[Closed] How to confuse Google's self-driving cars

Interesting. It's clearly a rather clever bit of kit.

It is a very clever bit of kit but still not as clever as a human driver would be.

For all the shortcomings that we perceive in human drivers they are MUCH smarter than autonomous cars are.

Interesting.

Presumably in real life a light would flash on the dashboard and the driver take over if the car got confused rather than wait?

I'm curious to see the outcome of the first crash with a normal car, could make it interesting given the amount of data the insurers will have available to pour over, not just "the car did this", but "the car was thinking this and did this because".

For all the shortcomings that we perceive in human drivers they are MUCH smarter than autonomous cars are.

-A computer has more information to make the decision on, both because it has few/no blind spots, it knows where they are perfectly, and it's not texting on it's phone.

-It won't make stupid decisions like to pass cyclists with 6" to spare at 60mph.

Drivers might be able to apply some common sense to unusual situations (2 cars meeting on a narrow lane with no markings, or a fixie track standing at a 4 way junction with no priority for example), but the other 99.95% of the time I'd rather they were driven by computers!

This is why they need so much testing and its good they have now encoutered this situation.

As the guy in the artical say though, I think 99% of the time driverless cars are gogin to be safer.

JAG - Member

...human drivers...are MUCH smarter than autonomous cars

or rather, they *can* be, if they're not drunk, sleepy, checking facebook, driving like a ***t, 'blinded by the sun', etc. etc.

humans aren't getting better at driving, intelligent cars have only just started.

It is a very clever bit of kit but still not as clever as a human driver would be.

For all the shortcomings that we perceive in human drivers they are MUCH smarter than autonomous cars are.

I think you need to define what you mean by [i]smarter[/i] in this instance.

so only fixy riders can track stand then...

Can't bloody wait for these to take over the roads!

[i]It is a very clever bit of kit but still not as clever as a human driver would be[/i]

Nor as stupid/arrogant/ignorant/discourteous/aggressive/etc...

so only fixy riders can track stand then...

For riders of fixed-gear bikes, it can be a fun game to never have to put one’s foot down on the pavement, but instead balance at stop signs and red lights.

Pff.. you don't need a fixie to do this! Or am I just a riding god?

Regarding humans - they are much smarter, yes, but also much less reliable...

Drivers might be able to apply some common sense to unusual situations (2 cars meeting on a narrow lane with no markings

Interesting point. A lot of this work is being done by Google, presumably in America on American roads which are far more open and straightforward than our mediaeval stuff. They don't really have single track roads like we do.

gosh, Google's cars have driven 'more than a million miles'.

again, gosh.

Can't wait for self drive cars; I can have a snooze on the way to work! That said it is going to involve a complete change to the laws covering pedestrians otherwise in town environments there will be plenty of twunts just walking across the road knowing the automated car will stop for them.

I'm looking forward to this becoming an new sport "confuse Google".

I don't see what need these driverless car will be filling. Other than the desire to see if its technologically possible to do it. What problem are they going to solve.

Is this not a case of a solution looking for a problem ?

I don't want to be in a bus / car / plane / train that cant be overruled by a human.

@Gotama

I'm not sure if it's nationwide, state/territory wide or just in certain towns/cities but when I've been in Canada if a pedestrian even looks like they are going to cross the road then traffic stops.

Quite disconcerting at first. I also thought that it would be quite dangerous to get used to then return to the UK ...

JAG - Member
...human drivers...are MUCH smarter than autonomous cars

Awaits someone saying how they averted danger by using their high performance car to accelerate out of trouble.

so only fixie riders do track stands?

I don't see what need these driverless car will be filling.

Making life easier by getting you to work through crap traffic without you having to do anything; and being safer at the same time.

I don't want to be in a bus / car / plane / train that cant be overruled by a human.

No-one said there couldn't be manual controls. I think Google are working on one that doesn't have them, but they are perfectly possible and you can bet the one BMW are working on will have them.

Oh and don't go on the DLR in London 🙂

I cant see how self driving cars are going to operate in busy urban environments. They will be so frustrating for the drivers by utilising safe behaviours around high volumes of vulnerable road users that drivers will disengage the autonomous functions, thus negating completely any safety benefits in precisily the environment those benefits are needed most.

Of course a real intelligent self driving car will, when programmed to drive a mile across town, just say "use your bike lardass" and powerdown.

@Trimix

There's the old joke: What's the most dangerous part of a car?

Answer: The nut that holds the steering wheel.

The problem they are trying to solve is road injury/fatality. In the US they have a much higher accident rate than here in the UK (which despite what we might think is one of the safest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate)

I cant see how self driving cars are going to operate in busy urban environments.

They already are, aren't they?

Awaits next article when a trackstanding cyclist is in a standoff with a Google car, and a robot driver gets out, shouts, "What do you think you are playing at, you ****ing ****er!". Pushes the cyclist over, and drives off.

Cough - UK has less road traffic deaths...that is absolutely not the same as it being one of the "safest", although a lot of road safety organisations make that mistake. UK traffic deaths have fallen mainly because most of the targets have removed themselves from the killing zone.

I think it'll catch on sooner than some people expect, I'd not be surprised if it's not standard on higher end models very quickly (Volvo have a target of killing no one by 2020, although they've admitted it's looking too ambitious now it gives an inkling as to how close they see it, their system seems to be more the opposite though, it's constantly plotting escape routes so if something surprises the driver it'll take over and avoid it.

I'm not sure if it's nationwide, state/territory wide or just in certain towns/cities but when I've been in Canada if a pedestrian even looks like they are going to cross the road then traffic stops.

