Google Self-Driving Car Accident Reports

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:46 am

From my cold dead hands, Anax . . . my cold dead hands!

--J.D.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 7:37 pm

Anaxagoras wrote:
sparks wrote:Granted people make mistakes when they're behind the wheel. Lives are lost. As for the rest of it--can't agree. Traffic jams happen because too many people want to be on the road at the same time. Self driving vehicles do not address this at all. Indeed, they address none of the points you brought up Anax, except the one regarding human drivers making mistakes, sometimes lethal ones.
Given that accidents are one of the things that cause traffic jams, fewer accidents would mean fewer traffic jams. But it's more than just that:

WATCH: HOW SELF DRIVING CARS COULD END TRAFFIC JAMS

Self driving cars also means we could have fewer cars. If you own a car, 90% of the time it isn't doing anything. Just parked somewhere taking up a parking space. People circling around in cities searching for a place to park is another cause of traffic that could be solved if you are taking a ride-hailing service. No need to park, it just drops you off and goes to pick up the next person.

I'm trying to appreciate all that, but in the end, it sounds like really expensive mass transit that only takes 2 or 3 people at a time. But then again, I'm old and resistant to change and nice things.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:35 pm

sparks wrote:
Anaxagoras wrote:
sparks wrote:Granted people make mistakes when they're behind the wheel. Lives are lost. As for the rest of it--can't agree. Traffic jams happen because too many people want to be on the road at the same time. Self driving vehicles do not address this at all. Indeed, they address none of the points you brought up Anax, except the one regarding human drivers making mistakes, sometimes lethal ones.
Given that accidents are one of the things that cause traffic jams, fewer accidents would mean fewer traffic jams. But it's more than just that:

WATCH: HOW SELF DRIVING CARS COULD END TRAFFIC JAMS

Self driving cars also means we could have fewer cars. If you own a car, 90% of the time it isn't doing anything. Just parked somewhere taking up a parking space. People circling around in cities searching for a place to park is another cause of traffic that could be solved if you are taking a ride-hailing service. No need to park, it just drops you off and goes to pick up the next person.
I'm trying to appreciate all that, but in the end, it sounds like really expensive mass transit that only takes 2 or 3 people at a time. But then again, I'm old and resistant to change and nice things.

Is it more or less expensive than the mass transit we have now that takes only 1 person to 1 location and fills up a parking space all day?

Not everyone will choose this but enough will to make a difference. My criticisms will wait.

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:16 pm

Good point.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:32 pm

Rob Lister wrote:
sparks wrote: I'm trying to appreciate all that, but in the end, it sounds like really expensive mass transit that only takes 2 or 3 people at a time. But then again, I'm old and resistant to change and nice things.
Is it more or less expensive than the mass transit we have now that takes only 1 person to 1 location and fills up a parking space all day?

Not everyone will choose this but enough will to make a difference. My criticisms will wait.

Yeah, basically the idea is not mass transit like trains or busses but something of a compromise between the convenience of owning your own car, so you can go literally anywhere at any time, and mass transit where you can only go on prescribed routes from prescribed points of pickup to prescribed points of drop-off at prescribed times, which is obviously much less convenient. This would be much more convenient than that sort of mass transit, but still more efficient and less expensive than owning your own car.

Of course, there are some foreseeable problems too. Without a driver there, will passengers just leave their garbage on the floor? Vandalize it? Who will clean them if there is no driver? Will angry taxi drivers mad at being put out of a job sabotage it? These are potential new problems.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:09 pm

I don't foresee them banning regular cars, and I don't advocate that either. Just more and more people choosing driverless cars as time goes by. Because it's cheaper and easier and safer. Old people set in their ways will be the last to adopt of course.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:17 pm

Well, maybe middle-aged people set in their ways will be the last to adopt.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:41 am

Rob Lister wrote: I think they will stage a few by 2021 but it is overly optimistic. I'm going to add 10 years for commonplace for taxis and 20 for consumers. The technology is probably there but the legislation isn't.

Looks like Federal regulations are on the way:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... -automated

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/us-g ... -vehicles/

On Tuesday, the government will issue federal policy, comprising a four-section package to help facilitate the "responsible" testing and deployment of self-driving vehicles. The policy will include a 15-point "Safety Assessment," which the government has asked automakers to sign and submit when an autonomous car is believed to be ready for public roads. The policy covers topics like validation methods, privacy, post-crash behavior and crashworthiness.

It also helps set the foundation for consistent policies on the state level. It provides clear delineation between federal and state responsibilities without forcing the states to all create the same policy. The feds will cover safety standards, compliance, recalls and public education, with states focusing on testing permissions, law and regulation enforcement and licensing.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 2:37 pm

Read about that on slashdot.

