OT: Robocrash

[svelte]

This story shows the immaturity of self driving software:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/09/footage-offers-fresh-look-at-googles-latest-self-driving-car-cr/

It says they had just updated the software to be more humanlike and predict what vehicles would do. It just didn’t take into account that large vehicles are less likely to yield.

Well, if a human had a vehicle at the curb and there was traffic, they would likely inch over and check to see if the bus slowed or yielded. If it didn’t, the human would abort the merge. If the automated software isn’t doing anything along those lines yet, then it is very simplistic and nowhere close to being ready for prime time.

Just my opinion.

[spdrun]

Wouldn’t SDV’s be able to talk to each other and negotiate yielding and such? Though that doesn’t really work with cyclists or pedestrians.

[livinincali]

I think it’s a lot closer to being a reality than not. People are so fearful of this software but it seems like it will be better than the distracted driver. I’d rather have a machine driving next to me rather the fool that is texting, putting on makeup, eating, drunk, falling asleep, or whatever else. At least the machine is paying attention. It will also get even safer and more efficient when a large portion of the fleet is automated. Will there be some glitches and accidents. Sure but look at what we have now.

[spdrun]

Having a cumpootah drive might be better on the highway — I don’t see it in the city, yet, until it can interact with humans and their vehicles appropriately.

[jeff303]

[quote=livinincali]I think it’s a lot closer to being a reality than not. People are so fearful of this software but it seems like it will be better than the distracted driver. I’d rather have a machine driving next to me rather the fool that is texting, putting on makeup, eating, drunk, falling asleep, or whatever else. At least the machine is paying attention. It will also get even safer and more efficient when a large portion of the fleet is automated. Will there be some glitches and accidents. Sure but look at what we have now.[/quote]

I agree. It’s telling that this is the first definitive “at fault” accident that one of their cars has caused in years of testing. Google publishes monthly reports here.

[no_such_reality]

Absolutely, because on the morning news traffic report today, there was a four car smash blocking lnes on the 57. Another accident on the 405’southbound in th South Bay, another on the 101 heading a in the valley, an accident inbound on the 91. And an accident on the 105. Not bad for the 6:05 traffic report.

I’m assuming humans were driving

[livinincali]

[quote=spdrun]Having a cumpootah drive might be better on the highway — I don’t see it in the city, yet, until it can interact with humans and their vehicles appropriately.[/quote]

Google’s already driven over 1 million miles on city streets. This crash is the first one where they admitted fault although their vehicles have been involved in other accidents where presumably it wasn’t they fault.

https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/

[spdrun]

Define “fault.” A ‘pooter driving in a way that humans don’t understand or interact with poorly is also “fault.” Regardless of whether the Scroogle dweebs admit it or not.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]I think it’s a lot closer to being a reality than not. People are so fearful of this software but it seems like it will be better than the distracted driver. I’d rather have a machine driving next to me rather the fool that is texting, putting on makeup, eating, drunk, falling asleep, or whatever else. At least the machine is paying attention. It will also get even safer and more efficient when a large portion of the fleet is automated. Will there be some glitches and accidents. Sure but look at what we have now.[/quote]

Yes, looking forward to it.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]Define “fault.” A ‘pooter driving in a way that humans don’t understand or interact with poorly is also “fault.” Regardless of whether the Scroogle dweebs admit it or not.[/quote]

You mean, actually following the laws?

[spdrun]

No. Operating in the real world, not the sanitized techdweeb world.

[no_such_reality]

To date the vast majority of accidents involve the Google car getting rear ended.

The laws of the road are the real world. Bump something and you’ll find out how quickly they apply.

[an]

Vast majority is not good enough. Not when they suppose to replace human driving but won’t take on the liability. If a person have an accident, then at least one of those drivers involved are at fault and their insurance goes up. Who’s at fault when the computer make mistake? This is not assisted driving, this is autonomous driving. Which means it has to take into account all situation and be able to react as well or better than a human who’s paying attention.

[joec]

[quote=AN]Vast majority is not good enough. Not when they suppose to replace human driving but won’t take on the liability. If a person have an accident, then at least one of those drivers involved are at fault and their insurance goes up. Who’s at fault when the computer make mistake? This is not assisted driving, this is autonomous driving. Which means it has to take into account all situation and be able to react as well or better than a human who’s paying attention.[/quote]

I agree…Maybe Google will just pay into an insurance fund to cover any accidents…What will be funny is if people figure out how to “trick” the google auto driving car and purposely get the computer to crash into them and make tons of claims…and win…

Of course, there will be a ‘patch’ after 🙂

[livinincali]

[quote=AN]Vast majority is not good enough. Not when they suppose to replace human driving but won’t take on the liability. If a person have an accident, then at least one of those drivers involved are at fault and their insurance goes up. Who’s at fault when the computer make mistake? This is not assisted driving, this is autonomous driving. Which means it has to take into account all situation and be able to react as well or better than a human who’s paying attention.[/quote]

I think the owner of the autonomous vehicle would be the one to bear the cost. I don’t see any new laws where autonomous cars will be able to forgo getting insurance. Auto insurance is required by law in most states. The insurance companies might have a hard time pricing insurance initially but once they have the stats it wouldn’t surprise me if autonomous car insurance is less than human driver insurance. That will ensure the takeover happens even faster.

[Author]

Posts