If you take out the delay of human reaction, it could definitely help reduce collisions. Instead of having about a second between reaction and actually pressing the brake, you're looking at microseconds. A second quicker response could save you about 14 meters of stopping distance if you're travelling at 50 km/h.
I just think there are too many variables in programming something like this to be completely self-automated. I think somewhere in between completely manual and completely automated is possible but I have trouble believing it would be safe for a legally blind person (as per the video in the OP) to be able to jump in the car every morning and let it do everything. Maybe it would be fine 99.9% of the time, but that 0.1% of the time might not end so pleasantly.
Here's an example of the 0.1%:
Are you saying that is worse than the way people drive now?
If you remove the idiot driver factor from the roads, I believe that you eliminate most if not all accidents that are not attributed to mechanical failure. Even then, a car that knows enough to drive itself, might also know enough to stop driving when something has, or is about to break.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
I would be a little freaked out about letting it navigate newly constructed areas where google's database might not be up to date. Stoney Trail Bloodbath.
I wonder if it can get out of the way of emergency vehicles coming up from behind?
I would fight a law that made self-driving cars mandatory.
That being said, I can see the appeal for a lot of people. I, however, LOVE driving. Even when it makes my blood boil, there is no feeling quite to awesome as cruising on a summer day, going on a road trip, stopping wherever you damn well please, etc.
In the FAR future, I can see partially self-driven cars. By this, I mean on certain freeways, and at certain times of day. I can also see emergency override to force your car out of the way in an emergency (too many dumbasses ignore sirens).
But again, if the man wants to take away my driving, I will fight it! The only way they'll force it upon me is if they catch me! REDVAN!!!
__________________ REDVAN!
The Following User Says Thank You to REDVAN For This Useful Post:
Are you saying that is worse than the way people drive now?
If you remove the idiot driver factor from the roads, I believe that you eliminate most if not all accidents that are not attributed to mechanical failure. Even then, a car that knows enough to drive itself, might also know enough to stop driving when something has, or is about to break.
Not necessarily, but I'm thinking if an automated car drives up to a crosswalk a thousand times, Google better hope it stops for pedestrians a thousand times. If the program fails an average of 0.1% (1 out of 1000 times) to recognize a pedestrian and runs over someone, then there's a big problem. These are just hypothetical numbers.
Obviously there will be distracted drivers that will make the same mistake, though and a certain percentage will run over someone as well. That's why I think somewhere between manual and automated is a possibility. As long as the driver still holds liability in that they must pay attention while the car is driving, then I think it would be okay (In the example above, maybe the driver brakes/swerves to avoid hitting someone if the car didn't detect a pedestrian). If the liability lies with the car manufacturer, you'll have people having a nap in the backseat while the car drives, and suing the company when they kill someone.
I do think it would be pretty cool though. If I could let the car drive itself on long boring highway drives, I totally would.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd_aaron
Not necessarily, but I'm thinking if an automated car drives up to a crosswalk a thousand times, Google better hope it stops for pedestrians a thousand times.
I'm sure no one has considered the possibility of pedestrians getting run over until you pointed this out. You should send them a helpful email, I'm pretty sure helpusdesignourselfdrivingcar@google.com is the relevant address.
Or, on the other hand, maybe you could look into the work they've already done on this car and see that these are not total idiots working on this project. It might not work out anytime soon, but it won't be because an autonomous car won't be considerably better than a human driver at avoiding low-velocity solid objects like pedestrians.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
From the limited research I've done it seems that the car is less likely to run over a pedestrian than your average driver is. Nothing is perfect but I bet accidents would drop dramatically. That being said I still like driving and would want the choice whether to engage the "auto pilot" rather than being forced to.
I'm sure no one has considered the possibility of pedestrians getting run over until you pointed this out. You should send them a helpful email, I'm pretty sure helpusdesignourselfdrivingcar@google.com is the relevant address.
Or, on the other hand, maybe you could look into the work they've already done on this car and see that these are not total idiots working on this project. It might not work out anytime soon, but it won't be because an autonomous car won't be considerably better than a human driver at avoiding low-velocity solid objects like pedestrians.
I realize they're not idiots, and I never said it wasn't something they had considered. I am mostly just curious how liability would work in situations like this.
I'm just wondering about those 'avoid rather than brake' type situations and how google would handle those. In some circumstances it's best to just drive into the ditch when the chance of braking is slim to none, and you know that the tractor trailer behind you won't be able to stop either.
Would it be smart enough to know how other vehicles are going to behave an in what situations it's best to avoid / drive vs brake?
The first report that I read of their testing in California had the car in only one accident but pissing off a lot of motorists.
The accident was when the car was rear ended at a stop sign but the author said that it was a stop sign that drivers normally roll through. As for pissing people off, the car is programmed to drive 0.001 mph under the posted speed limit so on roads where everyone speeds drivers get annoyed.
tl;dr the only complaint so far is that the car follows the rules and that is annoying.
One of the biggest advantages is you could probably triple our road capacity. As someone said earlier it takes 14m for a human to make a decision that the vehicle can make in less than 1. So even giving the car 5m to make decisions would allow 3 times as many cars on the road.
I for one can't wait for automated cars. All of the time you would save and being able and multi-task. Insurance companies will be the driving force of this change. As soon as the cost of the vehicle minus the reduction in insurance costs is cheaper than a convential car you will start seeing people switch. Also gas mileage would also increase as you would have smooth accelerations and breaking.
I would bet it is another 20 years before we see the public getting them but I would bet within our lifetime (30 somthings) that the majority of cars are self driven.
Executives and Celebs would be the first adopters as it would save costs on drivers and have a cool factor when the cars are only marginally cost effective. Then cabs would being replaced because it would only have to be cheaper than the cost of a car plus the driver. This would also allow people to try them out and get used to them before getting one of their own.
Insurance companies will be the driving force of this change.
I'm not so sure. I can't see insurance companies championing this for the long run since it could basically destroy their business, especially if roads were converted to "automated vehicles only". Maybe you're right though - maybe we'll always need insurance, but I can't see them justifying high premiums.
Another thing that I didn't see brought up is that if this technology is advanced enough and roads (or at least highways) are made to be used exclusively by self-driving cars, we would likely see higher speed limits.
Then cabs would being replaced because it would only have to be cheaper than the cost of a car plus the driver.
Not sure how cabs would work as it appears the car can be manually overridden. They wouldn't want drunk yahoo's calling a cab then going for a joyride. They would have to have a separate seating area in the back, could the cab lock you in until it was paid? That would be bizarre, you hop in a cab and forget that you left your wallet in your car, when you can't pay it locks the doors and drives you to the cop shop. I suppose it could calculate the cost and have you pay up front. At least the computer wouldn't be taking tourists on the 45 minute route from the airport to downtown.
Last edited by Jacks; 05-08-2012 at 04:42 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
Not sure how cabs would work as it appears the car can be manually overridden. They wouldn't want drunk yahoo's calling a cab then going for a joyride. They would have to have a separate seating area in the back, could the cab lock you in until it was paid? That would be bizarre, you hop in a cab and forget that you left your wallet in your car, when you can't pay it locks the doors and drives you to the cop shop. I suppose it could calculate the cost and have you pay up front. At least the computer wouldn't be taking tourists on the 45 minute route from the airport to downtown.
I wonder if there's a way to combine both manual driving and self-driving cars at first. At least to ease in the technology. Like some sort of predictive driving.
The idea is sound, and really likely the natural way to move forward. Cool stuff!
Edit: Eventually it would be cool to get all the cars say in a city registered into a massive computer that could optimize all driving in a city, eliminating all congestion forever! But yeah then the only problem is the whole Skynet thing that was mentioned earlier lol.
__________________
Last edited by Teh_Bandwagoner; 05-08-2012 at 05:28 PM.
I would be concerned about the drivers who never do any maintenance on their vehicles. The radar/laser or whatever would likely require some kind of routine inspections. Many people don't take their car in for any kind of service whatsoever until the problem has escalated.
How does it react in different conditions? I never had nice sensors to play with when I did robotics but the thing would f up so badly once we used it in actual competitions since the conditions were quite different. Also how well does it continue to function as parts wear down and such. Only time will tell.