Here's a fun graphic

Spoiler:

Google contends (and I agree) that the intersection of computer control with human monitoring is fatally flawed. Their reason being by the time a human can assess the failure of an automated system and then correct it, the need is over, the damage is done. It's a little like saying you'll put your seatbeat on if you think you're about to get in a accident.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 9:47 pm

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:07 pm

it is a good point fag

It isn't windows but the point remains fag

People crash more than OS's but the point remains fag

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:32 pm

Rob Lister wrote: People crash more than OS's

Evidences?

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:35 pm

Breaks don't work because software error, 400,000 cars recalled for bad software which makes the brakes not work.

https://consumerist.com/2010/02/09/toyo ... ty-brakes/

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:57 pm

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:Breaks don't work because software error, 400,000 cars recalled for bad software which makes the brakes not work.

https://consumerist.com/2010/02/09/toyo ... ty-brakes/

How many people have ADHD?
Approximately 11% of children 4-17 years of age (6.4 million) have been diagnosed with ADHD as of 2011. The percentage of children with an ADHD diagnosis continues to increase, from 7.8% in 2003 to 9.5% in 2007 and to 11.0% in 2011.

46% of Teenagers Admit to Text Messaging While Driving : Driver's Ed ...
http://www.driversedguru.com/driving... ... -messaging...
According to AAA, 46% percent of all teenage drivers admit to text messaging while driving, and that says nothing of the teens who won't own up to the practice. 51% admit to talking on the cell phone while driving, though most of us who know teens would probably estimate that figure to be closer to 99%.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:05 pm

Pretty sure ADHD causes less accidents then the brakes not working at 55mph because software error.

Run that out, the total numbers of hours ADHD drivers drive in a year, and the number of accidents per hour driven.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:21 pm

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:Pretty sure ADHD causes less accidents then the brakes not working at 55mph because software error.

Why are you sure?

DOT says 95% are caused by humans. Not bad brakes.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:28 pm

Because the number is so high on the computer shutting off your brakes scenario as to make any subsection of the driving population's accident rate look down right safe.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:33 pm

Not saying it can't be done, but it sure as shit is not being done our our current technology set.

Maybe once we have computer programs writing computer programs. This is where the technology needs to be.

Could be a couple of bicycle mechanics strike on the idea, but that is what it will take.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:52 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
You know what it will be, Rob.

I asked you to stop. I think I might have even said 'pretty please'. It adds nothing to the conversation to state that gravity sucks.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:57 pm

Researchers hack Tesla Model S with remote attack

The researchers were able to remotely control the braking system, sunroof, door locks, trunk, side-view mirrors and more

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3121999/ ... del-s.html

ed · Post by ed » Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:07 pm

That was a plot line in some cop show ... recently.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:26 pm

Bring on the self-driving cars.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:34 pm

Con-fucking-cur

Then again, this [almost] exact accident just happened with a Tesla in the "assist" mode; a Tesla plowed into the back of a semi because it could not see through the raining mist.

To be fair, the Tesla is not intended to be used in the autonomous mode but the assist mode is so good that some owners do. Nevertheless, the assist mode used in an autonomous mode is still better, statistically, than humans.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:00 pm

Supposedly they made a fix to that problem. But radar while it can see through fog has other possible problems:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... pilot.html

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:32 pm

Even though they haven't been at fault, self-driving test cars are involved in crashes at five times the rate of conventional cars, a new study finds.

[...]

As a result, the total number of self-driving car accidents being used for comparison is the study is minuscule, 11. But that's five times the rate of the accident rate in conventional cars, and there's four times the injury rate, the study finds. The injuries, however, have all been minor.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... /74946614/

sparks · Post by **sparks** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:08 pm

Sample is way too small to be meaningful.

Anaxagoras · Post by **Anaxagoras** » Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:29 pm

A lot of minor accidents, dents and dings, aren't reported.

But with Google cars, even the most minor ones are for data.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:19 am

I'm so tired I almost ran over a pedestrian yesterday.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:24 am

Pyrrho wrote:I'm so tired I almost ran over a pedestrian yesterday.

You need to stop driving on the sidewalk.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:43 am

lol, it pulled right into a bus.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... cident-bus

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:12 am

Yea, that was linked already, months ago. As it turns out, we'd all be hard pressed not to have the same accident. I'm pretty sure a human would not have the same fender-bender, but then-again, the human at the wheel did not anticipate the accident either. It was one of those weird circumstances wherein even a human might well have erred. It is hard to fault 'the google' here.

