
How Google's Autonomous Car Passed the First U.S. State Self-Driving Test - spectruman
http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/advanced-cars/how-googles-autonomous-car-passed-the-first-us-state-selfdriving-test#.VBEAr6CC8Qo.hackernews
======
AlexDanger
I really feel autonomous cars are a prime candidate for Next Big Thing over
the coming 10-25 years.

Combined with transportation platforms such as Uber, I wouldnt be surprised to
see fleets of robotic taxis exclusively servicing dense urban areas in the
next 15 years. Its one of those great problems that can scale locally if an
enthusiastic city council or government get behind it. Something like an
extension of what London has done with their congestion charge:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge)

Just imagine the transition to an inner city driverless fleet. No more parking
problems in metro areas. Massive swathes of real estate become available as
parking bays are no longer required. Markedly faster travel from A->B as
networked cars work together to ensure optimal traffic flow. Once all the
meatspace human drivers are off the grid, you can remove traffic lights.

Australia is well placed from a rural transportation perspective - we have
many small towns 500km apart and plenty of road freight. Accidents on these
roads are usually from driver fatigue, speeding or hitting wildlife. These
roads are 'easy' for driverless cards - long and straight, not many surprises
(except the odd kangaroo which I think the cold heart of an AI would handle
better - the worst thing you can do is swerve to avoid them and roll your
vehicle).

I think when the kids of 2150 sit down in history class to study the 20th
century, they'll laugh at the idea that every family invested significant
money into 1-2 expensive hunks of steel for transportation. We fling these big
dirty hunks of steel around at 100mph for perhaps 5% of the day. It can get
quite dangerous! Then we waste huge amounts of land by storing them for the
other 95% of the day. How bizarre is that?

~~~
GabrielF00
I'm worried about the implications on the labor market. Here are some quick
numbers from the BLS about US employment: There are 3.664 million motor
vehicle operators with an annual mean income of $35,000.

That includes 158,000 transit bus drivers, 500,000 school bus drivers, 170,000
taxi drivers and chauffeurs, 1.6 million tractor-trailer drivers, 777,000
delivery truck drivers and 400,000 driver/sales workers (restaurant take out,
newspaper delivery, etc)

By comparison, there are 3.7 million working in all computer and mathematical
occupations.

[[http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#53-0000](http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#53-0000)]

~~~
proexploit
I believe that there's many many more jobs at risk but it doesn't need to be a
bad thing. Once a robot can accept orders and cook a burger as well as a
McDonalds employee, won't we lose them too? Many many jobs will be automated.

As a society we need to find a way to handle this so that people out of work
have their needs met and aren't just left to starve but I'm not sure we can
expect to keep employment so high.

------
mikerg87
The one thing that sticks with me in all of these automated driving
demonstrations is the lack of operation in adverse environmental conditions
such Rain, Fog, Snow/Ice. I would expect that any one of those conditions
would post extraordinary challenges to an automated driving system.

~~~
eliben
Interesting, I have exactly the opposite view. The limited visibility that
such conditions enforce, making them hard for humans to handle, have much
lower effect on a system equipped with "vision" on multiple wave-lengths, for
some of which the rain and fog are as transparent as air. As for the other
effects (say, less tire friction) I don't see why a computer would do worse.
I'm pretty sure the breaking distances are not hard-coded, but rather a very
sophisticated feedback loop.

~~~
OnACoffeeBreak
From what I understand, Google's self driving car is heavily based around the
lidar sensor. The lidar sensor is used to image immediate surroundings in 3D
in real time. Rain, snow and fog interfere with the laser pulses sent out by
the lidar sensor, which basically renders the self driving system blind.

~~~
Qworg
You are correct. The system degrades in functionality in dust, heavy fog,
heavy rain, and snow. It isn't blind, per se, as radar still functions. Snow
is the worst though - both visually obscuring and radar absorptive.

------
pkorzeniewski
I still think autonomous cars are far far away from being used on a daily
basis, especially in other parts of the world - right now you need good
weather, precise maps, well maintained roads and the cars are taken care of by
a team of engineers. I just can't imagine such car, for example, in Italy -
you would need to replace all cars at once, because people drive there like
insane and an autonomous car wouldn't even move.

------
jccooper
What's interesting is that the reported test is from 2012. (Which they do say
at the top, but didn't really register until the end.) I'm a bit surprised it
was so competent back then.

------
pjbrunet
After getting my first traffic-camera ticket yesterday, I'm 100% behind self-
driving cars.

~~~
kiba
I hate situations in which the traffic light turn red just before I cross the
street.

Most cases, I made the correct choice, but sooner or later I am going to screw
up.

