back to article Google's self-driving car breakthrough: Stop sign no longer a problem

Google has updated the software in its self-driving cars after spending the past year running prototypes around its hometown of Mountain View, California, to test the vehicles' performance on hectic city streets. The advertising giant said its code had spotted hundreds of distinct objects, having logged thousands of miles of …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
      1. Vociferous

        I have never been to Swindon (my loss, I'm sure) but the Arc de Triomphe roundabout is a crime against humanity.

        Excluding South-East Asia, which has the worst traffic on the entire planet by such a wide margin that it's in a league all its own, I think the worst traffic I've ever experienced was Eraklion, Crete, during rush hour. Heavy traffic, narrow medieval streets, cars parked and double-parked on both sides, and apoplectic greek drivers with only the vaguest notion of concepts such as "lanes". Lovely.

    1. Andy Gates

      A cyclist taking the lane in front of it will be handled fine. It knows where the cyclists are and roughly what they're doing, and has sharp reflexes. It just needs to edge forward when clear.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Um, yes.

    "we’ve built software models of what to expect, from the likely (a car stopping at a red light) to the unlikely (blowing through it)." So did the Airbus desingers, then the software few one into the ground at the Paris airshow. As usual with software, the aeroplane wasn't doing the likely or unlikely things in a scenario the designers imagined an Airbus might be in. If you drive one around here, I'll drop a dirty big loom on it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Um, yes.

      In the Airbus crash, they had disabled some of the flight safety systems and the pilot flew the aircraft manually to show what it could do. Ultimately, as with most plane crashes, it came down to human error.

      With the Google cars it looks like they are getting close to having a workable solution, if we can factor the driver out of equation completely then I am very interested.

      1. Charles Manning

        Re: Um, yes.

        Just reducing system failure to "human error" is an oversimplification.

        In many cases, the "backup plan" for when a system goes wrong is to disengage and hand over to the human operator to then take control. This really means the system has been designed to hand over control to the operator at the worst possible time. Since the computer has been flying the plane, and the meatsack is largely out of the loop, the hand off seldom provides the pilot with the information needed to take effective command.

        There are some functions where a computer performs vastly better than a pilot can (hence the use of computers for stability and thrust control in fighter jets etc). If a computer can no longer effectively keep the plane in the air due to thrust/sbability issues, then a pilot can't either and handing control of a broken system to a pilot is unlikely to save the day.

        A further huge issue is the confusion of responsibility between the pilot and the computer. The pilot assumes the computer is doing something, the computer assumes the pilot is. Nobody does anything and the plane crashes.

        That is what caused the AF447 crash. Three pilots in the cockpit flew a plane from 30-odd thousand ft into the sea in a deep stall because they believed the computer would prevent a stall. This took minutes to unfold, during which the plane displayed all the symptoms of being in a stall (mushy control etc) and the stall warning was sounding.

        Both automatic and human control can operate well when flying straight and level. Problems happen during the transitions from one control to another, the blurring of responsibility and the confusion of the control surface.

        1. Hans 1
          Pint

          Re: Um, yes.

          The guyz are dead and I hate having to write this ... the flight was stalled, not once did they push the joystick down to gain speed and lift ... they were pulling it like mad because they wanted to "go up, not fall" and that was a rookie mistake which killed too many. Apparently the pilots originally thought it was yet another computer error. The flight computer has since been equipped with yet another algorithm to handle idiots in control.

          The problem is, computers make our lives easier and we rely on them to do the hard stuff, then, the critical moment we are asked to do it alone, we are useless.

          The other day in a DIY store, the bloke could not calculate the number of boxes (!!!) and total price of tiles I needed ... I wanted 15m2, the boxes contained 1.4m2 of tiles. The m2 was 6 euro on special offer ... the bloke wanted me to pay 140 euro in total (over 9euro the m2, the original non-discounted price was 12/m2) and refused to believe me when I said more like 90 (!)... I insisted, along came the manager asking about his calculator - he had lent it to a mate in need, I ended up paying 80 iso 92.40 because he could not be asked to perform simple multiplication - had a couple of pints with the change ;-). Yes, sadly, pints are expensive round here.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Um, yes.

      "to the unlikely (blowing through it)"

      If that's unlikely in their neck of the woods, they definitely have higher driving standards than we do where I live...

    3. Alister

      Re: Um, yes.

      If you drive one around here, I'll drop a dirty big loom on it.

      No, no, no...

      The recognised method is to use a grand piano - a far more satisfying outcome.

      1. Message From A Self-Destructing Turnip
        Trollface

        Re: Um, yes.

        But where are the Ludites going to find a grand piano? Clearly to you Alister, ACs comment was like some of the other comments here ... aeroplane talk.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Um, yes.

        <i>The recognised method is to use a grand piano - a far more satisfying outcome.</i>

        No, a safe is preferable. In the event of autoautos wearing Susquehanna hats.

        (also, arse to 'no html')

  2. The Axe

    700,000 miles

    I would prefer it to have travelled 700,000,000 miles in 700,000 different situations before I call the software anywhere near complete. Real life has many many many unusual situations. It's how the sw can cope with the very unusual situations which is a clear signal as to it being complete.

    1. Cubical Drone

      Re: 700,000 miles

      I think that is setting the bar a bit high seeing that most people driving cars seem to have a difficult time dealing with barely unusual situations. Give me something that is as competent as half the morons behind the wheel and I'm in.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 700,000 miles

      the more autonomous cars on the road (and less morons) the fewer "very unusual situations"

    3. John Sager

      Re: 700,000 miles

      No, it just has to be 2 or 3 times better than the average competent driver. And the more self-driving cars there are, which will presumably behave more predictably than the average punter, the easier self-driving cars will find it to drive amongst them. Us hangout meatbag controllers will also find the predictability something of a bonus.

      Now Sergei, come and test it in the West End during rush-morning or rush-evening.

    4. DropBear
      Facepalm

      Re: 700,000 miles

      Can I please see the reaction of the car to another SUV approaching at 0.5 Mach head-on in the single lane "I WILL OVERTAKE THIS TRUCK IF IT'S THE LAST THING I DO! oh wait..." style? Hint: if you think this falls under the "unlikely" category... think again.

      1. hplasm
        Devil

        Re: 700,000 miles

        Deploy missiles...

      2. Andy Gates

        Re: 700,000 miles

        Oncoming vehicle in your lane? Come on, that's not even exotic.

        The loom was at least novel.

    5. hairydog

      Re: 700,000 miles

      How many miles and how many situations did you drive before getting your licence to drive unsupervised? A lot less than that, I suspect!

      How many people have driven 700,000 miles in traffic without having an accident (not counting being hit by incompetent human drivers)

      1. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: 700,000 miles

        With an average car in the UK doing about 10k miles, and assuming ~1 car per driver, the average person will accumulate 700,000 miles at about their 87th birthday...

        As I've said elsewhere I much prefer the failure modes of these cars to those with a nut behind the wheel...

  3. Don Jefe

    Litigation on Horizon

    I'm not big on lawsuits, but I'm going to sue the shit out of Google. Cyclists, construction, children, animals, police cars and more are called impediments in my system and distractions are bars, roller coasters and large construction cranes. I'll not have Google screwing up my Trademarks.

  4. fishman

    Great!

    As someone in their late fifties, I look forward to self driving cars when I no longer can safely drive.

    I also could see sending my car out to pick things up at the store - order on line, the car gets there, a store employee puts it in the car, and sends it back home.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Great!

      I agree. But how long before the <agency of choice> employ a small one with facial recognition and a large butterfly net to capture "known criminals" I wonder?

    2. hairydog

      Re: Great!

      Better than that: you won't need a car at all. Just hire a self-driving car for a half hour for a one-way trip. Right now taxis are expensive because of the driver* and hire cars are expensive becasue of the insurance. But with plentiful self-driving cars, that will change!

      *And the insurance. Taxi drivers are often incompetent, aggressive and accident-prone drivers, and their insurance premiums reflect that!

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But I wonder

    How well can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing between some parked cars into the path of your car, and a soccer ball? In the latter situation you need to slam on your brakes in case it is followed by a child, but you don't even slow down for the bag. Slamming on your brakes when you're driving isn't a big deal, because you know it is coming, but if you're sitting in your car enjoying a beverage while the car is driving you want to minimize unexpected emergency stops!

    1. Zot

      Re: But I wonder

      Good point, but I bet it sticks to residential speed limits, so you may just need a lid on your martini to stop it spilling on your Armani. And as it knows what's around it in all directions at the same time so it'll see if it has room for swerving potential danger.

      Unlike the cunts that live near me who appear to be driving as fast as possible along narrow streets with parked cars either side, and only see through a narrow tunnel of angry self hate! Allegedly.

    2. Jim84

      Re: But I wonder

      "But I wonder

      How well can it tell the difference between a plastic bag blowing between some parked cars into the path of your car, and a soccer ball? In the latter situation you need to slam on your brakes in case it is followed by a child, but you don't even slow down for the bag. Slamming on your brakes when you're driving isn't a big deal, because you know it is coming, but if you're sitting in your car enjoying a beverage while the car is driving you want to minimize unexpected emergency stops!"

