Google's Self-Driving Cars Drive Better Than You Can

[Derangel]

I love people like you! The car pool lane is an awesome Place to be

I know that public transport is completely useless most of the time.. But if you "hate driving" or just don't care you should not be driving.

If you are driving on a road with other people then you need to be a safe driver. Otherwise you are possibly putting other peoples lives at risk.

Still.. i wouldn't trust a google powered self driving car.. the google maps app on my phone is completely useless and rural areas are rarely updated.

 

For the first two-three generations of this tech I would agree that it is probably not the safest, but it could potentially eliminate unsafe drivers. In an ideal world idiots that can't follow the rules wouldn't drive, but this is FAR from an ideal world. I really dislike trying to cross any busy street because of terrible drivers or people that don't pay attention. I have been hit before by a guy driving through a red light. If self driving cars could prevent that from happening to anyone else I'm all for them.

[ionbasa]

i predict Priuses mowing down people on sidewalks everywhere..

How? It still requires you to be behind the wheel. Just like cruise control: if I slam the brakes it turns off. It's not like my car disables my brakes when cruise control is on.

Also this still requires a Licensed person to operate a vehicle. 

 

Why can't we look at the light side of the argument, that automation will most likely preventing things like this from happening: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/17/local/me-smcrash17

[silencerbob]

So, when my Google controlled car hits another Google controlled car do we sue Google for damages against themselves, with Google insurance using the Google traffic accident app?

[unknown566]

 

After last night's WAN Show and the discussion about Google's iron-grasp on the Android ecosystem, the market's opinions about Google may have fluctuated a bit. Obviously a mobile OS isn't the only thing Google is focusing on at the moment, but when they're not adding Easter Eggs to Google StreetView (http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/63962-google-adds-lamborghini-museum-to-google-street-view/#entry877610) they're improving on their autonomous vehicles research.

 

Chris Urmson, the lead on Google's autonomous vehicles division, stated that through the analysis of hundreds of thousands of data points, it is evident that their autonomous vehicles (a mix of Toyota and Lexus vehicles) outperform their human-operated counterparts in areas such as acceleration, deceleration (negative acceleration if you will), and general handling.

 

 

It's a well known fact that there are already manufacturers such as Mercedes-Benz are dabbling in self-driving S-class vehicles but the system is far from perfect. Brands such as BMW have also come out with their own implementations, only from a GPS programmable path methedology. No word on how these systems will perform in adverse weather conditions (ex. rain, snow, fog, ice, surprise pot holes that come out of nowhere, etc), but it's a step in the right direction.

 

One of the benefits of automated operation is that in the event of a collision, there are data points to back up the facts.

 

Source: MIT Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520746/data-shows-googles-robot-cars-are-smoother-safer-drivers-than-you-or-i/)

Photo credit: Google Images

 

From that quote "We have the data", it just makes me feel that we are just going to a stage that we are getting further monitored. We know where you drive to.. when and where. We know how many people are in your car, even the who part.

[unknown566]

So, when my Google controlled car hits another Google controlled car do we sue Google for damages against themselves, with Google insurance using the Google traffic accident app?

 

That would be an interesting news story. The fault falls on not the driver anymore. You don't need a steering wheel, and you can eat/drink whatever you want. Yes, that probably means heaven for those drunk drivers.

[Eroda]

friend who works on a Mine site said they tried automatic trucks as a trial , they went back to human drivers. because while they drive perfect they follow the same identical line over and over, which causes the road to wear and potholes and big ruts which were causing the trucks to  bounce around and drop stuff. basically it was a failure

[Blade of Grass]

People need to realise that currently the system still requires a driver to be their and be vigilant.

 

The system is going to be quite complicated to build, these aren't using normal maps. The cars can only currently drive on a few places (including one highway that the project director takes to work), and only works in specific lanes (everything has to be specifically mapped out on GPS first, with the lanes being marked). The cars use a mixture of LiDAR and and GPS to gauge where they're going, and they use cameras to make sure that they're in lanes. When the LiDAR isn't sure of what up ahead, or if it doesn't have enough data, or if it feels like it, it turns control back to the driver.

 

Of course, that's what it's currently doing, though I'm assuming in the future they're going to make the system better so that they don't have to map every lane of every road.

[techswede]

How? It still requires you to be behind the wheel. Just like cruise control: if I slam the brakes it turns off. It's not like my car disables my brakes when cruise control is on.

Also this still requires a Licensed person to operate a vehicle. 

 

Why can't we look at the light side of the argument, that automation will most likely preventing things like this from happening: http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/17/local/me-smcrash17

relax^^ that was just a comment on the +/- 2m accuracy of the maps. i've seen a blind guy drive it without incident. so im sure it's fairly safe.

Im just hoping for alot more testing to be done Before these cars are available to the general public.

[unknown566]

friend who works on a Mine site said they tried automatic trucks as a trial , they went back to human drivers. because while they drive perfect they follow the same identical line over and over, which causes the road to wear and potholes and big ruts which were causing the trucks to  bounce around and drop stuff. basically it was a failure

 

Interesting, I forgot about accounting for wear over time. Especially when you only use one exact path. It's similar to the concept of a waterfall or dripping water over one spot for an extended period of time.

[042]

I doubt that. I got 100% on my driving test going for my P's test (Australia) & on my learners the driving instructor said I should look into becoming a driving instructor for a job, He must've thought I was good.

[Chevaishr]

But it's a Prius......ewww

i once gave my van a prius to eat... was gone in 50 seconds