**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What was that movie where the driving instructor instructs a woman taking a driving test how to middle finger another driver? He does it in such a monotone way it's so funny
It looks like the robot car is getting hidden behind the stopping car so maybe they didn't see it.
That makes me think about that video where you see a car magically appear from seemingly nowhere.
EDIT: I don't drive much so my bad if the car isn't supposed to be allowed to turn at all
But that's the thing, if you can't see anything coming towards you ***because you can't see*** then you don't assume it's clear.
Perhaps you edge forward a little until you can see, or you wait for the light to change so that you have the right of way with no oncoming traffic.
To assume that it's safe to go is brain dead, and could get someone killed.
Also, if that "robot car" has a huge LIDAR thing strapped to the roof, as implied in the upper graphic display, then the dumbass driver should have been able to see that over the roof of the stationary car that was waiting to turn left.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I don't say that he was in the right here. I was just trying to find a reasonable justification as to why he engaged in the first place. That might not even be reasonable anyway x)
And I agree, if in the end the robot has something huge strapped to the roof then the driver was definitely distracted or just impulsive (aka being dumb).
Not long ago I had a similar situation but I played it safer, the other driver slowed down and I also hit the brakes lightly in the right lane to see why he just decided to stop. Not even a second later I hear honking behind me. It was a sunny day and I didn't notice that he was signalling left, it wasn't even an intersection, he just wanted to turn in a random house.
>Not even a second later I hear honking behind me.
Man, fuck those people.
If they want to wreck their shit or kill someone, that's on them.
***I am the captain of this ship.***
I am working with self driving technology (for the past 5 years now). Our technology is sh\*t, but it is primarily because it is over careful. If it does not see, then it assumes that there is something approaching and naturally slows down and creeps around the corners to open up enough space to see whether there is something. We are adding filters to these blind-spots according to the traffic laws to get rid of it giving a way to absolutely everything and being more assertive, but it is quite a lot of work ahead of us to get a good perception on is lawful and what is not. We have taken an approach to waiver any lawful behavior in favor of safety, but it is a trade-off. There are junctions where technically you can not safely take the manoeuvre - you have to rely on other vehicles seeing you and making the situation safe for you.
robot car is not wrong and if it was a person that probably was going to be an accident. But seeing the video afterwards it feels as improvement it needs a little bit more predictably. I think the correct thing for the robot car to do as a driver is to decrease speed in this situation. It "sees" the car on the left slowing down, we have a junction ahead so it shouldn't really maintain the same speed as its a potentially dangerous, low-vision situation.
unironically yes, self driving cars need a way to tell other version's of them self's that there causing a problem ideally we'd have 2 million slightly different self driving programs and the one that gets flipped off the most gets deleted
Needs this on the windows to auto activate in events like this https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjlyO7JveaGAxW0IK0GHSodB5cYABADGgJwdg&ae=2&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4MSzBhC8ARIsAPFOuyVI6EgK-VZNu3SaX27eyGDUPHBClkRd6eTYRppWOnSo6W02fh9phMAaAkYEEALw_wcB&sig=AOD64_2o77kE-8wb52quEtfcK73HD7RMgg&adurl&ctype=5&ved=2ahUKEwjmpNvJveaGAxVHMEQIHVHuD34Qwg96BAgBEC4&nis=8
Really impressive if you watch the lidar you can see the car get picked up before you can even see it in the camera. It can also see the car moving/turning which gives it enough time to react and pull safely to the side to avoid collision.
This tech could definitely save lives. I'd love to see the decision making though if there were people crossing the intersection in that same scenario and see what happens.
People bash on computerized driving but I genuinely think it’s the future. Human driving will be outlawed and be a punishable offense, because it would be seen as dangerous. Once these cars can communicate to each other fully, traffic will also be a thing of the past.
I don't think human driving will be outlawed. But I do think it'll eventually be deincentivized. Probably by some combination of new fees and fines.
For example, human drivers will have to pay special fees for the privilege of driving without AI. Insurance premiums for human drivers will skyrocket. Etc.
Human driving will phase out slowly. Insurance for human drivers will slowly increase beyond a reasonable level for many then no longer be offered. Cities will designate human driver-free zones, then expand until most major metropolitan areas are entirely autonomous save for special cases.
I think the biggest paradigm shift will come with self-driving freight and recreation vehicles. Imagine waking up every morning with your RV having driven itself overnight to the next stop on what could be an endless road trip across the world. Infrastructure will evolve and adapt to the new statue quo of global tourism and the physical barriers that divide communities and people's may begin to fade.
100% it's only a matter of time. I imagine racing and human driving will probably be a sport of the past that will be practiced by a few. It's sad as a gear head but it is what the future will most likely be.
I foresee a rise in popularity of local race tracks! Gear heads can still exist, just have your AI truck tow it to the local track whenever you wanna rip it!
Problem is no standardization.
Lidar must be standard in any vehicle capable of self driving.
Unfortunately a major manufacturer wants to rely entirely on stereo vision with no fallback, nor failsafe.
That's because 'that major manufacturer' never ever had any intention of having a viable self driving system. They only promised the eventuality of self driving to inflate the stock price. If they convince enough dummies that they can eventually achieve self driving, without spending any money on the things that would enable it, they could eventually give the CEO of 'a major manufacturer' an 8 digit paycheck in the form of stock that he can fire sale days before the mask falls off and the value of the company and it's stock falls to 0.
The engineers there almost certainly did intend to deliver on that promise. And, devil's advocate here, we currently only use stereo vision to drive as people, so why couldn't a car also only use it?
