
Humans Are Slamming into Driverless Cars and Exposing a Key Flaw - nostromo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-18/humans-are-slamming-into-driverless-cars-and-exposing-a-key-flaw
======
WalterBright
Yesterday I was driving past midnight through the city. I'd frequently come to
an intersection where 2 arterials crossed at 90 degrees. 3 of the roads had
red lights and 2 or more cars backed up. The 4th had a green and no traffic
coming at all. And ..... we'd sit there a while, and eventually the light
would go yellow, again, for nobody, turn red, pause a second for the non-
existent red light runners, then finally turn green for us.

The intersections had cameras mounted pointing all 4 ways, and sensor wires in
the roads.

You'd think that if we could build self-driving cars, we could devise a
traffic light that would not be monumentally inefficient and incompetent. How
hard can it be? And think of all the gas, CO2 and time saved.

There's a heluva lot of low hanging fruit in traffic lights.

~~~
oxplot
Hmm, here in Australia, I can't recall a single time this has happened. I've
actually tested how well the software for these lights work, for myself at
night time when there's no traffic. Usually the lights on the main roads are
green by default. In my case, it'd take 1-2 seconds after I approached the red
light of the crossing road for the main one to turn yellow. Same when pressing
the pedestrian crossing button.

~~~
redbluff
You've obviously not tested them on a motorcycle in WA...

Grrr...I'm just waiting for the day I get picked off by some overzealous Judge
Dredd cop because I ran a red arrow because I got tired of waiting for it to
detect me.

~~~
grogenaut
law in WA is you wait one full light cycle and you can run the light. So
basically 30-45 seconds and if no one is going you go.

~~~
oxplot
And how do you prove that you did after the red light camera catches you?

~~~
grogenaut
Same way they do, you ask for the full tape, which you can get. Or you know
just go around the wrong way. Anecdotally red light covered cameras seem to be
much better maintained as othewise they lose revenue.

Also this is why you have a dash cam.

------
lifeformed
I hate that "dilemma" if whether or not driverless cars should kill its
passengers in order to avoid a deadlier collision. If a group of people walk
onto the road as my car approaches, why should I be the one to die? They made
the dangerous action, they should bear the consequences. Even if they didn't
intend to, how is my car supposed to determine that? I think asking "who is at
fault" is a better question than "how many people will live" when asking who
should die. Vehicles should be programmed for preservation of the passengers.
It's the only unambiguous rubric that makes sense to everyone. Preserve
yourself, and if you are in the wrong, bear the legal consequences.

~~~
intopieces
Moreover, why are we asking computers to make decisions we don't ask humans to
make? In a split second, a person does not weigh the pros and cons of hitting
an old lady vs a schoolbus filled with boy scouts. We just react, and ideally
react according to how we were taught in driver's ed. A computer would do just
that, only better and more consistently.

------
mirimir
> Ten days later, a Mountain View motorcycle cop noticed traffic stacking up
> behind a Google car going 24 miles an hour in a busy 35 mph zone. He zoomed
> over and became the first officer to stop a robot car. He didn’t issue a
> ticket -- who would he give it to? -- but he warned the two engineers on
> board about creating a hazard.

> “The right thing would have been for this car to pull over, let the traffic
> go and then pull back on the roadway,” said Sergeant Saul Jaeger, head of
> the police department’s traffic-enforcement unit. “I like it when people err
> on the side of caution. But can something be too cautious? Yeah.”

I believe that this reflects the 25 mph maximum speed that Google has set. I
don't know CA law, but in some places it's illegal to go under 25 mph in a 35
mph zone. It's always safest to minimize speed difference with other vehicles.
Even if that means exceeding the limit. That won't protect against citations
in speed traps, however.

~~~
jacobolus
By California law, NEVs are vehicles which are incapable of driving faster
than 25 mph, and are allowed to drive (unless barred by local ordinance) on
any street with posted limit ≤ 35 mph.

[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr37)

This traffic stop was caused more by cop ignorance than any problem of
Google’s. No harm done though.

Human drivers of NEVs go the same top speed on the same roads, it just doesn’t
make the news if one gets stopped and has a conversation with a cop.

