tech

Google acknowledges 11 accidents with its self-driving cars

23 Comments
By JUSTIN PRITCHARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

23 Comments
Login to comment

That is a damn good score over 6 years and 3 million km. Only 11 and not once was it the fault of the self driving car. Seems to me they should fast track this project to get public asap.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

yes agree basically no fault recorded with the technology over 3 million km. basically mechanical failure or human error is the only cause of the accidents. Mechanical failure will be almost be impossible to remove completely. Humand error will be reduced dramatically as these systems are introduced

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Average miles for USA driver per year: 13,476

Google Cars' test miles in self-driving mode: 1,000,000

So about 74.2 driver years spent in test.

But I don't know if they go on the highway. I've seen them on local roads lots of times but never on highways. And if they were on the highway wouldn't know if they were in self-driving mode or not.

Also, haven't seen the number of driver interventions reported.

AND, wikipedia indicates the test drivers are required to unblemished driving records. A description not covering me or a heck of a lot of potential buyers. At some point they should be testing with average drivers. Supposed to start releasing to the public in 2017.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It would seem that drivers are either not paying attention or believe that their driving skills are better than they are. The driverless cars seem to be better on the road than those with a human in control.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What happens in rain or snow when sensors can be blocked and visibility is seriously reduced, or are they only testing on sunny days?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

*or are they only testing on sunny days?***** actually they test year round in all conditions, sensors are self cleaning or heated depending on what there used for.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I think the cost of these cars driving at the speed limit will cost around $380 billion dollars, lead to an increase of global warming and cause deaths through road rage. Also, the effect on the movement of and workers, time-wise will be devestating. I never witnessed a car during exactly the speed limit in Japan. Humans can decide what is safe, machines just preform duties, like crash. Japan has an aging population, so these dangerous projectiles may appear soon. I love my bicycle.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@good theres nothing more dangerous than a drunk, speeding, sleepy human driver, this tech has proven so far to be safer than a human driver and will only get better and better as computing power increases. eventually these vehicles will be synced to brake/accel at the same time leading to less waiting times at traffic lights. in 50yrs or so youll see driverless car will easily outperform human drives, meaning lower insurance, mantainenance charges. Which will in turn see more people to switch to the tech. there will come a day when somebody will say, look mum somebodies driving there own car, LOL

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Only a total 48 cars and 11 had accidents, well that sounds good, but those numbers can't be confirmed and are only supplied by the company who promotes this technology. No steering wheel, no pedals? Something just feels to un natural about giving total control of movement to electronics. What's next, drone commercial airliners?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

doesnt matter if it was on car , as they said 2.8million km traveled and only 11 minor accidents NOT cause by the technology itself, from human error. that is by far less accient prone than human drivers, the average driver would even drive half that distance in there lifetime

1 ( +4 / -3 )

wifjapan: Did you even read the article? The numbers you quote are likely bias. Google has NOT made the records public, The emerging technology have ONLY the companies word on what happened and the DMV won't release any details either.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

The article said minor accidents does this include "MINOR TRAFFIC" accident or driving out of the facility and hitting a pole.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The emerging technology have ONLY the companies word** so you think theyre going to put a product on the market thatll end up killing/injuring many people and leave themselve open to $millions in litigation. Google arnt the only ones doing it. there are european companies also. the tech is there will take a few more yrs before they get it perfected, but make no mistake itll be much less accident prone than human drivers. which is the main point of doing it. theyre starting to use it in delivery trucks, passenger vehicles will naturally be next. image being pi** drunk and your car taking you home at the end of the night. or eating breakfast and reading the paper, surfing the net, while being driven to work. gives you more free time that would otherwise be used driving yourself. driving yourself will probably even attract higher insurance rates since itll be riskier computer driven vehicles.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

wifjapan: So you think they're going to put a product on the market that'll end up killing/ injuring many people? <It wouldn't be the first time a company has put profit before proven safety, and fudged the numbers to look good, has it?

Google arnt the only ones doing it. There are European companies also. These numbers you quote arnt including those European companies, are they?

I'm sorry but I simply have a different view on being responsible for my own physical actions. Its not natural to totally rely on technology to take care of us. As I pointed out, do you also want drone commercial airlines to fly you to and from? Though I'm probably an exception I've never been in an accident while driving the last thirty five years, part of that has been dumb luck and part of that is because I always give total attention while driving.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

What happens in rain or snow when sensors can be blocked and visibility is seriously reduced, or are they only testing on sunny days?

My car has adaptive cruise control and it uses a small radar device in the top center of my windshield (part of the OnStar rearview mirror assembly) to track the following distance and closure rates for vehicles in front of me. There's a visual camera as well, but that's only for tracking the lines painted on the road to warn me if I'm drifting out of the lane without using my turn signal. I would imagine the self-driving cars have similar technology so that even in low visibility situations it can still detect what's going on around the vehicle.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Something just feels to un natural about giving total control of movement to electronics.

