cyclist(s), but what about the best option for the person in the self-driving car? I mean it would be interesting to consider the car trying to save its owner by going for the cyclists. Of course all of these hypotheticals assume the car is some sort of smart/human-like self-driving car. Just because it has 360 cameras, radar or whatever does not mean it has the capabilities to differentiate between a cyclist with a helmet on and a cyclist without a helmet in order to make split second decisions. Being aware of the overall size, shape, velocity and position of objects around the vehicle, sure. Making an immediate cost-benefit analysis possibly not so much.
Huh, I was under the impression that the Google car still had massive problems driving in rain. Guess they ironed out that kink?
I really like the notion of self-driving, but : [quote]Google’s prototypes are designed to be not just self-driving, but fully driverless: They have no steering wheel, brakes, or gas pedal, just a button you push to start the ride. As you can see in the video below, they’re designed to be capable of completing their journey without anyone in the driver’s seat at all.[/quote] Nope. If there isn't any way I could not override control to manual, I'm not going to drive that.
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;47735210]That looks awesome, lower the speed by a bit and make a few adjustments and you can drive it with a moped drivers license.[/QUOTE] They're already too slow, I'd rather they didn't lower the speed at all.
[QUOTE=OvB;47731926]I'm more in favor of cars that have autonomous cruise control. I don't want the car doing all the work. It want it to be a companion that can pick up the load for me when I'm distracted or intoxicated or just lazy. I want to be able to drive to the front door if a building, press a button on my FOB, and have the car drive off to park until I tell it to pick me up.[/QUOTE] Sounds kinda like Tesla's autopilot goals. Right now it's just traffic aware cruise control and automatic emergency braking but the hardware is on most of the existing cars and they are giving out the software via free firmware updates. [url]http://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/models#autopilot[/url]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47734256]And I bet most people would choose to swerve in a random direction instead to avoid the car, hitting a biker instead. Which only strengthens the argument that computers are better at split second decisions.[/QUOTE] Am I the only one who realizes this thing WAS created by HUMANS and still subject human error?
[QUOTE=Swilly;47736115]Am I the only one who realizes this thing WAS created by HUMANS and still subject human error?[/QUOTE] Computers don't have a self-preservation instinct. The only human errors are from the people outside the car.
why would they limit it to such a slow speed means it takes forever to get anywhere OR it has to avoid high speed roads cause it creates traffic, and is a hazard cause its so much slower than everything else. google are setting themselves up to fail hard. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] also if you are required to have all the pedals and whel and stuff and presumably concentrate on what the cars doing in case it fucks up then what is the point
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;47736237]Computers don't have a self-preservation instinct. The only human errors are from the people outside the car.[/QUOTE] I meant programming wise. Everyone seems to forget that programming is never ever perfect because its a human being coding this shit. They take short cuts, the code gets ugly. Most forms of travel avert this by having an ability for the passenger in the self driving mode of transportation have an ability to override the computer input. This vehicle does not have this.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47736115]Am I the only one who realizes this thing WAS created by HUMANS and still subject human error?[/QUOTE] Of course, but the potential human error with the car's programming can be reviewed, analysed, and eliminated over any period of time by any number of people. Human error in a case where one individual needs to make a split-second decision cannot. There are ways to build robust systems which are highly resistant to human error; most companies don't use such methods because they are more expensive and the stakes are generally low(er). Google, I am certain, is well aware that any failure by the cars programming could set the entire project back quite a lot in their already uphill battle with the court of public opinion, and they certainly have the resources to take a robust approach to designing and building the software driving the cars. Of course, we can't actually know one way or another if the code-base running the self-driving cars is a complete mess or not.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47737603]Of course, but the potential human error with the car's programming can be reviewed, analysed, and eliminated over any period of time by any number of people. Human error in a case where one individual needs to make a split-second decision cannot. There are ways to build robust systems which are highly resistant to human error; most companies don't use such methods because they are more expensive and the stakes are generally low(er). Google, I am certain, is well aware that any failure by the cars programming could set the entire project back quite a lot in their already uphill battle with the court of public opinion, and they certainly have the resources to take a robust approach to designing and building the software driving the cars. Of course, we can't actually know one way or another if the code-base running the self-driving cars is a complete mess or not.[/QUOTE] Tell me that again with the history of Operating Systems.
[QUOTE=Teehee;47736331]why would they limit it to such a slow speed means it takes forever to get anywhere OR it has to avoid high speed roads cause it creates traffic, and is a hazard cause its so much slower than everything else. google are setting themselves up to fail hard. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] also if you are required to have all the pedals and whel and stuff and presumably concentrate on what the cars doing in case it fucks up then what is the point[/QUOTE] Uhhhhh because they have to in order to legally drive it on the road? Google don't want the steering wheel and shit there, that's why they built their car without one, but law won't allow that. [editline]17th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;47737828]Tell me that again with the history of Operating Systems.[/QUOTE] Operating systems aren't a specially designed algorithm designed to not kill you or anyone else.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47737828]Tell me that again with the history of Operating Systems.[/QUOTE] I'd liken this a lot more to embedded systems for mission critical stuff, which have a far better track record.