But a self-driving car shouldn't get any hangup like that and the AI should
improve each time it gets into an accident just like airline safety improve
after each accident.

~~~
rahimnathwani
> I hate situations in which the traffic light turn red just before I cross
> the street.

In the UK there are amber lights for this purpose. The light changes from
green to amber, before turning red. Both amber and red mean 'stop', but you're
not going to get a ticket for going through an amber light.

"You MUST stop behind the white ‘Stop’ line across your side of the road
unless the light is green. If the amber light appears you may go on only if
you have already crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to stop
might cause a collision."

(From [https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-
junctions-...](https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-
junctions-170-to-183))

~~~
icehawk219
The US has the same thing the problem is it's not always followed. Many
drivers don't view the amber/yellow light as "I should stop now" but rather
view it as "I better speed up so I don't get stuck at the red light". There's
also been much accusation (though I have no links handy to provide as proof)
of townships implementing red-light cameras and then changing, without
warning, the duration of the amber light to be shorter. Keeping in mind that
the law states that you cannot be inside the intersection when the light is
red, if you entered it while the light was green or amber is irrelevant [Edit
- It's been correctly pointed out below that this law may vary from state to
state].

~~~
Stratoscope
That's not the law in California. It is perfectly legal to be within an
intersection when the light turns red. It's only illegal to _enter_ an
intersection while the light is red.

Source 1: California Driver Handbook

[http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm](http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm)

\- - -

Solid Yellow – A yellow signal light means "CAUTION." The red signal is about
to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you
cannot stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.

\- - -

The "stop if you can do so safely" wording is safety advice, and sound advice
too. But it's not a statement of law.

Source 2: California Vehicle Code

[http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=veh&gr...](http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21450-21468)

\- - -

21452\. (a) A driver facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal
is, by that signal, warned that the related green movement is ending or that a
red indication will be shown immediately thereafter.

21453\. (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a
marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side
of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and
shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as
provided in subdivision (b).

\- - -

Note that the yellow light is described only as a warning, with no mention of
it being illegal to enter the intersection while the light is yellow. And
there is no mention of it being illegal to be inside the intersection when the
light turns red, only that you can't enter on a red light.

I can't speak for other states, but I suspect that the laws in many of them
are similar.

~~~
icehawk219
Thank you for the correction. I'm in NJ and remember my instructor going out
of his way to mention that it was illegal to be in the intersection when red.
However upon investigation I can't actually find anything to back this up now.
It would appear I may have been operating under false information all these
years.

~~~
Stratoscope
I guess that's not an unreasonable thing for a driving instructor to say,
since even if it's not quite true, it does no harm to believe it and may well
help someone err on the side of safety.

I had a similar misunderstanding myself until recently. I'd read the wording
in the driver handbook and thought that the bit about "if you can stop safely"
was the actual law rather than safety advice. It was much later that I got
curious and looked into it a little further.

~~~
k1t
It's not quite as clear as that, the California Driver's Handbook states:

"Do not enter the intersection if you cannot get completely across before the
light turns red. If you block the intersection, you can be cited." [0]

You might think this is only referencing situations where you are stopped in
the intersection (i.e. blocking it) but there is no reference to speed here.

There's a question on the test: [1]

Q: It is against the law to enter an intersection when:

A 1: You can't get all the way across before the light turns red

A 2: The light is flashing yellow and you didn't stop first

A 3: The light is yellow and you can stop safely

The correct answer is 1.

So, when viewed by a normal person, you may assume that this only applies if
you're forced to stop in the intersection (and therefore block it), but
neither the driver's handbook, nor the test itself (sorry my link is just an
unofficial practice test, but it's on the real thing too) make any reference
to speed. Therefore I think it's absolutely reasonable for your "instructor
going out of his way to mention that it was illegal to be in the intersection
when red" [GP]

I haven't looked up the actual law to see if the wording makes it OK to be in
an intersection with the light red, providing you entered legally
(yellow/green) and have a clear exit path - but I'm guessing it does not.

[0]
[http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm](http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm)

[1]
[http://www.elitedrivertrainingservices.com/tests/AdultPracti...](http://www.elitedrivertrainingservices.com/tests/AdultPracticeTest_1.pdf)
(Q10)

~~~
Stratoscope
Fortunately you can't be cited for violating a private company's example test
question! :-)

If you block an intersection because there isn't room on the far side, you'd
be cited under section 22526 of Chapter 9, Stopping, Standing, and Parking:

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=22526).

\- - -

22526 (a): Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to
proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked
crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the
intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without
obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

\- - -

This section is known as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987. The reason this had to
be enacted was that it was never illegal to be _in_ an intersection when the
light turned red. If that were illegal, then officers would already have a
section number to cite you under. They didn't, so this law gave them one.

Besides that, the only other relevant sections I could find are the ones I
quoted in my previous comment. Here's another link in a newer format:

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xh...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&division=11.&title=&part=&chapter=2.&article=3).

The rest of the Vehicle Code can be found through a link on this page:

[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml)

