
Google's Self-Driving Car Can't Navigate Heavy Rain or Most Roads - siavosh
http://www.autoworldnews.com/articles/8817/20140830/googles-self-driving-car-cant-navigate-heavy-rain-or-most-roads.htm
======
dang
A dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8235880](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8235880).

------
magicalist
This is just blog spam regurgitation of the only slightly longer (but at least
actually original research) Technology Review article from a few days ago:
[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-
obstacles...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-
for-googles-self-driving-cars/)

~~~
timedoctor
I bet these blog spammers are making a LOT of money as that was really hard to
detect.

------
julianpye
The key question is what competitors have as technology. I don't know about
the Japanese manufacturers, but in Germany Audi and VW have been heavily
working on self-driving and assistive technology for the last decade and only
incorporated communication technology at a later point (I was working at
Vodafone R&D then and our team participated in joint tests starting six years
ago). It is safe to assume that Google's approach was comms and data-first,
car-physics secondary, while the manufacturers approach is the other way round
with a focus on mechanics and physics.

~~~
peteretep
Google acquiring a car company would be an interesting move

~~~
Zolomon
The Swedish SAAB was for sale[1] not long ago if I recall correctly.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Automobile#Spyker.2FSwedis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Automobile#Spyker.2FSwedish_Automobile_.282010.E2.80.932011.29)

------
amirmc
For people who think this is some kind of 'hit piece' on Google cars, please
go read the original source, where a lot of the information comes from the
director of the google car project.

[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-
obstacles...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-
for-googles-self-driving-cars/)

------
witty_username
The real question is whether Google's self-driving car is better (it doesn't
have to be perfect) than humans in heavy rain (humans also have difficulties
in heavy rain).

~~~
melling
No, the real question is can it drive in heavy rain. I've seen humans do it.

~~~
jfoster
When humans do it, are they just taking a risk that the autonomous car could
take, but won't?

~~~
tatterdemalion
That seems like it might be an overgenerous treatment of autonomous vehicles'
(current) risk evaluation. The article reads like humans are making the
determination that the vehicle can't drive in the rain, not the machines.

~~~
jfoster
What I mean is that the autonomous vehicles probably just get very noisy
signals in the rain. Isn't that also what happens to humans driving cars in
heavy rain? The rain limits long-range visibility, fog limits short-range
visibility, wet road increases stopping distance, and yet humans think it is
safe to drive at regular speed limits. Perhaps humans are (for now) better
equipped to deal with those very noisy signals, but my point is that it's also
dangerous for humans to drive in heavy rain.

------
melling
Would it be possible for someone to just address the complaints in the
article?

"While Google's fleet has safely driven more than 700,000 miles, the
autonomous model relies so heavily on maps and detailed data that it can't yet
drive itself in 99 percent of the country, according to an MIT Technology
Review report."

~~~
DanBC
[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-
obstacles...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-
for-googles-self-driving-cars/)

> Google often leaves the impression that, as a Google executive once wrote,
> the cars can “drive anywhere a car can legally drive.” However, that’s true
> only if intricate preparations have been made beforehand, with the car’s
> exact route, including driveways, extensively mapped. Data from multiple
> passes by a special sensor vehicle must later be pored over, meter by meter,
> by both computers and humans. It’s vastly more effort than what’s needed for
> Google Maps.

------
siliconc0w
Even if it can't it still can be incredibly valuable in a lot of climates
where it operates well most of the time(ie most of California at this point).
Most people don't travel very far and where they do is probably well mapped.
Google could solve a small percentage of the problem and still win.

~~~
amirmc
From the source: _" Data from multiple passes by a special sensor vehicle must
later be pored over, meter by meter, by both computers and humans. It’s vastly
more effort than what’s needed for Google Maps."_

In other words, the mapping required is very specific and doesn't exist.
Current maps don't help.

~~~
asuffield
I took a couple of other things away from that:

"We know how to make these maps, we just haven't made them yet"

"We can still see ways to improve this process"

~~~
amirmc
I think the goal would be _not_ to need those special maps at all. (In the
long run).

In any case, no-one is disputing that driverless cars are coming. Just
reminding the over-zealous that there are real obstacles to overcome.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Huh? In the long run, having the maps is trivially easy. Roads aren't
naturally occurring. If they can be helpful (which seems certain, since human
navigators also rely heavily on having the area they're driving through
memorized), why wouldn't we use them?

~~~
DanBC
The specialised maps are far too noisy for human navigators to use.

~~~
thaumasiotes
So? I'm just pointing out that we don't expect anyone to navigate without maps
-- there's no reason for automated cars to be different. amirmc said "the goal
would be not to need those special maps at all", but that's contrary to
navigation as practiced since the dawn of time. Given the ease of creating the
maps, it makes infinitely more sense to have maps and better navigation than
no maps and worse navigation.

------
sujal
Does anyone remember that awful Schwarzenegger movie, the Sixth Day? It seems
like the cars could work like the ones from the movie at the current stage.
Basically they take over for the long, boring part of the ride and then hand
control over for the trickier local bits. That way, when I make the long trip
to my parents' house or my in laws, for example, I can hand over control for
the parts where I might get tired, distracted by my son, etc. That capability
would be a huge win for me.