~~~
mirimir
Thanks for the cite. According to Wikipedia, 25 mph NEVs can use roads posted
at 45 mph in some places. But laws notwithstanding, even 10-15 mph speed
differential is hazardous.

~~~
jacobolus
Yep. It would be great to get urban street speed limits lowered to max out at
25–30 mph everywhere, with strict enforcement against driving above 35–40mph.
In collisions between cars and pedestrians or cyclists, everyone mostly walks
away alive at 25 mph, whereas at 45+ mph the pedestrian or cyclist dies almost
every time.

With smarter road design organized to minimize waits at traffic signals, it
wouldn’t even necessarily result in slower trips or less road capacity
overall.

------
jacobolus
Possible reasons you might find more slow-speed minor rear-end collisions
among self-driving cars than among human-driven cars on a per-mile basis:

1\. There are only a tiny number of self-driving cars on the road, driving a
relatively small number of miles, and accidents in general are fairly rare on
a per-mile basis, so there might not yet be enough data to get a reliable idea
of average crash rate. The linked study is based on analysis of only 11 (!!)
crashes, 8 of which were at <5 mph, with only 2 causing “possible injuries”.
As the study itself says, _“[...] the corresponding 95% confidence intervals
overlap. Therefore, we currently cannot rule out, with a reasonable level of
confidence, the possibility that the actual rate for self-driving vehicles is
lower than for conventional vehicles.”_ (Personally I think their confidence
intervals for self-driving cars are useless given the data so far, but
whatever.)

2\. The Google cars which account for all of the cited crashes are AFAIK doing
all of their driving on city streets, where intersections, stops, and thus
these types of collisions are more common than on highways.

3\. I suspect most tiny bumper bumps which don’t damage either car or injure
anyone are never reported to the police when both drivers are people, but
self-driving cars record every case.

4\. Self-driving cars have better sensors to detect road hazards, and as a
result might stop in cases where a human driver would do something which
risked a more serious accident. People tail-gating these cars will end up
unable to react in time and bumping them, but even these 11 crashes might have
been in situations where the autonomous car stopping prevented more severe car
damage or injuries.

5\. Driving cautiously and strictly limiting speed to 25mph might make
following human drivers frustrated and more likely to tail closely. This might
be exacerbated by the Google cars’ goofy appearance. (Would be interesting to
see statistics for various skills/styles of human drivers, or for human-driven
NEVs.) I’m not sure NEV accidents can be meaningfully compared to standard car
accidents.

Overall I think this topic is worthy of study, but the data is not really all
that useful yet. Keith Naughton’s Bloomberg piece calling this a “key flaw”
seems like high-order FUD / clickbait.

------
alttab
This is where I think the divergence between "machine learning" and
"artificial intelligence" really lays. These vehicles need to be able to
generalize and understand motivations, not something that can be intuited via
"more data," at least not practically.

Who wants to merge into highway traffic for 500 hours before a machine can do
it well? Does it take a human 500 hours?

A tough problem to solve, no doubt.

~~~
zodiac
I think the bigger problem is not training the cars to drive more
aggressively, but that doing so will probably require them to break traffic
rules

------
wtvanhest
The nice thing about these cars and all the dash cams we have from regular
drives is that we can now tweak the laws to reflect reality. The robot cars
should do what they are supposed to and drivers or law makers should adjust.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Don't hold your breath. Those laws make a lot of money.

~~~
CyberDildonics
Not as much as google

~~~
grogenaut
Random Calculation and I may be way off:

[http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-
fe...](http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-ferguson-
missouri-court-fines-budget.html)

This is all fines and forfeitures but:

