

One of Google’s Self-Driving Cars Gets into an Accident - canistr
http://mashable.com/2011/08/05/google-car-accident/

======
ColinWright
From the article:

    
    
        Update: A Google representative tells us that the
                accident occurred while the vehicle was in
                manual mode, not self-driving mode
    

So why is this interesting?

~~~
krschultz
Prior to that update, it was quite interesting. It's inevitable that the
computer controlled car will get in an accident, the only question is if they
are better or worse than humans?

I can tell you one thing, they aren't driving in snow in Nevada. And while I'd
gladly trust a computer on dry roads when the only things to avoid are hard
objects (other cars, tress) and soft objects (people/animals), I get wary on
wet or snow covered roads where you have to perceive the road surface itself
very clearly.

~~~
artmageddon
I imagine a computer would be able to react a lot better than a human would to
a hydroplaning / icing condition since the human element of reaction times are
no longer a factor, and can measure the car's dynamic forces with much greater
precision. I would, however, question whether the car in its current form
could get itself out of a small ditch.

~~~
krschultz
I would agree that a computer reaction time is better, but it's prior to the
loss of traction that is the difference. I drive a lot in the snow - I spent
something like 12,000 miles last year chasing snowstorms to ski in. There are
some times it is obvious traction is going to get a lot worse with changing
conditions, maybe you are about to drive over a roll over into shade on a
borderline freezing day, or the wind has pilied up snow in a section of the
road ahead. I can recognize these situations and slow down ahead of time. I
find it hard to believe that the computer vision we have today is capable of
this based on my experience making autonomous vehicles. Surely they will just
set it to go about 5mph the whole way for safety, but that just ignores what
modern snow tires & 4 wheel drive are capable of.

~~~
artmageddon
What kind of work do you do on autonomous vehicles? I agree with all points, I
just find this stuff fascinating :)

------
hundredwatt
<i>"While Jalopnik believes that the fender-bender is proof that self-driving
cars may not be in the best interests of society, we have a different take.
There were 10.2 million traffic accidents in 2008, which results in 39,000
deaths. That’s 17.9 people per 100,000 licensed drivers. If Google self-
driving cars can beat those statistics, they could actually prevent more
accidents than they create. We also waste millions of hours commuting and
driving through traffic; imagine if you had that time to be productive
instead."</i>

Also, computers can't get drunk...

I'd love to have these brought to the masses. But, no matter what the
statistical benefits are (safer and time saving), I can't picture a time in
the near future when normal people will be accepting of automated vehicles.
Just like this incident almost was, 1 death caused by a self-driving vehicle
is going to overshadow 100,000s of deaths by human-driven vehicles. Even once
proved feasible, I can't see something like this being adopted in a matter of
years or even decades.

Anyone know of any historical examples of a similarly disruptive, but
untrusted technology radically changing people's lives? How long did it take
for adoption?

~~~
tzs
The place where it will really hit the fan will be the first time there is an
accident where the autonomous vehicle had to choose who lives and who dies.

For instance, a child darts into the road, and due to the speed and the
geometry, there are only two possible outcomes: hit the kid, or swerve hit an
oncoming car in the next lane. Humans don't have time to make a cold, rational
calculation in that situation--we are likely to either hit the breaks
immediately (even if it isn't going to stop in time), or swerve immediately,
and THEN we notice the oncoming car.

Not so with the computerized car. It will have time to calculate if it can
stop in its lane in time, figure out the likely impact speed if it hits the
child, forecast the severity of the injury to the child, and then compare that
to the likely injury to its passengers from a collision with oncoming traffic,
and even make some guesses based on statistics as to how many people are
likely to be in the oncoming car. And then it can decide whether to hit the
kid or hit the oncoming car.

I wouldn't want to be the engineer trying to explain that algorithm at a
wrongful death trial.

~~~
sixcorners
Then it can post to the child's mother's facebook about why it made the
decision it did. Social cars! :D

