Korean Competition Shows Weather Still a Challenge for Autonomous Cars
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
Humans have a lot of shortcomings--emotions, sleepiness, distraction, the effects of drugs and alcohol--but humans have some amazing strengths too. We've got cognitive abilities in recognizing patterns and making decisions that were honed by millions of years of evolution, and directly trained by, on average, decades of actually driving cars. I think it's easy for technology-minded folks to overestimate the impact of the weaknesses, and underestimate the deep complexity of the strengths.
We barely have fully-autonomous self-flying planes today, and I don't know of any research showing that they are safer than human-piloted planes. And flying is a far less complicated domain to automate than driving.
I'm also really astounded when I'm reading the answers about self driving cars here on HN.
If you have ever worked on algorithms that are mostly based on heuristics, then you know all of these ugly edge cases, and this uncertain feeling, that you most likely don't have covered all edge cases.
EDIT: Changed to "100% perfection" from 0% to remove any confusion.
Anecdotally, I can only recall a handful of car crashes involving myself or any friends or family. I can't recall any injuries or deaths due to car crashes among any friends or family. Is it a regular occurence in your circles?
U.S. government data I could find quickly reported that the death rate per 100 million vehicle miles travelled in 2010 was 1, which is a per-mile success rate of 99.999999%. The injury rate was 75, which drops the success rate to 99.999925%.
edit: speling
Six months ago Google said they've logged 700,000 miles, with 0 accidents.
The failure mode for the self-driving car isn't that you crash into a tree. It's that there are newspapers blowing across the road and it says "nope, not going anywhere" and you sit and wait.
Google's cars are just one, very carefully controlled, experiment in self-driving cars.
I could see within not too long people with DUIs being restricted from self-driving. The elderly are another demographic, but there are social forces working both ways there. (AARP will reject any calls to restrict driving rights of seniors, but self-driving cars will be awesome for some seniors who just can't cut it.)
Your point about research is really interesting. I think a large majority of cars actually following the speed limit, looking before changing lanes, and using turn signals will have a positive effect on overall safety, even if they aren't anywhere near as good at dealing with extraordinary situations. It would be nice to know what % of "good drivers" is required to minimize those extraordinary situations, if any at all.
We've all seen that one car weaving in and out of traffic. Perhaps they do indeed make us safer because they force us to pay attention. But they do seem to create a whole bunch of extraordinary situations for dozens or hundreds of drivers to deal with. It only takes the one weak driver (i'm assuming weaker than self driving here) to panic and then the freeway is a parking lot for an hour. That research would be interesting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
(Or, alternatively, works out to on average one injury or death per 1.33 million miles traveled.)
Or, to put that number in perspective, there are 435,000 deaths per year caused by tobacco in the US - 13 times that number. [2]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8700342
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_...
A self driving car wouldn't have to work very hard here to do better than me.
* Check for weather conditions at altitude (not just start and destination points).
* Refuse to leave the house using that route if weather conditions are bad.
Oh well, lesson learned. On that topic does anyone know of maps software that does that for you -- i.e. check weather not just traffic?
--
"Take me to the ski resort, HAL."
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that. It's snowing along the way."
"Yeah, I know--that's the idea. I want to make some fresh tracks."
"Driving through the snow would be more dangerous than driving on dry pavement. In addition, I calculate that skiing is 4.76 times more likely to result in injury than reading a book. Please return to your couch; I will download a new book to your Kindle."
--
Incidentally, this was a major theme of Asimov's Robots/Foundation series--that intelligent robots programmed to prevent humans from coming to harm would become nannies of humanity in order to execute that command.
That said, if you're much older than the first time you gave it a try, you might consider trying again. I've found that some boring books were actually fascinating when I tried again years later. My tastes have changed considerably over the years, even within science fiction.
Jack Williamson went to town on that. "With Folded Hands", a story later expanded into novel(s). Before Asimov, if I'm not mistaken.
When I use Google Maps to check routes, on my desktop or on my Nexus phone, it provides National Weather Service weather advisories along with my route directions. (I live in Minnesota, where those are presumably more frequent than they are in most parts of California.)
EDIT: Also, these features should be coming soon thanks to devices like Automatic and apps like Waze.
Heck, we have so far to go even within the scope of the technology we have today. One of the things I've noticed as a heavy Uber user is that drivers tend to get confused when they're first hailed, and again when they pick you up. GPS systems tend not to give you a good fix on your orientation until you're moving,[1] and when you get a hail on the other side of town, they're really not very useful for giving you the optimal "first turn." This is a really simple thing, that's probably worth a lot of money to a company like Uber, that's really hard to get right with existing technology. With distributed decision-making of autonomous vehicles, you're talking about something orders of magnitude more complicated.
[1] My wife and I get a kick every time Siri says "proceed to the route." Which is a lot.
How will they decide amongst themselves which one gets the suboptimal route?
I was impressed on my trip that Google Maps actually recommended alternate routes (on the fly), with time estimates based on traffic. I was able to cut off a dozen or so minutes based on it's suggestions.
Also very impressed with the foresight that an app like Waze offers. During my 8 hour trip I navigated for 4-6 hours and was easily able to warn my driver about hazards (cops, wind, accidents, construction). The kicker is that Waze is "powered" by human reporting - which suggests the ideal solution is a hybrid of sorts.
In the test case, if the car recognized "oh this is the course from yesterday, even though it doesn't quite look like it, its in the same GPS coordinates" and then try to match larger easier to spot landmarks with its previous experience. That would certainly help it out.
If a stop sign disappears, the car won't figure "gee, I guess I can plow on through."
If a stop sign shows up, the car is very likely to still notice it, and if not it still will be paying attention to what other cars are doing. It won't plow into the car in front of it. It will still notice what cars on side streets are doing.
his thesis was awesome though, he created shadow and rain drop removal while also mitigating the effects of 'smeared headlights' from a wet road at night
I always thought that an interesting intermediate for cars would be to have a HUD displaying wireframes around detected objects. The motivation being that it can help, but doesn't have nearly the potential for harm as a full self-driving vehicle.
Of course, then you end up with the same problem that we have with aircraft - people become reliant on fallible assists.
Winter snow removal equipment scrapes the lines off the roads requiring re-application every summer in my area, and a common sight in the cities is the "re-positioning" of lanes during the winter. Drivers carve out their own lanes in the snow, so a 4 lane road might have only 3 lanes in the winter. I find this challenging to negotiate in the winter as no one seems sure whether they should follow the carved out path or be in the actual lane, assuming they know where it is under the packed snow. How could a self-driving car deal with that?
Not to mention inconsistent, icy road surfaces with unpredictable traction and the springtime muck of snow/gravel/salt that makes keeping the windshield clean, much less exterior sensors and cameras.
I would have thought your issue with power being removed to the drive wheels is actually the Traction Control system kicking in not the ESP, but then it's possible you have one button that disables both.
nogridbag has a point, but I think the higher level computerized control system could make a finer grained input than a human, directly requesting that the power train operate at the traction limit.
For most conditions like rain it's great for the average driver.
DSC caught me off guard a couple of times in dry/rain and one time almost caused me to lose control. But in all cases it was because I accidentally left it on while driving "enthusiastically" and wasn't expecting the DSC to yank the car abruptly and unnaturally in its attempt to straighten the car out.
The problem is that when they're wrong, they're wrong in ways that humans wouldn't be, and the wrongness appears to be "broken" to us and we overweigh these incorrect responses because they're both wrong and not human in their wrongness.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/530561/the-revolutionar...
(discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8290441)
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-picture-is-wort...
Especially in California.
Very helpful, especially for snowplough drivers.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/01janfeb/s...
But you can stick a lot more sensor gear on a snowplow than a cheap sedan.
Rain/fog distorts an image because there's droplets in the air that function as random lenses. This will affect infrared images just like it affects visible spectrum images. Only things with wavelengths larger than the droplets will be able to see through fog.
While I recognize the amount of work and smarts that has gone into self driving cars it is my humble opinion that the typical approach being taken is fundamentally flawed.
The right approach, again, in my humble opinion, is to change the representation of the problem: Roads have to be smart. Cars smarter, yes, but roads need to be modified for robots. Change the problem you are trying to solve and the solution might just become massively simpler.
Embedding technology into roads in order to facilitate robotic navigation would solve tons of problems. Private enterprise can take care of parking lots and private garages, and they will, when enough self-driving cars are around to make it worth their while to install the technology.
When my kids were younger they had huge problems opening doors around the house that were equipped with spherical handles. If their hands were wet after washing them, even worst. So, we changed the problem: We installed lever type door handles and even the youngest kid with hands full of soap could open the door now.
But, hey, what do I know.
It is easier to have some brainiacs work very hard on making very smart cars than it is to change local government and infrastructure everywhere.
If you ever make a plan which begins, 'let's convince every county, state, and federal agency in the USA to change their road construction methods to add this novel expensive feature...' you can probably drop it then and there as a stinker.