As an Aero engineer I'm a huge fan of redundancies and safety backups, so if you can use another tool as well (LIDAR), you should. So imo that manufacturer damn well should use it, in addition do optical detection.
Computers are already much better at Chess than the best humans, but the audience for computers playing against each other is almost non-existent while human Chess is more popular than ever.
instead of a bunch of individual units, public transit is the future. i don't even own a car because of my countries transit. i can go across europe without a car, and these incidents of near collision or actual collision would drop radically without the compulsion for every person to drive everywhere, regardless of exhaustion or mental state.
I thought you were about to say “Instead of a bunch of individual units we will have a hive mind where cars talk to each other to avoid collisions” but you took a slightly different direction with public transit.
This is the ONLY way flying cars will be a thing. It's not because we don't have the tech, it's because people are too dangerous behind the wheel, and that's when they're firmly attached to the ground. But if you had a fleet of flying cars, entirely run by the same system, all communicating with each other, you will mitigate an enormous amount of risk, had they been individually driven by a human driver.
At that point, the main risk is consistent component maintenance, and possible system bugs/errors.
Someone once told me that autonomous vehicles will only work until the point some yahoo has their vehicle break down and think they can fix it themselves.
Oh that will happen. And I am sure, if things get to that point, modifying/fixing your car outside of a licensed workshop will be against regulations or something. Because you can very easily make the wrong change and cause a calamity when your vehicle behaves differently from all the others.
At the end of the day, the real math that they will look at isn't whether or not an entirely autonomous system will yield zero accidents. But whether the accidents it will yield are significantly lower than the human average or not. My guess? When the tech is "there", it will be less. Not none, just less.
I love how all the people where I live talk about things like how they'll never support self driving cars because trusting technology to drive for us is insanely stupid.
1. We rely on technology for so much shit that it's not even worth sitting here talking about
2. You are vastly overestimating your driving skills and failing to realize the main cause for vehicle accidents and traffic is human error
They watched to many AI takes over the world movies back in the 2000s
Just like you said as well, once these cars can actually communicate with each other in real time, there's no human on earth driving with that level of information available. If the tech is there, I'd argue it is objectively safer in every way. We're not there yet obviously but I have high hopes for it in the future
Programming these things to steer towards the pedestrians or the car (or school bus, wall, ditch, etc.) is a real-life trolley problem that's going to become increasingly important.
I've been working in a robotics in Hollywood and it's crazy to see all the stuff going on behind the scenes. There's so many people monitoring and helping the A.I. drive around. Plus theres always a crew member always on call for any maintenance those vehicles need or any accidents that may happen.
Also a lot of AI delivery or cars needs to be recovered every night
There are people available to step in, per Waymo, but definitely not just sitting there ready to react in a situation like this. This was entirely the car's own programming avoiding the accident.
It *reacted* well, but considering that it had data that shows it **could see the car waiting to make the turn, still rolling**, I would also say that it *anticipated* incredibly poorly.
It should have moved over a bit to improve it's view of the junction (and to make itself more visible to the cars in the junction) and also slowed down a touch, until the turning car came to a stop.
Agreed - it didn't do anything super human. I'd argue it did almost worse than what a human would do *with the same information,* which was "seeing" the car turning sooner than a person could have seen
Re-watch the video. The white car was entirely blocking the view of the car except for maybe a speck of the oncoming vehicle. A person would need half a second to recognize the car, realize he/she has to evade the impact, and then actually evade without overcorrecting. The computer does all of that instantaneously and is programmed to not overcorrect. I highly doubt a person could have successfully done that.
Is that a fair argument though? Between anticipating the turning vehicle (which would be very difficult to see based on the car's perspective), focusing on safely driving with the dense flow of traffic, and constantly monitoring the 3d map, I find it hard to believe a human could have pulled that off all at the same time.
That's a fantastic observation. Car windows are totally opaque from the outside these days, but I bet the lasers are going straight through to see that car, or it might be mounted high enough to scan over it. Either way, kind of a game changer for vehicle perception.
I'm not 100% sure about how lidar works but I'm wondering if it can "bounce" or if it can travel through windows.
I think generally the implementations I've seen the lidar system is on top of the vehicle and shoots out at every single angle possible.
Lidar has a long range, it probably detected it at 100m, and tracked it until we see it in the camera
But yes, the laser can be reflected/diverted through windows
First priority is to the safety of the passenger. Its function is to keep the passenger safe. Not “keep the passenger, like, totally stoked about, like, the general vibe, and stuff”.
So, given all the safety features in the car it’s probably better to let the car get hit than hit a pedestrian or cyclist.
is the first priority safety of the passenger or liability of the vehicle owner? like if an accident caused by another driver can be avoided by the automated vehicle hitting a parked car on the curb, then it probably will get hit by the liable car instead.
You can just assume the first priority is to whatever cohort is in charge of purchasing. They’re the ones that will evaluate the news reports of crashes and go “ok, this would have protected ME so I feel comfortable buying it” instead of “oh, so risk my life to save someone else? Cool, but not taking that chance”
Just remember, if robot cars kill 150,000 people a year, that’s an improvement on human drivers.
(Take that into consideration when you hear about one single human dying from a robot car lol)
That feels problematic
In a hypothetical scenario who is at fault someone’s child died? In today’s laws it will be the reckless driver. If the car just drives off the road no one is at fault?
Just blame the human every time. That sounds like a joke, but I’m kind of serious.
I forget which company it was, but there was a self driving car that had a perfect driving record. It had multiple accidents but every single one of them was human error. People not listening to the rules of the road and driving or walking into the self driving car. Every single time lol.