And controlling a hunk of molded iron, steel, and glass via a highly processed, gasoline-powered combustion engine, rack and pinion steering, and hydraulic brakes filled with refined oil-based fluids is natural how exactly? By definition, any type of man-made machinery, complex or otherwise, flies in the face of nature.

Know that while your discomfort with technology may indeed be real, the Luddites waged a similarly futile battle against the tide of progress. Automated cars will save lives, preserve precious energy and material resources, and also also contribute to an increase in human productivity.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

LFRAgain: I guess you would be the first in line to volunteer for flying in a commercial plane with NO pilots.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Self-driving cars will also make it possible for visually impaired people to finally regain the ability to function fully in society, something that was taken from them when the automobile began to dominate society (and rural transportation began dying, a process that is still going on worldwide). They will once again be able to live in the suburbs, travel on the publicly-funded highways, and work at any of the large number of employers whose locations offer no access to public transportation.

Right now, on the main JT page, is a story of a man who is paralyzed from the waist down, and could be walking again if not for government officials who are slow to allow technology that could ameliorate his handicap.

I say more power to Google (and the company making that exoskeleton walker for that paralyzed man). Who are we to tell people that they must accept their lot in life as second-class partially-mobile citizens?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ThonTaddeo: Great post, and great examples of where this technology would be applied best. It's not the technology itself that I'm against, it's the over use and TOTAL dependency of it. Removing steering wheels and ALL controls, from cars with able bodied humans, in my opinion, just isn't a good idea. For the same reasons a train still needs a human control, or a plane still needs a pilot. There will always be a potential situation, where human action is needed.

LFRAgain: Thinks that when I say something feels un natural about giving total control of all our movements to electronics, I'm referring to an organic compounds from nature, lol.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Stuart,

I guess you would be the first in line to volunteer for flying in a commercial plane with NO pilots.

If the technology is sound and well tested, sure, why not?

Opposition to automation simply because it's "not natural" or lacks some sort of indefinable "human touch" is completely irrational. The vast majority of automobile accidents in the world are directly attributable to human driver error. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in a 2008 study found that 88.2% of 3,894,983 car accidents were the result of driver error, while fewer than 7% could be attributed to mechanical failure or defect.

If you want to talk about commercial airliners, some 57% of accidents are caused by human error, with pilot error accounting for more than 87% of accidents while the remaining are is caused by other human error, such as mistaken direction from air traffic controllers, improper fueling procedures, or incorrect parts installation. An important point to take from this is that while the sheer number of airline accidents has dropped considerably since the 1960s, largely due to technological improvements, the percentage of accidents caused by human error has remained in the 50~60 percent range for the past 60 years. In other words, tech has made flying safer, while human control has remained as flawed as it will ever be.

Meanwhile, the sheer volume of automation already incorporated into a modern commercial airliner would probably make you weep. According to an April 2015 New York Times article:

“In a recent survey of airline pilots, those operating Boeing 777s reported that they spent just seven minutes manually piloting their planes in a typical flight. Pilots operating Airbus planes spent half that time.

While pilots are currently indispensable for takeoff and landing commercial aircrafts, it’s not a stretch to imagine someday they won’t be, with the current rate of R&D being poured into automation, not to mention the pressure the industry is feeling from a chronic shortage of qualified pilots.

This is not to say that pilots will be phased entirely out of the cockpit even if full automation does occur, but when one considers that the murder/suicide crash of Germanwings Airbus A320, killing 150 people, or the strongly suspected murder/suicide disappearance of Malaysia Airlines MH370, presumably taking some 239 lives, or even the Sept 11th New York City terror attacks killing some 3000 could have all been avoided, or at least mitigated, if the pilot factor had been removed from the equation, then the impetus to find ways to make automation work become greater.

Thinks that when I say something feels un natural about blah blah blah...

Stu thinks that he possesses the power to unilaterally redfine the meaning of "natural" to fit his own agenda, lol.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I guess you would be the first in line to volunteer for flying in a commercial plane with NO pilots.

As for me, if the airspace became as crowded as the roads are today, I'd DEMAND an automated aircraft. The speeds involved are too high to be hoping the pilots aren't picking their noses when they should be avoiding that aircraft in front of them.

Regarding automation in an aircraft, there's at least one incident of a fatal mid-air collision that was caused by a human contravening what the on-board Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) was telling the pilots to do. A Russian airliner received a TCAS "CLIMB!" alert about a head-on collision with another plane right after the Air Traffic Controller (ATC) told the Russian plane to "Descend" to avoid a collision. The Russian pilots at the time had been instructed to use ATC instructions in cases where there is a contradiction (I guess because they still didn't trust the TCAS system). So the Russian plane descended. However, the oncoming plane who had received the TCAS alert to "DESCEND!" was following the TCAS instructions. Both planes descended into each other. There were no survivors from either flight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision

Had those flights been fully automated, the planes never would have collided.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I have Cerebral Palsy and am eagerly awaiting self-driving cars. I hate having to depend on others to take me places.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites