Video: Google’s self-driving car meets cyclists and out-performs far too many human drivers

mrmo wrote:

why should the car be able to differentiate between a horse or a cyclist? To be fair why should it differentiate between any object? It is in the way so avoid it.

Or are you one of those people who will slow to 2mpg go as far to the other side of the road as possible when you meet a car, but do nothing when you meet a cyclist?

Horses, cyclists, pedestrians and (heavens, no) caravans behave rather differently. I'd rather have my robocar be able to distinguish, and know the more common "faulty" actions to better avoid them.

For example, passing a cyclist at 30 mph probably means simply giving enough room, with a horse it's giving the same amount of space (more if possible) and also slowing to 10 mph. Also, the cyclist will usually only veer off on a tangent, or go straight down. The horse may bolt at 90 degrees, or even turn around.

Maybe that helps explain why a car needs to be able to figure out what an obstruction actually is?

@mrmo

What I'm trying to say is that these cars have the equivalent of really bad eyesight, if a human had such bad eyesight they wouldn't be allowed on the roads.

Like people don't 'see' the light that hits their retina - they see the brains interpretation of that information. The google cars don't see the nice hd video feeds they get, what they see is satnav info mixed with laser-distance measurement info and software interpretations of the images received. Writing software that recognises objects in video is very hard to do.

Watch the video again, and realise the difficulty the computer has recognising cars etc. Can the cars computer even tell the difference between a car and a picture of a car? Or a car at a distance and a box etc?

What happens when it snows? that's taxing enough for the human brain, I'd bet these cars can't handle snow on the ground + heavy snow falling.

giobox wrote:

Impressive stuff. However the roads around Mountain View in California where they are trailing this right now are nothing like the UK - perfectly perpendicular junctions, no potholes to dodge, very wide lanes.

....

I can't help but wonder how well the software they are developing would work when faced with central London, or a winding country road...

Well to be fair to them, that's typically how you develop stuff and it is on their doorstep. Start simple, build up. The sign and gesture (signal) recognition looked good, as did the handling of the traffic cones (something it would have to do a lot over here in the UK).

As for windy roads, the cars have already done a lot of miles including winding roads (they do exist in the California) e.g. gone around Lake Tahoe, which has some lovely roads up and down and through the trees, and even down Lombard Street, SF (something more than a few humans seem to have a problem with).

So, yeah, they're probably not ready for prime-time yet, but I don't see a huge difference from a algorithmic/programming point of view between parts of California, Nevada and Florida and a lot of driving here. London ? That'd be a challenge mind - for Californian or computer.

Looks to be on the right track and certainly needs more miles, which is why Google are pressing for more legislation to allow driverless vehicles. It is getting closer, quickly though - and while I might have issues with some of what Google get up to, their R&D department is top notch.

giobox wrote:

One thing is for sure, it will be a great time to be a lawyer when these things hit the street for real.

Too true alas...

There was a case a few years back in this country! Car driving up the M1 and the guy couldnt turn cruise control off/slow it odwn. Seem to remember he had a police escort until it ran out of petrol or something.

Thankfully these things are rare but do happen.

Sure, your dystopian vision is frghtening but there is a different possible future - far fewer motor vehicles on our roads. It's been argued, by Google and others, that driverless cars will spell an end to private car ownership and public bus services. Instead, there will be fleets of robo-taxis, working 24/7, carrying passengers from point to point and fully networked to maximise journey sharing. If that utopian vision was to happen, I reckon it's at least 20 years away.
And cyclists would certainly miss the cheery banter of taxi drivers.

cycling science - the book wrote:

Sure, your dystopian vision is frghtening but there is a different possible future - far fewer motor vehicles on our roads. It's been argued, by Google and others, that driverless cars will spell an end to private car ownership and public bus services. Instead, there will be fleets of robo-taxis, working 24/7, carrying passengers from point to point and fully networked to maximise journey sharing. If that utopian vision was to happen, I reckon it's at least 20 years away.
And cyclists would certainly miss the cheery banter of taxi drivers.

I love the dream and as a driver who doesnt love driving (due to idiots/traffic/tedium), i hope they're right. Sadly i suspect they've got one hell of a battle to convince much of the public to make the change. I suspect the task will be tough in the UK but no doubt far tougher in the USA where it was an immense battle to convince drivers to use seat belts.
Although it would be lovely to think that we had no more idiots drinking and driving.

SB76 wrote:

Sadly i suspect they've got one hell of a battle to convince much of the public to make the change. I suspect the task will be tough in the UK but no doubt far tougher in the USA where it was an immense battle to convince drivers to use seat belts.
Although it would be lovely to think that we had no more idiots drinking and driving.

There are so many potential reasons why these will be attractive to consumers though:
* Cheaper insurance premiums
* Better fuel economy
* "Drive" whilst drunk
* "Drive" whilst asleep (overnight travel to the South of France )
* "Drive" without a license.

drfabulous0 wrote:

So who wants a self riding bike then?