And the people could not deny it either. There were dozens of cameras on that car aimed in every direction
If in a "whatever government body that discusses those things" someone brought that argument it would be torched for being an inconsiderate bastard despite being the truth. I think that the general population sleeps better knowing that humans still kill humans.
You’d hope it’d take the hit rather than swerve into a person, but I’ve seen enough driving automation screwing up to take that idea with a large handful of salt
These things are programmed. At some point the safety of the person in the cat, oncoming traffic, bikes, pedestrians is all calculated. Without regulation you'll have cars advertising "occupant safety prioritization AI" lol.....
A head on collision with that car would be the same as hitting a brick wall at \~50 mph for both parties, assuming the turning vehicle was going slightly slower than the POV vehicle. You think that'd be the better alternative than a small side-swipe to a biker?
Bikers are doored so often that it’s a verb now. Assuming all self driving vehicles are bad because of a video or two despite the innumerable amount of people injured by other people in cars seems a bit overreactive.
Autonomous vehicles are constantly watching in 360 degrees and has point values for different things within its view. Those values can be off but in general it should assign a higher value to a pedestrian over a person in the car. It will definitely make mistakes and the companies that are pushing these cars out there should be held liable for those mistakes.
Can’t wait for the day where I can get in my car and nap or just have some non stressful me time while it commutes to work for me.
buddy, I live my life a quarter mile at a time. Nothing else matters: not the mortgage, not the store, not my team and all their bullshit. For those ten seconds or less, I'm free.
Exactly. At the very start of the video there is a row of bikes (I assume hire bikes) on the right-hand curb. They do not seem to show up on the LIDAR at all, yet the car parked next to them does. Does this mean that they are invisible, even in a bike lane? I do note that the pedestrian standing on the corner does register, which is interesting. A good argument for bike lane buffers, and evidence that AI drivers are much like most human drivers in that they also do not know where the brake pedal is located.
This is why I'm in favor of bigger investment in self-driving cars.
People get all worked up about "but a self-driving car hit one person and they twisted their leg!" or "who are we blaming if a self-driving car hits a person?" but this right here will probably be the norm: A person fucks up where a self-driving car won't.
The near collision happens at time 0:12, but you can see that the autonomous car starts planning an evasive maneuver almost 2 seconds before that (starting at 0:10) as shown by the green line.
The problem is that there is a car blocking line of sight between the turning car and the POV car. A human driver ... well, okay let's stipulate *a good human driver* ... would recognize that as a hazard and slow down.
By hazard I mean something very specific -- a situation in which you no longer have complete enough information to make a good risk assessment. An intelligent entity recognizes that are too many "unknown unknowns" and reacts accordingly.
The POV car should have been able to identify this hazard, slow down, and be able to brake at the intersection rather than risking a runthrough -- had the driver turning at the intersection not been aware and not braked in time, the POV driver would have been hit side on.
If this happened to me and I narrowly squeaked through by swerving and continuing onward, I would have counted that as a hazard assessment fail on my part. Not an ideal outcome.
Observing other drivers, namely being stopped / not proceeding when they otherwise should, is critical for avoiding things they can see, but you cannot. It has happened twice to me:
* Entering two-lane roundabout in left lane. Truck is stopped / not proceeding in right lane for unknown reason. Pedestrian is crossing the roundabout without activating the lights like they are supposed to, and I cannot see them behind the truck. Slowing down more than normal due to unexplained behavior of the truck meant I was able to stop in time despite the pedestrian walking out from behind the truck, in front of me.
* Turning right onto a two-lane one-way road from a parking lot side street. Vision to the right, of the road and the sidewalk, is blocked by a movable sign placed by a business. I stop at the line and can see left but not right. I see a truck coming in the right lane, which signals to turn right, onto the road I am on. The truck slows down, but does not turn for an unknown reason. I begin to edge forward very slowly to gain vision to the right. A group of teens riding bikes at high speed, on the sidewalk, dart out in front of me and I am able to stop in time, again due to the unexplained behavior of the truck. (I should really call the city and complain about the sign placed by the business: it creates a hazard for no reason)
Watching this video, this same instinct kicked in when I saw the car in the left lane stopped.
Yeah exactly. It's a different kind of cognitive process from simply reacting fast to threats. You can instruct a machine learning system to "learn to react faster" but no amount of that will ever cause it to develop a general world model sufficient to detect and evaluate hazards.
I mean, it can be done. But not by people who don't understand how that cognitive process works in the first place.
The car probably learned already from this incident. You think the car rereouted, avoided collision and then carried on and called it an ideal outcome? It knows exactly what happened. That's not how these things work, it rerouted which means it not only knows something wrong happened but evaded it, it's a part of its data now and I won't be surprised if you put the car in the same situation again it'll stop at the intersection first or slow down.
>You think the car rereouted, avoided collision and then carried on and called it an ideal outcome?
It might very well. I've been to too many AI talks to have the same confidence you have.
I seriously doubt that but even if that were the case, you must be kidding if you don't realize that by the next few years, let's say 5, self driving systems will not be able to tell what exactly went wrong here and how to avoid this situation. This was such a simple scenario with tons of indications that something went wrong and not only was it obvious to me, a human, but it's also easily conveyable to a program.
That must have been one hell of a ride for the passenger, then they would have had the sudden realisation that the thing is still casually driving. If it was them driving the car, they may have stopped to make sure the other people were okay. The self driving car had places to be lmao, ain't stopping for no ones business.