It is my opinion that google was not at fault here. It is a very, very technical question here. Google decided to shrug.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:34 am

Rob Lister wrote: the human at the wheel did not anticipate the accident either

Actually, the accident report they were required to fill out by the state under penalty of perjury, which you can get from Google themselves, says the human in the car did see the bus out of his side mirror.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:37 am

Its interesting that Google is not live streaming video from these cars. But then the public would really know what is going on.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:51 am

JEROME DA GNOME wrote:
Rob Lister wrote: the human at the wheel did not anticipate the accident either
Actually, the accident report they were required to fill out by the state under penalty of perjury, which you can get from Google themselves, says the human in the car did see the bus out of his side mirror.

For the reading impaired.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:41 am

Show me some self-driving cars successfully negotiating city streets after a heavy snowfall before and even after the plows go through and I might be impressed.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:23 pm

Rob Lister wrote: For the reading impaired.

lol

Yes, the human didn't anticipate the auto car would drive into the side of the bus he saw through the mirror.

ed · Post by ed » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:18 pm

Wellll .. there is a solution for many of the cases.

Have the cars communicate with each other. In other words, turn it into a non-stationary backpacking problem. The stats are there. Probably pretty easy.

Then the cars will attain self awareness.

Then ...

hammegk · Post by **hammegk** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:25 am

Anaxagoras wrote:I don't foresee them banning regular cars, and I don't advocate that either. Just more and more people choosing driverless cars as time goes by. Because it's cheaper and easier and safer. Old people set in their ways will be the last to adopt of course.

Get rid of my Cobra? FOAD.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:43 am

--J.D.

Pyrrho · Post by **Pyrrho** » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:33 pm

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/23/a-goo ... iew-today/

A Google self-driving Lexus RX 450h was involved in a crash with a van in Mountain View, Calif. on Friday afternoon, according to local police. Thankfully, nobody was injured in the accident.

TechCrunch has reached out to Google for more information.

Two local TV stations, KRON and KPIX, reported that the Google autonomous vehicle had been “in control,” or in its self-driving mode at the time of the crash.

However, the self-driving car was reportedly manned by a Google employee who took over its operation, and applied the brakes when the van’s driver began crossing an intersection, possibly running a red light.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:59 pm

Berlin (AFP) - A Tesla electric car crashed into a tourist bus on a motorway in northern Germany, police said Thursday, with the driver claiming he had activated the car's autopilot system.

The driver of the Tesla car was slightly injured, while the 29 people on board the Danish bus were unhurt in the incident on Wednesday, police in Ratzeburg in Schleswig-Holstein state said.

The 50-year-old driver's car hit the bus as it changed lanes outside the northern town of Gudow.

"We will now have to look into why the autopilot didn't work" to prevent the crash, police said in a statement.

Available for Tesla's Model S electric cars since October 2015, the driverless autopilot system has come under global scrutiny following fatal crashes in northern China in January and in the US state of Florida in May.

The Florida case attracted the attention of a US Senate Committee, which demanded a briefing on the autopilot's role in the accident.

Consumer activists have called on the company, founded by PayPal billionaire Elon Musk, to disable the autopilot feature until it is updated to detect whether the driver's hands are on the steering wheel during operation, as the company says they ought to be.

The driver in Wednesday's crash told police that he had not removed his hands from the wheel while the autopilot was activated, German press agency DPA reported.

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/tesla-autopi ... 35313.html

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:37 pm

--J.D.

Witness · Post by **Witness** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:37 pm

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:39 pm

Weird how I am always ahead of the plagiarized news.

Someone should pay me for this.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:05 am

--J.D.

JEROME DA GNOME · Post by **JEROME DA GNOME** » Sat Oct 01, 2016 11:08 pm

California legalizes auto cars with no humans.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:49 am

--J.D.

hammegk · Post by **hammegk** » Sun Oct 02, 2016 9:36 pm

Doctor X wrote:

--J.D.

You do so way too often.

Doctor X · Post by **Doctor X** » Mon Oct 03, 2016 4:17 am

Being so full of shit, Tinkerbell, My Bitch, thinks he can afford a great amount of attention.

--J.D.

Rob Lister · Post by **Rob Lister** » Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:46 pm

I almost missed September's accident report.
https://static.googleusercontent.com/me ... t-0916.pdf

There were several for September, most occurring while the AV was under manual control. The last one was the most interesting.

Paraphrasing because I can't snip from the report ...

As the Google AV proceeded through a green light ... its autonomous technology detected another vehicle traveling westbound ... approaching the intersection at 30 mph and began to apply the brakes in anticipation that the other vehicle would run through the red light.

The Google AV test driver then disengaged the autonomous technology and took manual control. Immediately thereafter, the other vehicle ran through the red light and collided with the right side of the Google AV at 30 mph.

Ironic, huh.