      In the future pedestrans' and cyclists' cellphones will broadcast their position to cars. The federal transport authority already has a proposal for this over the next few years. If I was a parent with kids playing in the street I'd make sure their cellphone/smartwatch/smartchip in their clothing was working. To protect them from regular drivers as well as robocars.

      Also how often do you actually drive through blowing plastic bags and soccer balls? Not really frequently enough to make slowing down for both a problem. And I already slow down when driving on residential streets where kids could be present anyway.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But I wonder

        Do you really want a future where your kids are chipped like dogs and cats, even if it makes them "safer"? Since when did safety become the most important concern of Americans above liberty and freedom?

        I never thought Big Brother would win through people willingly giving up their freedoms, but 9/11 and posts like yours sadly make me think I was wrong to believe that.

        1. Andy Gates

          Re: But I wonder

          Don't worry, little brother, that won't happen. It puts an unreasonable burden on the squishy, and you'd have to have some heavy upheavals in law to make it even halfway permissible.

          Save your paranoia for the eyes, the always-on unblinking remorseless REPORTING TO GOOGLE EYES!

    3. El Andy
      Joke

      Re: But I wonder

      Where I grew up we couldn't afford soccer balls and had to run out into the road to fetch our plastic bags instead. Casualties were high....

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't think I could trust a self-driving car

    If all cars were self-driving, perhaps it's possible. As long as there's people driving also, there's too many uncontrolled factors.

    1. AndyS

      Re: I don't think I could trust a self-driving car

      Yup, it'll never happen.

      Oh, wait, wasn't that a video of it happening?

  7. toxicdragon

    Hang on.

    "...from the likely (a car stopping at a red light) to the unlikely (blowing through it)." He has never seen the traffic round here then.

    1. Andrew Jones 2

      Re: Hang on.

      Having never been to America - I don't know - but I'd assume they are less likely to run a red light due to the rather more strict legal system. We would just get points on the license which eventually expire - but the US appears to be a bit more strict than that.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hang on.

        If you're from around here, running a red is no big deal.

        If you're from out of town, big fine and jail time.

        Welcome to smalltown USA, where traffic offenses are a profit center. In one case, the lights were actually fixed to make it hard not to go through a red, by shortening the yellow period, at the instruction of the company who installed the traffic cameras on a "self-funded" basis.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I can't believe you guys are so gullible

    Honestly - you're idiots, the lot of you. It's just a big con trick to get free publicity!

    They're in league with Amazon, outsourcing "drone driving" to developing countries via Amazons Mechanical Turk. Every time the car makes a "decision" it's just a "Real Time Human Interface Task" or RT-HIT.

    These developing countries now have HIT academies where "drone pilots" are trained to pick up a task - basically a picture of an obstacle and a desired compass heading and distance to destination - and they have to hit the keys on their customised gaming keyboards - faster, slower, steer left or right. As long as they can do this once every 2-3 seconds then everything sails along nicely and no-one gets hurt (or dead).

    Latency could be a killer - literally - but I hear if you pay more money then you'll get people manning your RT-HIT in your own country - a bit like if you pay an account fee on your bank account then you get through to a call centre in Glasgow instead of Calcutta.

    Mark my words, this is going to create a bigger gold-rush for the third world than crypto-currency mining.

    1. ratfox

      Re: I can't believe you guys are so gullible

      That's an interesting idea… Rather than creating self-driving cars, let's create remote controlled cars, which is considerably easier, and outsource the driving to India.

      There's already way more Indians than Americans and Europeans combined, so no problem there.

      I'll insert here patent-busting keywords to make prior art discovery easier: remote controlled car long distance driving teledriving outsourcing automated bullshit.

      1. John H Woods Silver badge
        Joke

        I for one ...

        ... would welcome Indian driving in the UK. They already drive on the left, don't they?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I for one ...

          Yes, left, middle, right, sideways. Indians in India have a truly creative approach to road use.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. steogede

          Re: I for one ...

          > ... would welcom Indian driving in the UK.

          You obviously haven't spent much time in India, or Southall for that matter.

      2. Vega

        Re: I can't believe you guys are so gullible

        Yes, let's have Indian drivers piloting cars in the US, with even less of a sense of danger than they seem to possess on Indian roads. What could possibly go wrong?

      3. Richard Altmann
        Coffee/keyboard

        Re: I can't believe you guys are so gullible

        You Sir owe me a keyboard.

  9. John Robson Silver badge

    The failure mode can be "slow down amd work out what to do" rather then "Oh, I didn't bother looking"

    That's a big plus right there...

