Google’s Driverless Cars Run Into Problem: Cars With Drivers

New York Times ^ | 09/02/2015 | By MATT RICHTEL and CONOR DOUGHERTY

[SeekAndFind]

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. — Google, a leader in efforts to create driverless cars, has run into an odd safety conundrum: humans.

Last month, as one of Google’s self-driving cars approached a crosswalk, it did what it was supposed to do when it slowed to allow a pedestrian to cross, prompting its “safety driver” to apply the brakes. The pedestrian was fine, but not so much Google’s car, which was hit from behind by a human-driven sedan.

Google’s fleet of autonomous test cars is programmed to follow the letter of the law. But it can be tough to get around if you are a stickler for the rules. One Google car, in a test in 2009, couldn’t get through a four-way stop because its sensors kept waiting for other (human) drivers to stop completely and let it go. The human drivers kept inching forward, looking for the advantage — paralyzing Google’s robot.

It is not just a Google issue. Researchers in the fledgling field of autonomous vehicles say that one of the biggest challenges facing automated cars is blending them into a world in which humans don’t behave by the book. “The real problem is that the car is too safe,” said Donald Norman, director of the Design Lab at the University of California, San Diego, who studies autonomous vehicles.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The obvious alternative is to put a human behind the wheel. Not a computer. The entire system...vehicle, traffic controls and road surfaces were made for humans. Not computers. Computers can't do the job.

[chaosagent]

So you’re saying that if a human had been behind the wheel, that THEY should have run them down.

The computer stopped for the person in front of them.
The person would have stopped for a person in front of them.

What’s the difference?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

So you’re saying that if a human had been behind the wheel, that THEY should have run them down.

No. No I'm not. Additionally, no I didn't.

The difference is, a human would have slowed down for a person in the crosswalk and accelerated as soon as the person had passed the vehicle...keeping an eye on the vehicle approaching from the rear...keeping ready to accelerate and drive around the person in front. We do it all the time as human drivers.

The computer apparently isn't that well programmed. It clearly came to a complete stop for the jaywalker with no sense of, or regard for, the car coming from the rear.

Running over the jaywalker isn't an option in either scenario. Don't be intentionally obtuse.

[HeadOn]

Of course not. BUT - if you act like you might, they will learn to keep their behinds on the sidewalk/in the cross-walk.

It works. Believe me.