It's a fair point. I'm sure auto-pilot e-bikes would be welcomed by some for the commute, but if society removes the ability to drive for pleasure, why would it leave alone the ability to ride for pleasure?

Sh*t sh*t sh*t! Stop, stop now, no more of this self-driving car madness!

drfabulous0 wrote:

So who wants a self riding bike then?

Self-walking roboshoes?

Sub5orange wrote:

I love driving. Amazing technology though. I would prefer to have a choice of several self drive options. For instance a switch to choose full self drive or partial self drive . In the latter the human could remain largely in control of the vehicle but the computers could adjust speed and steering .Eg that way it could be ensured that a car only overtakes a cyclist giving plenty of space, or prevent people from Generally driving stupidly, without completely transforming the nature of driving.

I can see the first stage being the Volvo approach, basically if the driver tries to do somethings the car over-rules. Quite how it works?

Try and tailgate and the car intervenes, exceed the speed limit the car intervenes, etc. Or if the driver starts to weave, i.e. tiredness, the car makes decisions and either compensates or stops.

Problem is cars are a tool for getting from a to b, but they are also an ego extension for too many people.

IanW1968 wrote:

Bikebot has it, spot on.

The manufacturers want to sell cars and the present message "this car gives you the freedom of the road, enlarge your man part etc etc" isn't going to work with a self driving car. They may pick up a few sales from additional safety features but that's it, why spend money on something that upsets your market.

I can see them setting up some new brands, maybe sell them as taxis and it will be sooner rather than later google "internet of everything".

I'm inclined to disagree. Car marketing is pretty clever - if as I said earlier the tech is switched on/off as the owner chooses then it could still be a car for those who enjoy driving, but also with the benefits of a train (you can sleep/read/work/be pissed) without the downsides of a train (lateness, lack of seating, shared space, the inevitable puking drunk) for when you can't be arsed to drive.

As the technology matures, no more tedium of parking as it could drop you off then go park itself, and no more Dad's taxi for teenage daughters either as it could drive itself while you stay home!

I'd love it, although would certainly want to retain the option of taking control for when the tarmac turns twisty.

allez neg wrote:

IanW1968 wrote:

Bikebot has it, spot on.

The manufacturers want to sell cars and the present message "this car gives you the freedom of the road, enlarge your man part etc etc" isn't going to work with a self driving car. They may pick up a few sales from additional safety features but that's it, why spend money on something that upsets your market.

I can see them setting up some new brands, maybe sell them as taxis and it will be sooner rather than later google "internet of everything".

I'm inclined to disagree. Car marketing is pretty clever - if as I said earlier the tech is switched on/off as the owner chooses then it could still be a car for those who enjoy driving, but also with the benefits of a train (you can sleep/read/work/be pissed) without the downsides of a train (lateness, lack of seating, shared space, the inevitable puking drunk) for when you can't be arsed to drive.

As the technology matures, no more tedium of parking as it could drop you off then go park itself, and no more Dad's taxi for teenage daughters either as it could drive itself while you stay home!

I'd love it, although would certainly want to retain the option of taking control for when the tarmac turns twisty.

I do wonder though whether this would result in an increase in the number of cars. If you're rich, why not buy a car for each of your kids, regardless of their age? Send one to collect something (person at the other end would need to help, obviously!) when you're at work. The limiting factor isn't how many seats you can put your bum on, it's just financial.

SB76 wrote:

The commercial airliners, most notably have developed very sophisticated systems to do alot of the flying, even the landing. It works well but not without some pretty fatal accidents. The Frankfurt air show is the most notable. That led to Airbus changing the polling system that decided what to do from 3 machines to 5 then 7. In that case, the airliner and system had undergone many million hours of testing yet it had a massive flaw.
Whilst self drive cars would be a serious step forward and step change, massive concern would exist regarding the true actual safety of the driver not having any involvement.

It is true that self drive cars might go wrong, but then again i don't think a self drive car would take a selfie, post it to Facebook and then run off the road.

The major issue we have at the moment is most drivers can not be trusted to obey the law. Why do we actually need speed bumps as an example, what do they achieve? In theory there is no need, set the speed limit on a road and the driver will obey the limit, pay attention to pedestrians other road users etc. However it doesn't happen.

Another example is driving in fog, drivers can not be trusted to drive at a safe speed, again the number of crashes in poor weather underlines this point.

So what is the solution, accept crashes and poor driving, or deal with the weakest link in the car?

There is absolutely no denying that self drive cars would be 'safer', the tech is definitely good enough now to be able to react quick enough as in quicker than us.
The slight issue is any inherent bugs within the system would exist across all vehicles rather than as is currently the case in humans in a case by case basis.
My views aren't anti the technology more an awareness of the testing that would be required would be massive and then the next battle is that of mind. It being safe is different to people believing it to be safe.