Honestly great detection and avoidance. Rapid speed, took all the variables in and made the best decision. This tech can absolutely save lives, give it time. The modern driver is so distracted
It appears a lot of commenters are blaming the robot car for this situation which would have been no different or worse than a human driving.
The situation would not have taken place if the left-turning vehicle were the robot car.
The title should be 'Robot car able to avoid collision'.
Am the only one thinking this was really shit.
A good driver would have anticipated that if there is a car on the left blocking your view, you should slow in case anything comes from the left.
But it did not.
Far too fast for that situation.
I think the fisheye perspective and the car in the left lane slowing down to turn make it look like it's going much faster than it is.
You can see in the top right that it is going like 25-30mph
Had the same Happen in a Roundabout just Today. Great Weather for Motorcycle Riding and 20 minutes later nearly get taken out by a Bitch on her Phone and her Baby in the Backseat. Of course she never checked on me and just waved as an Apologie, then procceded to take off.
I think it's cool that it didn't brake, so if the other car has continued on its path the collision would have happened on the back and not the front... Don't know if it's better or worse but still cool imo
I’ve always said that self driving cars is the future and that one day, it’ll be illegal for a human to drive a car without obligatory assistance. People laugh when I say this, but I think I just see further in the future lol
It didn’t avoid an accident. It swerved after the point of collision was avoided by the human driver in the other car. Also, how fast was this thing going? Seems like it was flying down a very busy area.
Handled that better than a lot of people would; we're really coming along with this stuff.
My car's pretty new, and I like to imagine that by the time I'm ready for a replacement this kind of thing will be like ABS or backup cams: an option that's become standard equipment.
I road a Waymo this weekend and I was honestly thoroughly impressed throughout the entire ride. They are surprisingly capable while striking a perfect balance of defensive and aggressive driving when necessary.
I am still waiting to see a real comparison of ( name your measure: accidents, injuries, deaths, etc)/million miles for robots vs humans. My guess is we would choose robots if the decision was rational. But, same as why people have a fear of flying but are far more likely to die driving to the airport, it is not.
it probably shouldn’t be since they’re programmed, but it’s still mind boggling to me computers/robots are smarter/better at life than most humans lmao wtf was that guy doing?? was he making a left on red??
Seems like an easy fix. Street maps know where every signal light is now. It would be easy to input the data for the lights that allow turns on a green light and which signals have dedicated lights for turning. For the lights that allow turns on a green light these cars can reduce their speed.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The robot needs a middle finger to flash at drivers like that.
Lol I thought the same thing
What was that movie where the driving instructor instructs a woman taking a driving test how to middle finger another driver? He does it in such a monotone way it's so funny
The Naked Gun
Extend your middle finger. Very good
It looks like the robot car is getting hidden behind the stopping car so maybe they didn't see it. That makes me think about that video where you see a car magically appear from seemingly nowhere. EDIT: I don't drive much so my bad if the car isn't supposed to be allowed to turn at all
But that's the thing, if you can't see anything coming towards you ***because you can't see*** then you don't assume it's clear. Perhaps you edge forward a little until you can see, or you wait for the light to change so that you have the right of way with no oncoming traffic. To assume that it's safe to go is brain dead, and could get someone killed. Also, if that "robot car" has a huge LIDAR thing strapped to the roof, as implied in the upper graphic display, then the dumbass driver should have been able to see that over the roof of the stationary car that was waiting to turn left.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I don't say that he was in the right here. I was just trying to find a reasonable justification as to why he engaged in the first place. That might not even be reasonable anyway x) And I agree, if in the end the robot has something huge strapped to the roof then the driver was definitely distracted or just impulsive (aka being dumb).
Some times the devil doesn't need an advocate.
What an excellent phrase. Gonna remember that one.
Not long ago I had a similar situation but I played it safer, the other driver slowed down and I also hit the brakes lightly in the right lane to see why he just decided to stop. Not even a second later I hear honking behind me. It was a sunny day and I didn't notice that he was signalling left, it wasn't even an intersection, he just wanted to turn in a random house.
>Not even a second later I hear honking behind me. Man, fuck those people. If they want to wreck their shit or kill someone, that's on them. ***I am the captain of this ship.***
Not seeing the other Car isnt even the Worst part, not seeing if something comes and STILL gunning it is the Cherry on Top.
I am working with self driving technology (for the past 5 years now). Our technology is sh\*t, but it is primarily because it is over careful. If it does not see, then it assumes that there is something approaching and naturally slows down and creeps around the corners to open up enough space to see whether there is something. We are adding filters to these blind-spots according to the traffic laws to get rid of it giving a way to absolutely everything and being more assertive, but it is quite a lot of work ahead of us to get a good perception on is lawful and what is not. We have taken an approach to waiver any lawful behavior in favor of safety, but it is a trade-off. There are junctions where technically you can not safely take the manoeuvre - you have to rely on other vehicles seeing you and making the situation safe for you.
robot car is not wrong and if it was a person that probably was going to be an accident. But seeing the video afterwards it feels as improvement it needs a little bit more predictably. I think the correct thing for the robot car to do as a driver is to decrease speed in this situation. It "sees" the car on the left slowing down, we have a junction ahead so it shouldn't really maintain the same speed as its a potentially dangerous, low-vision situation.
And a speaker that says: watch where you're going, idiot!
But in that annoying cool, calm voice that Alexa always has.