It's the same in some countries with presumed liability. In Norway kids are barely taught the green cross code, because drivers are taught to stop if someones crossing.

gwaelod - Member

I cant see how self driving cars are going to operate in busy urban environments.

my guess is 'better than humans'.

google have been on this for what, 5years? (ten?) and their solution for the most part, works well.

give them another 5 years, and see where that gets us.

True autonomous cars may struggle in busy urban environments in the UK but we should also acknowledge that car centric busy urban centres don't really work.

I'd say it's differently intelligent to a person. Clearly it's more observant, although I'm sure many would refute that! In this instance that leads to over hesitation.

what problem are they going to solve

If you don't think 2,000 deaths, 1,000s of serious injuries, 100s of millions in the associated costs of those accidents are a problem then they won't be, no.

(And these are just UK figures)

I cant see how self driving cars are going to operate in busy urban environments.

30 years ago, I remember getting a phone at my parents house, that instead of a [i]dial[/i] had push buttons, AND no cord.

And 20 years ago I could not understand how a 'mobile phone' would work...I mean, being able to make a phone call, walking on a hill or down a street? Crazy idea.

Then someone a couple of years ago said that phone would be able to navigate me, by satellite, with a scrolling colour map. Again, barely believable - for free.

Progress.

This is all fine and dandy but just yesterday I averted danger by using my high performance car to accelerate out of trouble.*

*may be a lie to stop STATO having to wait.

I like the fact that it stopped as it wasn't sure - this is NOT what a human driver would do, but will be safer. I don't think driverless cars will catch on, but this isn't the reason.

And it is rural environments that will be the real challenge to driverless cars IMO.
[img] [/img]

Where do you pass?
[img] [/img]

Danny79 has it. tight urban enviroment is not really where using a car makes sense. Most of the issues raised are more to do with using an unsutable tool for the job and our insistance to use a car for all journey types.

That Washington Post article reeks of google's / alphabet's marketing dept.

And it is rural environments that will be the real challenge to driverless cars IMO.

Looks a lot easier than the average city center parallel park, which new cars will do for you.

Where do you pass?

Over here in Sweden we do a little bit of work with Volvo and their driverless cars.

The main benefit as I could see was that most cars spend most of their time parked, doing nothing. Automonous cars can be shared by mutiple people very easily .I.e drop you off at work , go pick someone else up, do things all day and then when you need a car to take you home one is there for you again. So ownership of cars would in theory reduce significantly, as would the need for so much parking and general car infrastructure. Also, accidents are in general human error. Insurance ecompanies will prefer to insure a computer than a human.

Two hilarious problems we saw were that a car stops dead for a plastic bag blowing in the wind across a road, and my favourite.... Imagine a policeman standing in the road blocking traffic. The car sees the policemen and simply drives around the obstacle. haha!

They are the future though!

Where do you pass?

I guess it would quite easy to program the car to know that on single lane roads it should use the verge to slowly negotiate around another vehicle, id be willing to bet it could probably do a better job when the road is narrow with overgrown verges as its sensors could penetrate the grass and spot hidden rocks or dips, it could probably analyise the ground too to determine a spot that was solid enough to support its weight.

Of course there are going to be situations where it needs the driver to make a choice or input additional commands, but these will likely be while stationary. We are very much getting to the stage of 'if you can imagine it, we can make it' for this sort of technology.

[i]The main benefit as I could see was that most cars spend most of their time parked, doing nothing. Automonous cars can be shared by mutiple people very easily .I.e drop you off at work , go pick someone else up, do things all day and then when you need a car to take you home one is there for you again. So ownership of cars would in theory reduce significantly, as would the need for so much parking and general car infrastructure. Also, accidents are in general human error. Insurance ecompanies will prefer to insure a computer than a human.[/I]

Dads' Taxi would be no more, I could just send it to pick up my son - or it could drop me at work and then take him to college. And then either pick me back up on the way or take him home and come back for me later 🙂

[img] [/img]

Presumably the drink driving laws would still apply to an autonomous vehicle, as the human inside would still be in charge.

Or can we all get bladdered and tell the car to take us home?

Presumably the drink driving laws would still apply to an autonomous vehicle, as the human inside would still be in charge.

Or can we all get bladdered and tell the car to take us home?

In the FAR future when the car is completely autonomous then dont see why not, car logs would show if you had intervened. By then id guess the car would have enough sensor tech to know you were over the limit and ignore your attempts to take control.

if they're confused by fixed bikes, they probably spontaneously combust when they see a fat bike.

Anyone else think that mr fixie rider may not be as stable in a track stand as he thinks he is?

It's not a bad decision really. If I see someone trackstanding and wobbling about a bit I'd probably slow or stop in case they decided to have an unplanned dismount in front of me.

As for the single lane road postulated above, no way you could program a car to use the verge - think about what you'd do as a driver - is that verge in fact a ditch? is it boggy? is it the sort where you can stick a wing mirror in a hedge or is it a solid wall? No way you'd be able to have that sort of thing automated.

As for the single lane road postulated above, no way you could program a car to use the verge - think about what you'd do as a driver - is that verge in fact a ditch? is it boggy? is it the sort where you can stick a wing mirror in a hedge or is it a solid wall? No way you'd be able to have that sort of thing automated.

All your examples are easily resolved with the existing sensors and collision avoidance algorithms in the cars at the moment to avoid other road users, they can 'see' far more than a human driver and judge distance to a mm. All it would take is a bit of programming on how to deal with another car on a head on collision and how much of the verge to use. They can already distinguish surfaces and the military stuff is programmed for offroad driving.

The things it probably cant do now is deal with a driver in a fauxXfaux who wont go off the road enough for fear of getting their wheels dirty, or know to reverse (or expect the other driver to reverse) to a nearby passing point.