  10. Daniel B.
    Terminator

    Motorcycle blues

    Ok it can see cyclists doing turn signals. But the real question is: how do they handle motorcycles? Lane sharing is legal in many jurisdictions, but has some restrictions in others. For example, here in Mexico City you can't lane-split unless traffic is stopped or moving veery slow according to the Greater Mexico City traffic rulebook. So a self-driving car should know that it should yield to a lane-splitting motorcycle if traffic starts rolling. It should also detect motorcycles quickly as to not swerve into/against a bike running on the adjacent lane; humans do that every now and then, I'd be scared shitless by robo-driver failing to detect me! Some automated toll booths already ban motorcycles because their sensors don't detect us; I've also read about "smart" street lights in the US that detect cars to pre-empt green lights but fail to detect motorcycles. Sorry, but I'm very skeptical on self-driving cars unless they're given dedicated lanes to run on.

    1. Alan_Peery

      Re: Motorcycle blues

      Try watching the video again -- the car has the equivalent of eyes in the back of its head as it sees the bicycle moving up from behind. The same will work for motorcycles. What I am hoping they start working on soon is the detection of gaze direction, as that is a more powerful indicator of intent than hand signals.

      The laws passed in California, Arizona, and elsewhere are not requiring separate lanes, just driver supervision of the vehicle. This seems to be working well so far.

      1. TopOnePercent

        Re: Motorcycle blues

        The laws passed in California, Arizona, and elsewhere are not requiring separate lanes, just driver supervision of the vehicle.

        And there goes my reason to want one. If I have to supervise the car I may as well control it.

        You'll not be allowed to supervise the car while asleep, or drunk (though people will), and you won't be allowed to have it return to base without you, which for me eliminates all of its potential uses.

        1. AndyS

          Re: Motorcycle blues

          "If I have to supervise the car I may as well control it.

          You'll not be allowed to supervise the car while asleep, or drunk (though people will), and you won't be allowed to have it return to base without you, which for me eliminates all of its potential uses."

          Yup, because technology never improves and laws never evolve.

          1. TopOnePercent

            Re: Motorcycle blues

            ...because technology never improves and laws never evolve.

            Technology improves, yes. But laws rarely evolve for the better in a motoring context.

            Speed limits were set based on safe stopping distances of a 1970 Ford Anglia. A 2014 Ford Focus stops in about 1/10th the distance, yet speed limits continue to fall rather than being increased inline with the improving technology.

            So no, the law will not be evolved to allow unsupervised use of the self driving car, whether that be unsupervised due to it being empty, or the occupant being drunk, sleeping, or working.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Motorcycle blues

              A Focus stops in 1/10th of the distance? Assuming equal maintenance standards, not in my reality it doesn't.

              A 1970 Anglia could easily manage 1/3g (about 3ms-2, imagine the superscript). 3g would be an interesting achievement. Hint - the limiting factor is the road surface, and that really hasn't changed very much.

              Also, there is far more traffic on the road than in 1970. I often find myself wishing things were like they were then, except that you were about three times as likely to die on the road per mile travelled.

              Today's speed limits may annoy knuckleheads, but the evidence gathered over the years is that they work.

            2. Commenter
              Linux

              Re: Motorcycle blues

              "Technology improves, yes. But laws rarely evolve for the better in a motoring context."

              But laws rarely evolve, period, in a technology context. Especially in the scientifically illiterate United States, which equates everything inexplicable by the common folk to miracles and magic (and brands anyone who mentions science as a godless communist). Don't quote me on this, but I wouldn't doubt if a good chunk of our surveillance laws govern whether or not the Pinkerton Agency has the authority to ride behind equestrian letter-carriers of the Pony Express. Pretty sure the copyright laws must cover 8-track tapes, Betamax, and transistor radios too. The last major update to the wire-tapping laws occurred under Reagan, talking about the "burgeoning portable telephone technology" or something to that effect. (The "brick," remember those?)

              New York just now is moving to get rid of horse-drawn carriages -- not on the grounds that they're outdated, but on grounds of animal cruelty. (Shades of a certain Seinfeld episode about force-feeding the poor creature.) A reason I can nevertheless support, but I still believe the point about American Luddism is well-taken. No doubt the laws will take years to catch up with Google cars. They're written for rickshaws, Hannibal's war elephants, and chariots with literal "horse power."

              Congress, after all, takes millennia to get things passed that don't serve their own (or their lobby friends') interests. The healthcare act, for example, wasn't about helping sick people pay for health insurance. It was, at its core, about expanding the customer base of private insurance companies. Self-serving crony capitalism is why we in the States will never have an NHS. (But I digress.)

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like