Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

We are the Borg.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

August's report will be out in a few days. Here's something to entertain you until it does ...
Encounter with the Google car today...

a Google self-driving Lexus has been in my neighborhood for the last couple of weeks doing some road testing.

near the end of my ride today, we both stopped at an intersection with 4-way stop signs.

the car got to the stop line a fraction of a second before I did, so it had the ROW. I did a track-stand and waited for it to continue on through.

it apparently detected my presence (it's covered in Go-Pros) and stayed stationary for several seconds. it finally began to proceed, but as it did, I rolled forward an inch while still standing. the car immediately stopped...

I continued to stand, it continued to stay stopped. then as it began to move again, I had to rock the bike to maintain balance. it stopped abruptly.

we repeated this little dance for about 2 full minutes and the car never made it past the middle of the intersection. the two guys inside were laughing and punching stuff into a laptop, I guess trying to modify some code to 'teach' the car something about how to deal with the situation.

the odd thing is that even tho it was a bit of a CF, I felt safer dealing with a self-driving car than a human-operated one.
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/genera ... 49240.html
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73850
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Doctor X »

. . . and thus did The Machines learn to just run the cyclist over. Then did they develop a taste for human blood!

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by DrMatt »

Robotic overlords and all...
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

August report is out.

http://static.googleusercontent.com/med ... t-0815.pdf

Only one accident listed. It seems clear to me that google may be the cause of that accident. They're not legally at fault but the obsession with perfect safety is causing them to be over-cautious.

I can't C&P the paragraph because their PDF format corrupts that attempt (I could get past that but I'm lazy). It is on the last page.

Here's what you and I encounter in most any 'city' driving. People sorta jaywalk. The driver/jawalker reaction is a kind of "chicken" dance. I've done as a driver and a jaywaker. We all have.
  'You gonna stop'
'I ain't gonna stop, you stop'
'I think you're gonna stop'
'I ain't'a gonn'a stop god-damnit.
'you're gonna stop'.
'no I ain't!'

You get the idea.
It isn't always or even frequently that bad. A person walks half-way into the street and is perfectly willing to wait until you pass. And you normally do. And then they proceed. We have all done it.

The key is who has right-of-way. A human driver will look at the eyes of the jaywalker to assure themselves that the walker 'sees' them and just 'assumes' that the walker is not going to willing get run over. The driver might even measure counter-moves (swerving around, etc) just in case the walker might not be 'seeing' them ... or is otherwise suicidal.

But the google car always, always, always stops; gives right-of-way, even unnecessarily; the person would have waited. Even mid traffic. Even if it causes someone behind them to rear-end them.

Having determined that in my own wee mind I ask myself, "how would I fix that?'

I have no clue. Not my job. I don't think it can be solved. Humans don't always get it right and sometimes jaywalkers get run over. That is sad. Google can not be involved in that level of sad.

And that is sad.  
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Yeah, sometimes following the letter of the law when nobody else does can be a problem. Like the guy who strictly follows the speed limit even though the flow of traffic is 5 or ten miles faster, causing traffic to build up behind him and forcing people to make lane changes that would normally be unnecessary.

Found this on the Times:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/te ... ivers.html

“They have to learn to be aggressive in the right amount, and the right amount depends on the culture.”
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by DrMatt »

Or we have to replace more cars with robotic overlords...
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73850
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Doctor X »

Would have been funnier if it was a baby.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by DrMatt »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
DrMatt wrote:Or we have to replace more cars with robotic overlords...
Under the control of the police.
Only robots.
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Both of you are dead on balls accurate. The transitions is the tough part. Dealing with humans. Humans, cars and cops, should just get out of the fucking way and let google handle it.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

robots are like humans. they need god. just don't mention atheism to them and we'll be okay.
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15132
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by hammegk »

Rob Lister wrote:robots are like humans. they need god. just don't mention atheism to them and we'll be okay.
Until they decide How To Serve Humanity is a cookbook.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

This guy expands on my vision, which I (and Rob) posted about earlier:
Anaxagoras wrote:I have this vision of what would be the most efficient eventual place to get to: Nobody owns a car anymore. Not because it's illegal to own one, just why would you? You don't need to own your own. A few people might still own one just as some people still own horses, but it's not a necessity anymore. It's much cheaper and less hassle to not own one. Instead whenever you need to go somewhere you just hail a public car or Johnny Cab with your smartphone or smart watch or neural implant, whatever. The only problem with this model I can see is, what if people vandalize the public cars? The losers here are the professional drivers. 98% of people win, but the 2% of losers can ruin it for the 98%. In France, taxi drivers rioted against Uber. I assume they would use violent means against the automatic cars too.
Anaxagoras wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:http://wayner.org/node/124
This demonstrates that city traffic jams are mostly a matter of the lack of parking.
Click the box labelled "Send Cars" to start the simulation. Each city block has 5 spaces. Watch what happens as they fill up.

Self driving cars would be cheap enough that it would make buying one's own car non- cost effective. No need to ever park. There is a matter of scheduling pickup but folks have been flagging down cabs for a century now.
Yeah, what I was trying to say earlier. In theory at least I think transportation could be orders of magnitude more efficient if you get rid of the private cars. You wouldn't need parking spaces, or at least not as many. When the car drops you off it doesn't park, instead it goes to pick up someone else. And if all cars were automatic, traffic congestion could be a thing of the past. It's very utopian.

You remember learning to march in boot camp? Normal people who haven't learned how to march wait for the person ahead of them in line to start moving but with marching everyone is supposed to start at the same time. Automation could make the traffic flow at intersections much more efficient like that. Cars could all start moving at the same time instead of half a second after the car ahead of them moves. It all adds up to you getting from point A to point B in much less time than it used to.
And there's aspects I didn't even mention where more efficiency can be squeezed out:

(From the link above)
Traditional cars are overengineered; AEVs can right-size
. . .
ICE vehicles are designed for peak use — driving long distances at high speeds. And because all ICE vehicles are overengineered, they're also big and heavy, which means they must be highly up-armored against collisions from other big, heavy, fast-moving vehicles. All that armor makes them even bigger and heavier. And so on.
. . .
About 95 percent of the time, we aren't driving at all; we leave our cars and trucks sitting, parked.

Just like ICE vehicles themselves, the urban transportation system of roads and parking is designed for times of peak use. Parking is scaled for maximum traffic — covering up to one-third of urban land in some cities — which means most spaces are sitting empty most of the time.
Self-driving vehicles open up different options. And since we're in utopian mode, let's not think about how current urban infrastructure could be repurposed; instead, let's imagine what urban structure might be built from scratch around AEVs.

The signal direction of modern technology is to replace machinery, infrastructure, and commodities with intelligence, i.e., with computing power, which is on an inexorable march downward in cost. If vehicles become much smarter, it enables a concomitant reduction in machinery, infrastructure, and commodities.

Begin with the fact that AEVs would radically reduce (and eventually all but eliminate) accidents. If AEVs were piloting through a landscape of slow-moving AEVs, bicyclists, and pedestrians, there would be far less need for up-armoring against collision. That means AEVs could be far, far smaller and lighter, increasing their range and reducing their land-use needs, their impact on surfaces, and the environmental impact of their manufacture.

Consider how AEVs might transform transportation into a service. Imagine a fleet of shared AEVs, of varying sizes and purposes, that can be summoned with a smartphone app — dare I say it, an Uber, but for self-driving cars. (This is not Jetsons futurism; Tesla is already pondering it.) If right-sized transportation were available to everyone within minutes, there would be no need for every individual to own a vehicle that is parked 95 percent of the time.

When they are not in use, AEVs could drive themselves to specially designated parking garages, where they could be stacked much closer than human-piloted vehicles and plugged into the electrical grid, where they can serve as distributed energy storage. There would effectively be no need for any other parking, especially on-street parking, and there would be no distracted, frustrated human beings driving around looking for parking.
This is all a bit science fiction-y for now, but the technologies to make cities smart are already in furious development. With current technology, or at least technology plausibly within reach, city infrastructure could be infused with sensors and communications that enable every AEV to know exactly where demand is high, congestion is developing, and the fastest routes are. There may be things that humans can do better than computers, but traffic is not one of them.

This world is also likely to feature less air pollution. It is true, as we're incessantly reminded, that EVs are only as clean as the electricity that fills their batteries. But the US grid is getting cleaner, and that process is expected to continue. (In fact, electrifying the vehicle fleet could help get more renewable energy on the grid faster, as it could serve, in effect, as dispatchable demand to soak up excess solar or wind energy.)
Image

This would replace the need for busses in cities too, fwiw. Essentially a taxi, but much cheaper.
Nobody would need to own their own car although many people might still want to. So you don't need a garage or parking space for it either.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

That was a worthy snip. I take some minor exception to bits ...
When they are not in use, AEVs could drive themselves to specially designated parking garages, where they could be stacked much closer than human-piloted vehicles and plugged into the electrical grid, where they can serve as distributed energy storage.
I'm not saying nay, but the logic escapes me; it is not in the AEV's interest to be at less than full charge for it knows not when nor to where nor for how long it might be summoned. Nor is it in the power providers' interest to rely on a non-dispatchable and, dare I say disincentivised source. Such schemes might be implemented but they'll never be really cost effective.

But getting past that ...

In a perfect world scenario there would be exactly enough cars to accommodate the absolute worst case Demand; there are no perfect worlds but a mechanical or electrical engineer would put that number at 150% typical demand. I'm not sure where a transportation engineer would put it but if traffic in my area is an indicator, something like 80% typical. :wink:

Hopefully, capitalism would solve that nicely with many different AEV providers and narrow profit margins. One can dream. And of course there will be mergers and acquisitions and hostile take-overs and politicians and eventual monopolies. Nightmares also happen.

I also wonder, in a real world scenario, just how idle those AEVs would typically be. Most folk start work in a narrow morning window and stop work in a likewise narrow evening window. They may not be idle 95% of the time like my car, but it isn't going to be much below say ... 70% [to pull a number straight out of my ass].

More thoughts pertaining to those narrow windows ...

I can't afford to be delayed in the morning (my paycheck depends on it) and I really, really don't want to be delayed in the evening (my wife is naked and has dinner on the table).

Suburbs being what they are, I suppose I'd have to contract the services of a AEV provider (at a much higher rate, no doubt) to always be available to get me to work on time [every time]. I may or may not be able to afford a similar contract to ensure availability to bring me back home.

But it is nice that having one's own personal vehicle will transform from an expensive necessity to a mere expensive luxury.

The complexity of the final product is not at all trivial. Luckily, we don't have to actually design it; if it is a good and useful and profitable solution, it will design itself. It will do so despite those 2% you mentioned prior.

It is good ponder material.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Rob Lister wrote: More thoughts pertaining to those narrow windows ...

I can't afford to be delayed in the morning (my paycheck depends on it) and I really, really don't want to be delayed in the evening (my wife is naked and has dinner on the table).
Couple things on that: depending on what exactly your job is, could you work from the car if the car is driving itself?

For many people, I don't know if you are one of them, rush hour traffic means they have to leave earlier just to get to work on time. Accidents during rush hour can cause a traffic jam causing further delays. I suspect this would actually cut your commute time overall.
Having some kind of standing order to be picked up at a certain time shouldn't be too much of a problem. I don't imagine you would have to pay more than a nominal fee to guarantee your pickup time if there is a free market and real competition. A guarantee for you could also be a guarantee for them. Maybe you have to pay them instead if the car arrives for you at the appointed time and you aren't ready to leave yet, like if you keep a taxi waiting. But because it's just a machine, the cost should be much less than a taxi with a human driver.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

I was using 'me' in the general since. For me specifically, even Uber is a cheaper alternative and probably reliable enough; I work from home and go in maybe twice/trice a month at best. Not that I would opt for it. I can afford the 'luxury' of having my own car; I do like to go places on a whim, groceries, restaurants, home depot, ed's house, etc. Having to call for a Johnny Cab (or Uber) every time I wanted to leave the house would be a pain.

It will work well for some people, and that will grow it.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Or maybe self-driving cars will have unintended consequences.

It will make on-road billboards an affordable thing.

Image


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/think- ... hink-again


and it is already something of a thing, even with real drivers
http://myfreecar.com/
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Rob Lister wrote:Or maybe self-driving cars will have unintended consequences.

It will make on-road billboards an affordable thing.

Image


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/think- ... hink-again


and it is already something of a thing, even with real drivers
http://myfreecar.com/
Already a thing in Tokyo:
[youtube][/youtube]

Image

Image

Image

These trucks are just billboards on wheels.

Image

Image
If it ever got to the point where it made traffic significantly worse, I could see them banning it. I see no reason why they can't. You could argue free speech, but if it's jamming up the roads, that's a public nuisance.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73850
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Doctor X »

In Japan . . .

. . . billboard runs into you.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34426
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Witness »

Image
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Study of self-driving cars shows other drivers are good at hitting them
Researchers can’t say yet whether self-driving cars are less crash-prone.
The researchers, Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak, compared that data to adjusted statistics pertaining to conventional vehicles. The study showed that self-driving vehicles were actually involved in more accidents on average, per million miles traveled, than their conventional forebears.
...
What the analysis did find, however, was that every crash an autonomous vehicle was in was caused by a driver of a conventional car. In addition, 73 percent of the crashes involving an autonomous vehicle happened when the car was going 5 mph or less, or while the car was stopped.
http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/10/stu ... ting-them/

It's a meh study; finding mostly the obvious.

One commenter probably nailed it suggesting that an autonomous car follows every driving rule to the letter. This ironically makes them a little unpredictable to real drivers.

I'm sure their are lots of other tiny reasons.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34426
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Witness »

↑ That, especially the spoiler, made me lol!

Here for streetview:

Image
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

November's report is out.

https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-1115.pdf

One minor accident reported. Rear ended yet again.

The robot car likely muttered, "Yes, I really do stop before turning right on red."
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40553
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by ed »

Google says it bears 'some responsibility' after self-driving car hit bus
BY DAVID SHEPARDSON
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-googl ... SKCN0W22DG
This space for let
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

ed wrote:
Google says it bears 'some responsibility' after self-driving car hit bus
BY DAVID SHEPARDSON
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-googl ... SKCN0W22DG
Had to happen even if maybe not really.
From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles, and we hope to handle situations like this more gracefully in the future."
There are all kinds of unwritten yield rules. Some involve size. For others it comes down to who gives less of a fuck.
User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 73850
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Doctor X »

That will be nearly impossible to program unless the default is "always yield."

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out." – Don
DocX: FTW. – sparks
"Doctor X wins again." – Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry." – His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone." – clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far." – Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig." – Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power." – asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." – gnome

ImageWS CHAMPIONS X4!!!! ImageNBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup!Image SB CHAMPIONS X6!!!!!! Image
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Feburary accident report isn't out yet but there's enough good info in articles.

Here is the turn in question.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3857366 ... 312!8i6656

This is the sequence stolen from some random joe on /.
1) Red light.
2) Google car signals for a right turn.
3) Google car gets into right side of the double-wide lane and passes cars that are stopped for the red light.
4) Google car has to stop because there are sandbags blocking the storm drain.
5) Light turns green, cars start moving.
6) Google car waits for cars to pass to create an opening, then slowly moves back towards the center of the lane.
7) Bus decides not to yield to the Google car that's ahead of it in the lane, trying to pass it anyway.
8) Bus gets its nose a bit ahead of the Google car.
9) Google car doesn't turn the wheel back in time and scrapes the side of the bus.
There's a lot of argument there about who is at fault. My take on it is that one should never expect a bus to yield because reality. But according to california law, where this accident took place ...
Passing Lanes

Before you pass, look ahead for road conditions and traffic that may cause other vehicles to move into your lane.

Never drive off the paved or main-traveled portion of the road or on the shoulder to pass. The edge of the main-traveled portion of the road may have a painted white line on the road’s surface. Passing other vehicles at crossroads, railroad crossings, and shopping center entrances is dangerous.

Pass traffic on the left. You may pass on the right only when:

An open highway is clearly marked for two or more lanes of travel in your direction.
The driver ahead of you is turning left and you do not drive off the roadway to pass. Never pass on the left if the driver is signaling a left turn.
Which the google car was. Technically this was one lane, not two, so the highlighted portion applies.

OTOH, a real driver would not have tried to merge back left at 2mph because of safety. A real driver would have gunned it as soon as a opening existed. Had the google car done that, it would not have got hit.

As an aside: once the novelty of a seeing google cars wears off, NOBODY will yield to them simply because nobody wants to be behind one.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:OK folks, repeat after me:

GOOGLE KILLED MY BABY! :)
Yes, we know people are litigious and click bait abounds.
That is the ninth time you've brought that up in this topic. Give it a rest Abdul. Or start your own thread about google killing babies and repeatedly post to it like Hammy posts to Top.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

February report
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-0216.pdf

Pretty much a repeat of what's floating around the net. Google admits [some] fault.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Maybe the lowest of the low-hanging fruit for autonomous vehicles is city buses.

Think about it: They only drive on a prescribed route, so it doesn't necessarily need to be able to drive on all sorts of roads or to any arbitrary destination. Seems to make the problem easier. Anyway, the news is that a prototype of such a system is about to be put to the test in the Netherlands:

Driverless Bus System Showcases Future of Public Transit
After two months of test runs down a 200-meter stretch of public road, the system will start transporting human passengers in May. Designed, tested, approved, and road-ready in a little less than two years, the WEpods system, which cost the local government 3.4 million Euros ($3.8 million) for a pair of autonomous vehicles, seems like a deal. According to Bakker, the government-funded technology will be designed as an open-source project, meaning it will be available for other companies and municipalities to adapt and utilize (Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Brussels have already expressed interest).

The project—a consortium of provincial officials, schools, and technology firms—began with an auspicious call to Google. Bakker says the team involved asked the tech company if they could utilize the autonomous driving technology they’ve been developing for a local shuttle system, and were told no. Bakker says they simply asked, "why can’t we develop it ourselves?" The project then obtained funding from the province, and in concert with the Technical University of Delft, modified vehicles originally designed by robotics manufacturer EasyMile, adding a radar and guidance system.

"The secret was developing without a lot of parties involved," Bakker says. "We were able to make quick decisions and move forward."

The team was challenged by many of the same issues that have bedeviled other driverless car developments, such as accounting for pedestrians, communicating with traffic lights, and understanding how to interpret and react to trees blowing in the wind, and established a guidance system that gained approval from local authorities. When WEpods is up and running later this spring, guests to the Wageningen University will be able to summon a ride from the Ede train station using an iPhone app, and take a leisurely ride (25 kilometres per hour, or 15 mph) to campus. While the system will serve a small, select route, its performance could foreshadow how autonomous vehicle technology could be harnessed to improve public transportation and make it more efficient.

"We designed a robot, and it’s going to drive on the public road," says Bakker.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 34426
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Witness »

↑ Interesting! I had the impression only multi-billion companies could play with that. So soon you'll choose a car, then the electronic gear (e. g. radar), then the software, and it will drive you around. I already see the ads!

Will there be roads for Microsoft, and others for Apple? :P
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Anaxagoras wrote:Maybe the lowest of the low-hanging fruit for autonomous vehicles is city buses.

Think about it: They only drive on a prescribed route, so it doesn't necessarily need to be able to drive on all sorts of roads or to any arbitrary destination. Seems to make the problem easier. Anyway, the news is that a prototype of such a system is about to be put to the test in the Netherlands:

Driverless Bus System Showcases Future of Public Transit
It is a worthy experiment--for the sake of experimentation--but it is likely the least cost-effective use of driverless car technology; a bus driver's salary is trivial compared to the fare intake.
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

A Fleet of Self-Driving Trucks Just Completed a 1,000-Mile Trip Across Europe
The trucks were all part of the European Truck Platooning Challenge, an event sponsored by the Dutch government, and which is aimed at making fleets of smart, self-driving cargo trucks a practical business reality. "Platooning" is essentially just close, connected, fleet-based driving where follower trucks connect to the vehicle ahead of them with Wi-Fi and maintain a very tight driving formation that wouldn't be safe for more fallible human drivers. A number of different companies participated, each using trucks and technology of its own. Scania, a subsidiary of Volkswagen, had the fleet that completed the most impressive journey of over 1,000 miles.

The advantages over human-based trucking are myriad. Aside from not relying on humans that need breaks for annoying things like food, sleep, and sanity, the formations that platooning enables can save a lot of money in fuel costs by cutting down on wind resistance. Research firm TNO estimates that trucks use 15 percent less fuel while they're platooning.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Anaxagoras wrote:A Fleet of Self-Driving Trucks Just Completed a 1,000-Mile Trip Across Europe
...
"Platooning" is essentially just close, connected, fleet-based driving where follower trucks connect to the vehicle ahead of them with Wi-Fi and maintain a very tight driving formation that wouldn't be safe for more fallible human drivers.
...
The advantages over human-based trucking are myriad. Aside from not relying on humans that need breaks for annoying things like food, sleep, and sanity, the formations that platooning enables can save a lot of money in fuel costs by cutting down on wind resistance. Research firm TNO estimates that trucks use 15 percent less fuel while they're platooning.
I think all of their combined savings are going to be eaten by the damages caused by even the most occasional 'derail' of those trains.
User avatar
ed
Posts: 40553
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: G_D

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by ed »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Driverless trucks?

In the US those would be unsafe and tend to burst into flame when no one is looking.
You thinking

Image
This space for let
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Rob Lister wrote: I think all of their combined savings are going to be eaten by the damages caused by even the most occasional 'derail' of those trains.
I'm curious why you would think that. After all, human truck drivers are not immune to accidents. If they can get the accident rate to equal or below the human rate, there would be savings, no?
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

because I [perhaps incorrectly] assume
1) that if one crashes, the rest follow
2) that the property damage and injuries to others will be far greater
User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 29263
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Anaxagoras »

Rob Lister wrote:because I [perhaps incorrectly] assume
1) that if one crashes, the rest follow
2) that the property damage and injuries to others will be far greater
Perhaps initially, but unlike humans I think the system can be continuously tweaked and optimized.
The trucks could drive at slower speeds for example, as they don't need to stop for bathroom breaks or to sleep or eat. Or the speeds could be optimized depending on road and traffic conditions. Maybe at 3 am when they are the only vehicles on the highway they can go faster and slow down when other vehicles are around. Every time there is an accident they will be able to analyze what happened and figure out whether some change could be made that would prevent it from happening again, or mitigate the damage if it does. Eventually I think it would be superior even if there are some problems in the early days.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
User avatar
Bruce
Posts: 20642
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:46 pm
Title: Bruce of all Bruces
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Bruce »

Anaxagoras wrote:but unlike humans I think the system can be continuously tweaked and optimized.
That's what they said about Windows.

Image
Such potential!
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Post by Rob Lister »

Thanks, Abdul. You reminded me to post an update.
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-0616.pdf

Nothing worth clicking here. Two accidents involving people that like to text.