St. Ann $3,609,972 $9,115,012 39.6 13,020 St. John $1,126,763 $3,835,573 29.4
6,517 Ferguson $2,571,190 $12,746,894 20.2 21,203 Bellefontaine Neighbors
$749,252 $4,918,310 15.2 10,860 City of Florissant $2,966,669 $23,120,332 12.8
52,158 City of Berkeley $1,047,536 $8,680,716 12.1 8,978 Creve Coeur
$1,847,864 $16,365,796 11.3 17,833 Maryland Heights $2,077,689 $22,820,884 9.1
27,472 Jennings $679,787 $7,737,693 8.8 14,712 Hazelwood $1,919,022
$23,809,852 8.1 25,703 Overland $582,292 $8,695,835 6.7 16,062 Richmond
Heights $763,523 $12,109,281 6.3 8,603 Black Jack $123,355 $2,621,186 4.7
6,929 Clayton $1,027,932 $21,761,741 4.7 15,939 Olivette $283,289 $7,046,302
4.0 7,737 Bridgeton $445,171 $12,887,494 3.5 11,550 St. Louis City $11,022,000
$441,426,000 2.5 319,294 University City $586,281 $26,639,562 2.2 35,371 St.
Louis County $4,397,769 $341,291,336 1.3 998,954

This totals up to around $35MM in Fines and Forfeitures in St. Louis (chosen
due to Ferguson and all the articles around Mike Brown). Anyway WAG numbers
this looks to be about 80% of the neighborhoods on the highways but it's got
the 2 major players (city & county) so lets call it good.

St. Louis is 21st
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States))
in Metro area size, so that gives us $755MM if everything was actually the
size of St. Louis.

However if I just add all the pops from 21 up I get 146MM people, so that
means that if scaled linearly for St. Louis (which may or may not be right),
we're talking $1.763MM, so around 1.75BN for the 21 biggest cities in the US.

Easy to say that traffic stops in the US are well over a billion.

Way over analysis but it shows scale of traffic income. If you read the first
article linked, it points out the share of revenue this. It can be up to 36%
of revenue for small municipalities.

------
tim333
I'm skeptical of the "crash rate double that of those with human drivers"

The figures are "17 minor crashes in 2 million miles." That's a crash every
117,000 miles or roughly once a decade for a typical driver. From my
experience most drivers average more than one minor crash per decade. It's
probably that they just don't bother formally reporting them. (My most recent
one was about 6 months ago. Another car reversed into mine while I was
stationary - small dent. Didn't bother with reporting, insurance claims etc.)

------
zaroth
Nice quote from Dmitri!

    
    
      “They’re a little bit like a cautious student driver or a
      grandma.” --- Dmitri Dolgov, principal engineer of the program.
    

No one likes getting stuck driving behind grandma. I expect as the tech sees
more of the light of day, they will go from 'cute curiosity' to 'extremely
frustrating to drive near'. They will pin you, in some cases, well below the
speed limit, which is often set dangerously low.

When someone dies trying to pass one of these things, of course it won't be
the robots fault...

Robots should drive to _minimize their impact on the road_. That would be my
guiding philosophy. That means driving appropriate speeds at appropriate
times, and not creating a dangerous situation for other drivers. "Slower
traffic ahead" is a big danger on the freeway.

A human driver would be expected to speed up and merge with traffic and not
create an impedance. There is no question the right thing for the software to
do is to exceed the posted limit.

Imagine a government so willing to help spur investment in driver-less cars
they set a different statutory limit for the AI to follow (class-by-class)?
Sounds like a very cool way to solve two problems at once. Based on the
specifics of the road, visibility, and telemetry, weather, etc. the tech gets
a huge boost if the robot can travel significantly faster.

------
mrdrozdov
This might defeat the purpose, but why not have remote controlled cars. A
digital taxi driver could alleviate a lot of the problems that we currently
have with non-autonomous cars, except bypasses the whole open-research problem
of having roads full with autonomous vehicles. What's being done right now
with digital assistants is a similar strategy.

~~~
placeybordeaux
The latency is a bit of a worry.

------
js8
My father was very cautious driver, he never broke speed limit intentionally,
and I remember the same argument I had with him when I was in driver's school.
I was of opinion that speed limits should be hard enforced, and he told me,
you don't want that, sometimes you might need to break the speed limit, for
example when you're exiting the crossing a little too late for some reason. I
think he was right.

But in the case of self-driving cars software - I would much prefer it to just
stick to the law, rather than try to match human nuances (or not!) of breaking
it. I think general predictability is of value. I hate to say that but the
human drivers that cause these accidents are the ones who have to learn
better. And if it is still desirable for the autonomous cars to behave
differently in certain place, you can always change the speed limits (or other
signs) in that location.

------
stonemetal
The only problem with the article is the speed limit is much more complicated
than the number printed on the sign. The actual speed limit depends on the
flow of traffic and weather conditions. Merging on to a high way where people
are driving 80 then driving 65 is violating the law.