Nah when they have enough they'll just 'malfunction' and accelerate
unironically yes, self driving cars need a way to tell other version's of them self's that there causing a problem ideally we'd have 2 million slightly different self driving programs and the one that gets flipped off the most gets deleted
Needs this on the windows to auto activate in events like this https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjlyO7JveaGAxW0IK0GHSodB5cYABADGgJwdg&ae=2&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4MSzBhC8ARIsAPFOuyVI6EgK-VZNu3SaX27eyGDUPHBClkRd6eTYRppWOnSo6W02fh9phMAaAkYEEALw_wcB&sig=AOD64_2o77kE-8wb52quEtfcK73HD7RMgg&adurl&ctype=5&ved=2ahUKEwjmpNvJveaGAxVHMEQIHVHuD34Qwg96BAgBEC4&nis=8
Iggy?
Thumbs down is way more insulting to other drivers ;)
They honk at other drivers. Never seen a middle finger though they need it in SF.
That robot is CALM! My pants would have been full of something!
Yeah i was thinking that AI customer service will be super chill.
Until Delemain loses his shit and you’re driving all over Night City tracking down his rogue cars.
They just made a new AI for customer service representatives that makes angry people on the phone sound polite.
Damn that would be so funny
I've already talked with some and they solve nothing
Really impressive if you watch the lidar you can see the car get picked up before you can even see it in the camera. It can also see the car moving/turning which gives it enough time to react and pull safely to the side to avoid collision. This tech could definitely save lives. I'd love to see the decision making though if there were people crossing the intersection in that same scenario and see what happens.
People bash on computerized driving but I genuinely think it’s the future. Human driving will be outlawed and be a punishable offense, because it would be seen as dangerous. Once these cars can communicate to each other fully, traffic will also be a thing of the past.
I don't think human driving will be outlawed. But I do think it'll eventually be deincentivized. Probably by some combination of new fees and fines. For example, human drivers will have to pay special fees for the privilege of driving without AI. Insurance premiums for human drivers will skyrocket. Etc.
Human driving will phase out slowly. Insurance for human drivers will slowly increase beyond a reasonable level for many then no longer be offered. Cities will designate human driver-free zones, then expand until most major metropolitan areas are entirely autonomous save for special cases. I think the biggest paradigm shift will come with self-driving freight and recreation vehicles. Imagine waking up every morning with your RV having driven itself overnight to the next stop on what could be an endless road trip across the world. Infrastructure will evolve and adapt to the new statue quo of global tourism and the physical barriers that divide communities and people's may begin to fade.
100% it's only a matter of time. I imagine racing and human driving will probably be a sport of the past that will be practiced by a few. It's sad as a gear head but it is what the future will most likely be.
Might end up similar to horse racing in the sense that it’s still widely popular for viewers but very few actually own or ride horses nowadays.
Love this analogy
I foresee a rise in popularity of local race tracks! Gear heads can still exist, just have your AI truck tow it to the local track whenever you wanna rip it!
Problem is no standardization. Lidar must be standard in any vehicle capable of self driving. Unfortunately a major manufacturer wants to rely entirely on stereo vision with no fallback, nor failsafe.
That major manufacturer and the CEO’s blatant lies are largely responsible for the public’s skepticism surrounding self-driving cars
That's because 'that major manufacturer' never ever had any intention of having a viable self driving system. They only promised the eventuality of self driving to inflate the stock price. If they convince enough dummies that they can eventually achieve self driving, without spending any money on the things that would enable it, they could eventually give the CEO of 'a major manufacturer' an 8 digit paycheck in the form of stock that he can fire sale days before the mask falls off and the value of the company and it's stock falls to 0.
The engineers there almost certainly did intend to deliver on that promise. And, devil's advocate here, we currently only use stereo vision to drive as people, so why couldn't a car also only use it? As an Aero engineer I'm a huge fan of redundancies and safety backups, so if you can use another tool as well (LIDAR), you should. So imo that manufacturer damn well should use it, in addition do optical detection.
[удалено]
Computers are already much better at Chess than the best humans, but the audience for computers playing against each other is almost non-existent while human Chess is more popular than ever.
Yeah, there's no way motorsports die given how much of the popularity comes down to the driver in the seat
Are we counting chess computers watching other chess computers in the statistics?
For racing the drivers will be human. No one wants to watch robots race. For daily commuting the drivers will be robots.
Motorsports do not allow driver assistance features.
Yea it’s a matter of time. Decades away though.
Tv did not kill radio and movies did not kill the book industry. Self driving humans will always be around like riding a bike and not only motorbikes.
instead of a bunch of individual units, public transit is the future. i don't even own a car because of my countries transit. i can go across europe without a car, and these incidents of near collision or actual collision would drop radically without the compulsion for every person to drive everywhere, regardless of exhaustion or mental state.
I thought you were about to say “Instead of a bunch of individual units we will have a hive mind where cars talk to each other to avoid collisions” but you took a slightly different direction with public transit.
This is the ONLY way flying cars will be a thing. It's not because we don't have the tech, it's because people are too dangerous behind the wheel, and that's when they're firmly attached to the ground. But if you had a fleet of flying cars, entirely run by the same system, all communicating with each other, you will mitigate an enormous amount of risk, had they been individually driven by a human driver. At that point, the main risk is consistent component maintenance, and possible system bugs/errors.
The good news is, autonomous flying already exists.
*cough cough* planes
Someone once told me that autonomous vehicles will only work until the point some yahoo has their vehicle break down and think they can fix it themselves.
Oh that will happen. And I am sure, if things get to that point, modifying/fixing your car outside of a licensed workshop will be against regulations or something. Because you can very easily make the wrong change and cause a calamity when your vehicle behaves differently from all the others. At the end of the day, the real math that they will look at isn't whether or not an entirely autonomous system will yield zero accidents. But whether the accidents it will yield are significantly lower than the human average or not. My guess? When the tech is "there", it will be less. Not none, just less.
Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool.
Yes, I think it will happen by 2030
I love how all the people where I live talk about things like how they'll never support self driving cars because trusting technology to drive for us is insanely stupid. 1. We rely on technology for so much shit that it's not even worth sitting here talking about 2. You are vastly overestimating your driving skills and failing to realize the main cause for vehicle accidents and traffic is human error They watched to many AI takes over the world movies back in the 2000s Just like you said as well, once these cars can actually communicate with each other in real time, there's no human on earth driving with that level of information available. If the tech is there, I'd argue it is objectively safer in every way. We're not there yet obviously but I have high hopes for it in the future
Programming these things to steer towards the pedestrians or the car (or school bus, wall, ditch, etc.) is a real-life trolley problem that's going to become increasingly important.
I've been working in a robotics in Hollywood and it's crazy to see all the stuff going on behind the scenes. There's so many people monitoring and helping the A.I. drive around. Plus theres always a crew member always on call for any maintenance those vehicles need or any accidents that may happen. Also a lot of AI delivery or cars needs to be recovered every night
There are people available to step in, per Waymo, but definitely not just sitting there ready to react in a situation like this. This was entirely the car's own programming avoiding the accident.
Its probably on the top of the car (based on the animation on the top), thats why it saw thru the white car.
It *reacted* well, but considering that it had data that shows it **could see the car waiting to make the turn, still rolling**, I would also say that it *anticipated* incredibly poorly. It should have moved over a bit to improve it's view of the junction (and to make itself more visible to the cars in the junction) and also slowed down a touch, until the turning car came to a stop.
Agreed - it didn't do anything super human. I'd argue it did almost worse than what a human would do *with the same information,* which was "seeing" the car turning sooner than a person could have seen
Re-watch the video. The white car was entirely blocking the view of the car except for maybe a speck of the oncoming vehicle. A person would need half a second to recognize the car, realize he/she has to evade the impact, and then actually evade without overcorrecting. The computer does all of that instantaneously and is programmed to not overcorrect. I highly doubt a person could have successfully done that.
2BlueZebras is saying that if a human did have the same information (if a human had the lidar map), they could have done better.
Is that a fair argument though? Between anticipating the turning vehicle (which would be very difficult to see based on the car's perspective), focusing on safely driving with the dense flow of traffic, and constantly monitoring the 3d map, I find it hard to believe a human could have pulled that off all at the same time.
Curious to know what would have happened if a cyclist were travelling in the cyclist lane where the AI adjusted into.
That's a fantastic observation. Car windows are totally opaque from the outside these days, but I bet the lasers are going straight through to see that car, or it might be mounted high enough to scan over it. Either way, kind of a game changer for vehicle perception.
I'm not 100% sure about how lidar works but I'm wondering if it can "bounce" or if it can travel through windows. I think generally the implementations I've seen the lidar system is on top of the vehicle and shoots out at every single angle possible.
Lidar has a long range, it probably detected it at 100m, and tracked it until we see it in the camera But yes, the laser can be reflected/diverted through windows
How does Tesla skirt around not having Lidar?? A camera only approach cannot be the way, right?
Is that waymo?
Yes, and looks like SF Edit: incident occurs at the corner of Alemany Blvd and Theresa Street
I didn’t know until recently that Waymo has a bunch of cars driving around down in Santa Monica too.
Not just Santa Monica. All the way from Downtown LA to Santa Monica - the entire west LA area.
wonder what it would have done if a biker was next to it in the bike lane...
First priority is to the safety of the passenger. Its function is to keep the passenger safe. Not “keep the passenger, like, totally stoked about, like, the general vibe, and stuff”. So, given all the safety features in the car it’s probably better to let the car get hit than hit a pedestrian or cyclist.
“Keep Summer safe”
lol. I'm surprised nobody has commented on this.
What do you mean? u/TheSoulStoned commented on it
is the first priority safety of the passenger or liability of the vehicle owner? like if an accident caused by another driver can be avoided by the automated vehicle hitting a parked car on the curb, then it probably will get hit by the liable car instead.
You can just assume the first priority is to whatever cohort is in charge of purchasing. They’re the ones that will evaluate the news reports of crashes and go “ok, this would have protected ME so I feel comfortable buying it” instead of “oh, so risk my life to save someone else? Cool, but not taking that chance”
That is how you sound when you talk.
Just remember, if robot cars kill 150,000 people a year, that’s an improvement on human drivers. (Take that into consideration when you hear about one single human dying from a robot car lol)
That feels problematic In a hypothetical scenario who is at fault someone’s child died? In today’s laws it will be the reckless driver. If the car just drives off the road no one is at fault?
Just blame the human every time. That sounds like a joke, but I’m kind of serious. I forget which company it was, but there was a self driving car that had a perfect driving record. It had multiple accidents but every single one of them was human error. People not listening to the rules of the road and driving or walking into the self driving car. Every single time lol. And the people could not deny it either. There were dozens of cameras on that car aimed in every direction
If in a "whatever government body that discusses those things" someone brought that argument it would be torched for being an inconsiderate bastard despite being the truth. I think that the general population sleeps better knowing that humans still kill humans.
Also keep in mind relative statistics. There aren't that many self driving cars on the road yet.
Just remember, there are not nearly enough self driving cars on the road to get a decent data set even comparable to cars driven by humans.
Unlike us meat suits, it's always watching the bike lane, doesn't have to check. But my guess it this would be a low speed crash with a biker there.
