Story 2015-09-09 KZ39 Google’s driverless cars run into problems with human drivers

Google’s driverless cars run into problems with human drivers

in google on (#KZ39)
Since 2009, Google self-driving cars have been in 16 crashes, mostly fender-benders. Google claims a human was at fault in every single case. While quick to blame human drivers and even to label them as “idiotic” Google admits the need for “smoothing out” the relationship between the car’s software and humans. Google cars regularly take quick, evasive maneuvers or exercise caution in ways that are both cautious, but also out of step with the other vehicles on the road, clashing with actual human behavior.

One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward — paralyzing Google’s robot. Humans and machines, it seems, are an imperfect mix. A 2012 insurance industry study that surprised researchers found that cars with lane departure warning systems experienced a slightly higher crash rate than cars without them. That highlights a clash between the way humans actually behave and how the cars wrongly interpret that behavior.

On a recent outing with New York Times journalists, the Google driverless car took two evasive maneuvers that simultaneously displayed how the car errs on the cautious side, but also how jarring that experience can be. In one maneuver, it swerved sharply in a residential neighborhood to avoid a car that was poorly parked. Then as it approached a red light the laser system sensed that a vehicle coming the other direction was approaching the red light at higher-than-safe speeds. The Google car immediately jerked to the right in case it had to avoid a collision. In the end, the oncoming car did stop well in time.
Reply 9 comments

Seen this (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-10 14:51 (#M1F2)

It is called a kamikaze lane change. Humans do it to. Perhaps not as often or as unpredictably.

I don't understand (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-10 19:00 (#M2AN)

Why google is even trying to do this. Driving a car usually has very little to do with steering etc. It's mostly observation and communication. How can a robot with no intelligence can interpret the nonspoken language, is beyond me. After we have robots that can communicate, we can expect them to be reasonable drivers. Until then, just keep them in your own land, google.

Re: I don't understand (Score: 1)

by on 2015-09-11 01:08 (#M379)

Perhaps an advantage to having only robot drivers, would be that cars could communicate directly with each other, instead of our language. It would be faster and share far more information than our measly words and glances could. If one could guarantee uninterrupted communication, it could eliminate stop signs: why slow down if you know the exact speed and timing of other approaching vehicles, a slight speed shift and you would weave right through.

I agree with your sentiment, its a little too early to be putting these on the road. There has not been enough background in the field (compared to, say aviation design) to find the ghost-in-the-machine kinks. Great, nothing major has happened so far, but its just a matter of time before we get a story along the lines of "google car makes sudden left for cheaper gas on 4 lane highway - 12 dead." or, "car mistakes other vehicle's racing stripes for road stripes, crashing head-on" :)

Re: I don't understand (Score: 3, Funny)

by on 2015-09-12 00:20 (#M6KS)

Driving a car usually has very little to do with steering
You must be a TERRIBLE driver...

Sweet (Score: 2, Funny)

by on 2015-09-10 19:46 (#M2F5)

Google has duplicated my driving technique. I think that validates my driving as algorithmicly perfect.

needs to be better than me at what I want (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-12 03:59 (#M6X9)

What I want is speed.

For example, suppose you need to parallel park on the opposite side of the road. Normally you have to find a place to take a U-turn, then pull up ahead of the spot, then back in, and so on. It's slow and somebody might take your spot. A good robot car should be able to do that in one step, drifting into the spot.

Re: needs to be better than me at what I want (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-12 21:36 (#M8T2)

As I understand it, on average it is much better than you: you're not as good as you think.

Re: needs to be better than me at what I want (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-09-13 18:58 (#MAZ0)

The tire companies will love you -- after a bit of drifting you will have to buy a new set of tires...

More to the point, estimating the tire-road sliding friction in advance is very difficult. The parking spot might have some oil leaked by previous cars. The last bit of that beautiful drift, into the parallel parking spot, will end by slamming up against the curb and breaking your car.