~~~
peeters
In which jurisdictions is it illegal to obey the speed limit if traffic is
going faster? I know some jurisdictions have charges for impeding traffic but
that's always been for when you're going under the limit. I'm skeptical that
to conform to the law you have to exceed the posted limit.

~~~
dalke
[http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-
ticke...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-
book/chapter7-6.html)

> There are several circumstances in which drivers may be ticketed for
> illegally blocking or impeding traffic by driving too slowly or failing to
> yield to a long line of vehicles behind them. ... Driving Too Slowly in Left
> Lane ... Impeding Traffic ... Failing to Use "Turnouts"

Regarding the first of these,

> Your state's law will say something like:

> Any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed
> of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the
> right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand
> edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle pro ceeding
> in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection
> or into a private road or driveway. If a vehicle is being driven at a speed
> less than the normal speed of traffic mov ing in the same direction at such
> time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close
> as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute evidence
> that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of this section.

Note how this uses "normal speed", not "speed limit".

The NoLo site at [http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-
ticke...](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-
book/chapter5-1.html) describes how there are three types of speed-limit
violations: "Absolute", "Presumed", and "Basic".

In an "absolute" speed limit state, you can defend against a 'Driving Too
Slowly in Left Lane' by showing you were were traveling at the posted speed
limit. (Quoting NoLo - I have no legal training.)

However, that is not true of all states.

~~~
peeters
Again, that is not saying you have to exceed the limit, it's just saying _if
you 're slower_ than the flow of traffic, then you have to move over and let
people pass.

~~~
dalke
My interpretation is that in a state has an "absolute" speed limit law then
you have a successful defense against a ticket for going at the speed limit in
the left-most lane when there is faster traffic.

If you are in a state which does not have an absolute speed limit law, then
you do not have that defense, and can be fined for going at the speed limit in
that situation.

Here is a breakdown of the state laws (undated, and no promises that it's
correct or still true) -
[http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html](http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html) . The
bottom has the following:

> The Uniform Vehicle Code states:

> Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of
> traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall
> be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ...

> This law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of
> traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65
> MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing
> vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev.
> stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement
> of traffic.

> Enforcement is inconsistent. Toledo police used to ticket truck drivers for
> driving at the 60 MPH speed limit in the left lane. Police looking for
> criminal activity frequently use the "keep right" law as a pretext to stop a
> suspicious car. On the other hand, a New York judge announced that he would
> not convict drivers for blocking speeding traffic, People v. Ilieveski, 175
> Misc. 2d 943; 670 N.Y.S.2d 1004 (Monroe County N.Y. 1998).

------
Apofis
Interesting. Coincidentally (or not?) yesterday Bloomberg posted an article
about George Hotz building his own Self Driving AI and he talks about the very
problem Google is having with the car following the rules too strictly. Looks
like he's right at least about this one thing.

Article here for the curious: [http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-
hotz-self-driv...](http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2015-george-hotz-self-
driving-car/)

------
Yhippa
> The Caddy performed perfectly, except when it had to merge onto I-395 South
> and swing across three lanes of traffic in 150 yards (137 meters) to head
> toward the Pentagon.

This is probably one of the most stressful maneuvers you can make on the
Capital beltway. Honestly I feel like once we hit critical mass with
driverless cars this action will be much more manageable. I and other drivers
have to do some real aggressive things to make this work.

~~~
CPLX
That is literally nowhere near the beltway, just FYI.

------
tluyben2
The obvious solution is to forbid human drivers but that will take many years.
We will learn cool things until it happens. It is, imho, incidentally the
reason why all scifi shows and movies are unrealistic though: there will not
be drivers and pilots (of spaceships, planes and cars); it will actually be
forbidden.

~~~
alanpost
It won't be forbidden to drive. People will still watch Nascar even if they
can't afford to own cars. The demand for drivers can't be satisfied solving
for the demand for rides. Robots are going to have to learn to deal with human
drivers, we're not going to be able to define them out of existence.