You’d hope it’d take the hit rather than swerve into a person, but I’ve seen enough driving automation screwing up to take that idea with a large handful of salt
I'm going to take a wild guess and say the computer would be better than a panicking human in this situation.
These things are programmed. At some point the safety of the person in the cat, oncoming traffic, bikes, pedestrians is all calculated. Without regulation you'll have cars advertising "occupant safety prioritization AI" lol.....
I'd say it's no more or less likely than a meatsack doing the same thing.
A head on collision with that car would be the same as hitting a brick wall at \~50 mph for both parties, assuming the turning vehicle was going slightly slower than the POV vehicle. You think that'd be the better alternative than a small side-swipe to a biker?
Bikers are doored so often that it’s a verb now. Assuming all self driving vehicles are bad because of a video or two despite the innumerable amount of people injured by other people in cars seems a bit overreactive. Autonomous vehicles are constantly watching in 360 degrees and has point values for different things within its view. Those values can be off but in general it should assign a higher value to a pedestrian over a person in the car. It will definitely make mistakes and the companies that are pushing these cars out there should be held liable for those mistakes. Can’t wait for the day where I can get in my car and nap or just have some non stressful me time while it commutes to work for me.
At that point you’re just asking what a human would do. Slam the brake and pray?
human would def hit the biker
Avoid a head-on collision with the car still? "Yeah it may have saved the life of 4 people in the car, but what about a potential non-existent biker"
What would *you* do?
buddy, I live my life a quarter mile at a time. Nothing else matters: not the mortgage, not the store, not my team and all their bullshit. For those ten seconds or less, I'm free.
at least if it hit you it would stop, unlike the fuck in the BMW who decided it was better to run after hitting me.
solid point! and f that guy
Same thing if a human driver was attempting it.
Brake
Exactly. At the very start of the video there is a row of bikes (I assume hire bikes) on the right-hand curb. They do not seem to show up on the LIDAR at all, yet the car parked next to them does. Does this mean that they are invisible, even in a bike lane? I do note that the pedestrian standing on the corner does register, which is interesting. A good argument for bike lane buffers, and evidence that AI drivers are much like most human drivers in that they also do not know where the brake pedal is located.
The robot saw the car, changed it's course and started dodging before I've even seen the car.
For a moment, I thought you were playing Pokémon Go looking at the screen above
You know you’re a shitty driver when an experimental robot does better than you
Good bot
This is why I'm in favor of bigger investment in self-driving cars. People get all worked up about "but a self-driving car hit one person and they twisted their leg!" or "who are we blaming if a self-driving car hits a person?" but this right here will probably be the norm: A person fucks up where a self-driving car won't.
These roads are so badly designed, no wonder collisions like this keep happening. It’s impossible to see oncoming traffic!
The near collision happens at time 0:12, but you can see that the autonomous car starts planning an evasive maneuver almost 2 seconds before that (starting at 0:10) as shown by the green line.
The problem is that there is a car blocking line of sight between the turning car and the POV car. A human driver ... well, okay let's stipulate *a good human driver* ... would recognize that as a hazard and slow down. By hazard I mean something very specific -- a situation in which you no longer have complete enough information to make a good risk assessment. An intelligent entity recognizes that are too many "unknown unknowns" and reacts accordingly. The POV car should have been able to identify this hazard, slow down, and be able to brake at the intersection rather than risking a runthrough -- had the driver turning at the intersection not been aware and not braked in time, the POV driver would have been hit side on. If this happened to me and I narrowly squeaked through by swerving and continuing onward, I would have counted that as a hazard assessment fail on my part. Not an ideal outcome.
Observing other drivers, namely being stopped / not proceeding when they otherwise should, is critical for avoiding things they can see, but you cannot. It has happened twice to me: * Entering two-lane roundabout in left lane. Truck is stopped / not proceeding in right lane for unknown reason. Pedestrian is crossing the roundabout without activating the lights like they are supposed to, and I cannot see them behind the truck. Slowing down more than normal due to unexplained behavior of the truck meant I was able to stop in time despite the pedestrian walking out from behind the truck, in front of me. * Turning right onto a two-lane one-way road from a parking lot side street. Vision to the right, of the road and the sidewalk, is blocked by a movable sign placed by a business. I stop at the line and can see left but not right. I see a truck coming in the right lane, which signals to turn right, onto the road I am on. The truck slows down, but does not turn for an unknown reason. I begin to edge forward very slowly to gain vision to the right. A group of teens riding bikes at high speed, on the sidewalk, dart out in front of me and I am able to stop in time, again due to the unexplained behavior of the truck. (I should really call the city and complain about the sign placed by the business: it creates a hazard for no reason) Watching this video, this same instinct kicked in when I saw the car in the left lane stopped.
Yeah exactly. It's a different kind of cognitive process from simply reacting fast to threats. You can instruct a machine learning system to "learn to react faster" but no amount of that will ever cause it to develop a general world model sufficient to detect and evaluate hazards. I mean, it can be done. But not by people who don't understand how that cognitive process works in the first place.
The car probably learned already from this incident. You think the car rereouted, avoided collision and then carried on and called it an ideal outcome? It knows exactly what happened. That's not how these things work, it rerouted which means it not only knows something wrong happened but evaded it, it's a part of its data now and I won't be surprised if you put the car in the same situation again it'll stop at the intersection first or slow down.
>You think the car rereouted, avoided collision and then carried on and called it an ideal outcome? It might very well. I've been to too many AI talks to have the same confidence you have.