Every futuristic car does not pass the aesthetics test, looks too faggy, burn on sight
[QUOTE=Swilly;47737206]I meant programming wise. Everyone seems to forget that programming is never ever perfect because its a human being coding this shit. They take short cuts, the code gets ugly. Most forms of travel avert this by having an ability for the passenger in the self driving mode of transportation have an ability to override the computer input. This vehicle does not have this.[/QUOTE] The software development process for automotive systems(Especially ADAS like an autonomous vehicle) go through extensive testing, review, and revision to make sure it's as perfect as possible. These types of systems aren't created by programmers, they're created by software engineers. The difference being software engineers have experience and training in this sort of field and spend months designing software and months testing and revising the software. [QUOTE=lavacano;47733663]Is it smart enough to recognize that if the streetlight is powered off or blinking red it needs to treat the intersection as a four way stop?[/QUOTE] This is where V2X(Vehicle to infrastructure) communication comes in. Nodes on the side of the road, traffic lights themselves, or other vehicles equipped with V2X will be able to communicate with the car and tell it if there's an outage or if it's a blinking yellow/red. The beauty of V2X is if the light is out and can't send a signal, other nearby traffic infrastructure will be able to notify the vehicle. It's a chain system.
why do people have such strong opinions about self driving cars
[QUOTE=wakeboarderCWB;47738493]The software development process for automotive systems(Especially ADAS like an autonomous vehicle) go through extensive testing, review, and revision to make sure it's as perfect as possible. These types of systems aren't created by programmers, they're created by software engineers. The difference being software engineers have experience and training in this sort of field and spend months designing software and months testing and revising the software. [/QUOTE] Right okay, so there's going to be no hiccups because everything is perfect and this system is totally not open to any flaws whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47734310]Best option is to hit the car because colliding with a cyclist almost guarantees serious injury or death. Cars are much safer.[/QUOTE] Who takes the legal bullet with this? Does Google get sued because the car made the decision to hit the car, if someone dies in the car the automated one hit, who's responsible?
[QUOTE=Swilly;47738798]Right okay, so there's going to be no hiccups because everything is perfect and this system is totally not open to any flaws whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it's going to be perfect, but the bugs that happen won't be as noticeable as you may think. Sure, you may encounter something serious but it'd be like a modern day recall, but rather you take it in and get a software update.
[QUOTE=Swilly;47738798]Right okay, so there's going to be no hiccups because everything is perfect and this system is totally not open to any flaws whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I don't get your point. Nothing is perfect, but the software can be made far more perfect than a human ever could be. I don't understand why people are so scared of self-driving cars when humans, with their massive amount of flaws (poor vision, easily distracted, poor judgment, slow reaction time, etc...), have been driving around for quite a long time now and doing relatively well.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;47738234]Every futuristic car does not pass the aesthetics test, looks too faggy, burn on sight[/QUOTE] holy shit, it's 2015 dude, get over that macho crap
[QUOTE=Swilly;47738798]Right okay, so there's going to be no hiccups because everything is perfect and this system is totally not open to any flaws whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Flaws with current methods of driving killed almost 4 people every hour last year. I think we'll be okay if the robots hiccup every now and then. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] Like, ~3 people have died since you posted what i quoted because of likely human error in vehicles now. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] If you've ever took your eyes off the road to change the radio, you're already driving more recklessly than a robot. In fact, having only two eyes means you're already driving more recklessly than a robot. These cars see in every direction [I]at all times.[/I] [I]They are many times a safer driver than you[/I] [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] 424,000 people were injured, 3,154 killed by distracted drivers alone. Thats ~48 people an hour injured by people who lack the ability to multitask like a robot.
[QUOTE=OvB;47739107]Flaws with current methods of driving killed almost 4 people every hour last year. I think we'll be okay if the robots hiccup every now and then. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] Like, ~3 people have died since you posted what i quoted because of likely human error in vehicles now. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] If you've ever took your eyes off the road to change the radio, you're already driving more recklessly than a robot. In fact, having only two eyes means you're already driving more recklessly than a robot. These cars see in every direction [I]at all times.[/I] [I]They are many times a safer driver than you[/I] [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] 424,000 people were injured, 3,154 killed by distracted drivers alone. Thats ~48 people an hour injured by people who lack the ability to multitask like a robot.[/QUOTE] I love this post so much. Even as a software engineer for these types of systems it's hard to convince people that autonomous driving vehicles are safer than human operated vehicles. The systems can complete multiple tasks in milliseconds. Example: Detecting the vehicle ahead is braking hard, determining you're not braking fast enough, then applying the brake with enough force that you'll stop safely in time, all in less than a second.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.