~~~
amirmc
That's a great interim step but ultimately people still have to learn to
drive. There may even be an increase in risk as you become _less_ skilled at
the things you don't do very often (when the car hands you control, the
cognitive load could be overwhelming).

It'll be great when we can do away with the need for learning how to drive at
all.

------
Hermel
All self-driving technology I am aware of is based on visual input (cameras,
lasers, etc.). I'm not sure self-driving cars can get as good as human drivers
without any audio input. Noises are an extremely important source of
information, especially in critical situations. I guess that a startup
focusing on converting audio input into 3D-data (e.g. "truck approaching from
behind") could become very valuable.

~~~
tatterdemalion
What are examples of situations in which audio input provides relevant
information that 360 degree video input doesn't? Humans rely on hearing
because our visual arc is only about ~120 degrees.

~~~
DanBC
Emergency vehicles with sirens.

~~~
tatterdemalion
This is a good point, though ultimately emergency vehicles would also be
automated and would signal to the other automated cars electronically.

------
pron
_plans to develop a_ temporary _brake and steering wheel system for its fleet
of test cars_

How do you tell an autonomous car exactly where to park or at what exact spot
in a parking lot to pick up a friend without a steering wheel?

------
jahooma
The common sentiment has been that self-driving cars are just around the
corner. The reality is quite different.

The remaining problems to solve such as navigating the elements or obeying
construction signs or interacting properly with pedestrians or police are
orders of magnitude more difficult than the problems that have been solved
thus far. These problems are fundamentally different in that they can't be
solved by current AI techniques and vision algorithms. The progress made so
far has been quick, but it relies on technology that Google has already
mastered. We'd be mistaken to think that the remaining challenges will be
solved as easily.

It's a repeat of the classic mistake that has plagued the field of AI since
the beginning: we underestimate the difficulty of problems that humans solve
easily. We simply aren't aware of the incredible complexity involved in our
simplest decisions, such as pulling over to allow an ambulance to pass. This
is simple right? Just slow down and move off to the side of the road. But when
is it OK to move off to the side -- what if there is something in the way,
what if a pedestrian didn't expect you to move there, what if the car behind
you suddenly gets in the way while it's pulling over, what if you're on a
bridge, what if the ambulance behind you turned already and no one expects
your car to suddenly pull over? Similar or more difficult problems arise when
there's debris or potholes in the road, other poor drivers, bad weather,
jaywalkers, policemen giving orders, road work, detours, etc.

What you find is that the last 5 or 10 percent of the capability required to
make self-driving cars feasible represents a category of problems which we
don't know how to solve, requiring a level of sophistication far beyond the
current state of the art and perhaps approaching general intelligence in some
cases (such as interpreting signs).

Better approaches involve shooting for more modest goals instead of full
autonomy. Car companies are making investments in these more practical,
incremental improvements, like automated parking and advanced cruise control.

But unlike car companies, Google isn't in this game because it thinks it can
make a profitable and successful product. Instead, it's obvious that the main
function of developing self-driving cars is as a PR tool (and the same goes
for the rest of the Google-X projects). Google has gotten a lot of positive
press for their self-driving cars, and they even use it to attract new
employees.

However, I predict this positive press won't last (this article being an early
example) because people's expectations are way too high. As years and years go
by without much progress, Google's self-driving cars will increasingly become
a PR liability and will be compared to the promised flying cars of yesteryear.

~~~
maxerickson
If self driving is otherwise compelling, police and construction can use
electronic signs (radio, networked notifications, whatever).

The robot drivers will do better than humans in that case, they will reliably
obey the signs (imagine how easy it would be to detour a car that communicates
with a regional traffic management system, compared to a human that thinks
they know better).

~~~
takemikazuchi
While I agree in principle, in practice this idea sounds like a security and
authentication nightmare.

~~~
maxerickson
The simplest form I can think of is a beacon broadcasting its location along
with a stay back distance (with the routing system in the vehicle left to deal
with the details of compliance).

That doesn't address security or authentication, but it should be fairly easy
to track down a broadcasting radio, and it should also be easy to log and
aggregate the active beacons that have been spotted by vehicles. With that
context, traditional enforcement tools should probably work well enough.

------
anthony_franco
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then
you win.”

I guess this means we're moving into the 'ridicule' phase.

~~~
amirmc
Where in the article is it being ridiculed? I read it as a dose of reality,
which useful to provide some perspective on the challenges that remain (that
many people are probably not even aware of).

The original article might be of interest.

[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-
obstacles...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles-
for-googles-self-driving-cars/)

~~~
anthony_franco
Focusing on the 99% of roads Google cars don't serve is unnecessarily
ridiculing the technology, in my view.

Alternatively, had the article said that 99% of US work commutes can't yet be
served by Google cars, then it's something to mention. But the 1% of roads
that Google cars cover could very well be enough for the majority of US
commutes (assuming it were to cover most metropolitan areas).

It's as if someone saying cellphones aren't yet ready for primetime since they
don't work over most of the world's surface area. It may be true but
irrelevant for the average consumer.