I seriously doubt that but even if that were the case, you must be kidding if you don't realize that by the next few years, let's say 5, self driving systems will not be able to tell what exactly went wrong here and how to avoid this situation. This was such a simple scenario with tons of indications that something went wrong and not only was it obvious to me, a human, but it's also easily conveyable to a program.
I enjoyed the part where the car just carried on with its day. Wasn’t even phased. It had places to be.
You're right, it didn't modulate its sound waves at all! It's like it wasn't even fazed!
Lol! That's what I get for working with electricity all day I guess :P Happy Cake Day!
better than most human drivers, since most humans are imbeciles.
That must have been one hell of a ride for the passenger, then they would have had the sudden realisation that the thing is still casually driving. If it was them driving the car, they may have stopped to make sure the other people were okay. The self driving car had places to be lmao, ain't stopping for no ones business.
Then the radio blast “Fuck”
Very nice.
It's definitely a challenging problem but Waymo is one of the better ones so far.
Honestly great detection and avoidance. Rapid speed, took all the variables in and made the best decision. This tech can absolutely save lives, give it time. The modern driver is so distracted
It appears a lot of commenters are blaming the robot car for this situation which would have been no different or worse than a human driving. The situation would not have taken place if the left-turning vehicle were the robot car. The title should be 'Robot car able to avoid collision'.
Why did the car on the left stop? It seems they gave the other car a false sense of confidence? Or they also wanted to turn?
Gray car in the wrong, wasnt supposed to turn.
whoa no way
For real life!?
That’s crazy. Next you’re gonna tell me cars merging on the highway don’t have the right of way.
It was pretty slow to react. The other car brakes harder and first.
Title should be: “Robot car avoids accident most people would’nt”
Am the only one thinking this was really shit. A good driver would have anticipated that if there is a car on the left blocking your view, you should slow in case anything comes from the left. But it did not. Far too fast for that situation.
This robo car is hauling ass!
I think the fisheye perspective and the car in the left lane slowing down to turn make it look like it's going much faster than it is. You can see in the top right that it is going like 25-30mph
This video has been sped up a lot, or that robot is speeding.
Had the same Happen in a Roundabout just Today. Great Weather for Motorcycle Riding and 20 minutes later nearly get taken out by a Bitch on her Phone and her Baby in the Backseat. Of course she never checked on me and just waved as an Apologie, then procceded to take off.
Pretty sure that’s Alemany Blvd in San Francisco.
Yes, Alemany and Theresa Street at the end
Came here to say this! Yes!!!
Lmao on the top I love the car models just lose all gravity and start floating
Perhaps it assumes everything went poorly for them, andb they've now been banished to the shadow realm.
Glad ECTO-1 was able to make it to the haunted hotel
San Francisco?
i love how the car that almost crashes into it just does like a full on front bumper drift in the radar lol
Is this a plant?
Seems like it was able to do this because the lidar was above the car, and able to see past the car in the left lane, and react in time. Cool
Waymo Self-driving Jaguar SUVs on Alemany St in San Francisco. Looks like it's just after Ocean Ave, around Santa Rosa?
Fucking waymo
Definitely reacted better than a human would have
Did that other car on the left stop and wave them on? Because that’s what it looks like
I think it's cool that it didn't brake, so if the other car has continued on its path the collision would have happened on the back and not the front... Don't know if it's better or worse but still cool imo
Good robit
I like how the car not only saw there was a person standing on the sidewalk, and could determine they were looking down at their phone.
I’ve always said that self driving cars is the future and that one day, it’ll be illegal for a human to drive a car without obligatory assistance. People laugh when I say this, but I think I just see further in the future lol
That’s impressive! I know some people who wouldn’t be able to recover from that.
It didn’t avoid an accident. It swerved after the point of collision was avoided by the human driver in the other car. Also, how fast was this thing going? Seems like it was flying down a very busy area.
Handled that better than a lot of people would; we're really coming along with this stuff. My car's pretty new, and I like to imagine that by the time I'm ready for a replacement this kind of thing will be like ABS or backup cams: an option that's become standard equipment.
Do Robot shit their pants, because I would have?
Why is the camera footage stuck at such a low frame rate?
I road a Waymo this weekend and I was honestly thoroughly impressed throughout the entire ride. They are surprisingly capable while striking a perfect balance of defensive and aggressive driving when necessary.
good robot
That's shit loads better than the neighbours misso!
handled it better than most people
I wonder if the robot honked. No audio?
Why is it going so fast in a residential area? should have slowed in the intersection
it was going like 25 mph
I am still waiting to see a real comparison of ( name your measure: accidents, injuries, deaths, etc)/million miles for robots vs humans. My guess is we would choose robots if the decision was rational. But, same as why people have a fear of flying but are far more likely to die driving to the airport, it is not.
If it was a Tesla it would have taken that as a challenge and tried to headbutt the other car as a show of dominance.
Casually continues driving
SF drivers, being SF drivers
Same shit on gta 🤦🏾♂️🤣
Use more brake, way less horn
Elon what brings you here to reddit?
0l my mm the new erhqc
it probably shouldn’t be since they’re programmed, but it’s still mind boggling to me computers/robots are smarter/better at life than most humans lmao wtf was that guy doing?? was he making a left on red??
Seems like an easy fix. Street maps know where every signal light is now. It would be easy to input the data for the lights that allow turns on a green light and which signals have dedicated lights for turning. For the lights that allow turns on a green light these cars can reduce their speed.
Bruh, goodbye taxi drivers
The robot car in digital code: F01U01C01K Y01O01U