Google Admits One of Its Self-Driving Cars Has Caused an Accident

So, who PAYS for the accident? The software developer, the hardware developer, the vehicle integrator, or the PUBLIC?

I contend damages are the responsibility of EVERYONE associated with releasing the autonomous vehicle onto the public streets. If it ain't 100% tested safe, it should NOT be on the streets...ever!

Just to play devil's advocate, let's say it's 1900 and someone told you about a new mechanical device called an automobile that allowed you to travel far more easily but that there was a risk of accident or death. Would you demand that all automobiles be taken off the roads? What if someone came from the future and showed you this graph of automobile related fatalities per year?

"If it ain't 100% tested safe, it should NOT be on the streets...ever!"

Okay, let's see what we need to get off the streets for Public Safety:

• Autonomous vehicles.
• Human-driven semi trucks.
• Human-driven buses.
• Human-driven delivery trucks.
• Human driven cars.
• Human-driven motorcyles.
• Human-driven bicyles.
• Pedestrians.

(ED-209 voice) "Stay inside your house, Citizen Cuda. If you leave your house you will need to be terminated before you potentially harm another person. This is for Public Safety. Humans have a non-zero chance of hurting other humans, therefore humans are not '100% safe,' and therefore, humans cannot be allowed on the public streets...ever."

Maybe the solution is to have streets where only autonomous vehicles drive. Mixing humans with machines is always going to result in some surprises because humans are unpredictable.

I'd welcome autonomous driving if we could keep people away from these vehicles. There is no shortage of bad human drivers.

Or maybe the solution is to have the human drivers PAY ATTENTION to the vehicles ahead of them.

"The car had to drive around the sandbags, moving back to the center of its lane, but in the meantime, a public transit bus approached it from behind in the same lane, which was extra wide, with the test driver sitting in the self-driving vehicle thinking that the bus had enough time to stop or slow down to allow Google's car to move along." (Emphasis added.)

The bus driver either was not paying attention to the plight of the vehicle in front of it IN THE SAME LANE or he was CHOOSING to 'dance around' the other car AHEAD OF HIM in the SAME LANE. The bus driver CUT OFF the Google car, and is the one at fault.

If the bus was controlled by a Google system instead of a human, the Google system would have correctly identified a vehicle AHEAD OF IT in the SAME LANE and not tried to 'ignore the problem.'

Many of the 'incidents' where the driver had to take control from the Google system include events such as the map not matching the street, where the car stops and waits for the 'congestion' to clear before turning, when the 'congestion' is a building in the middle of a street the map says is there but reality says is not. Or the car is waiting for a pedestrian who is waving the car on. The Google system is programmed to give pedestrians the right of way, so when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, the car will wait 'forever' for the pedestrian to finish crossing.

We are seeing things the programmers had not thought to look for in normal traffic, such as overly aggressive bus drivers, or lanes that are two lanes wide and are treated as 'sometimes one lane, sometimes two lanes, depending ho how much of a butthole the drivers are being.'

If we taught the Google system just how bad American drivers CAN be, the cars would never leave their garages our of fear.

Or maybe the solution is to have the human drivers PAY ATTENTION to the vehicles ahead of them.
If only people would do this instead of playing on their little electronic gadgets, eating and smoking at the same time, applying makeup, beating their kids, etc., etc.

Perhaps the Civil Engineers could do something about this. Such as building intersections where priority was not automatically given to pedestrians. Come ON! Is it a street or a really big sidewalk?

Yes, I know it is not legal to run over pedestrians, but I am submitting legislation to make them fair game!

After passing Driver's Ed. I got my licence at the age of 17. Since then it took me about 15 years to gain the experience (and maturity) to become a "good driver". Along the way, it took me a few accidents, minor "fender benders" and a couple close calls, to learn my limits as a driver, the limits of my vehicle, and, most important, the realization that the other drivers that I shared the road with would not necessarily behave as I assumed that they would behave. I was lucky! During my learning years I never caused injury to anyone or myself.

Just like any teenage driver, it will take some time and a lot of experience in real world driving situations for the computer systems of these cars to mature.

Have they programmed in the city driving rule "The other driver will cede the right-of-way if you avoid eye contact". - Oh, right, driverless cars don't have eyes!

"autonomous driving system is truly better and safer than the average human driver." NOT TRUE. Human intelligence is way better than AI.

"Human intelligence is way better than AI."

But AI REFLEXES are better than human ones.

When was the last time you pumped your brakes for better stopping in less-than-perfect traction? You've probably even trained yourself OUT of that habit, since the ABS can 'read' the road better than you can, and it can pump the brakes faster, fore efficiently, and more precisely for the conditions than you can.

I could not agree, because we are not design for braking stuff. And, its not even close to how fast our reflex I/O communicates the brain and other multi-tasking job it does, without having us to think. Example, having sex with your wife but with completely focused on different woman in mind.

"I could not agree, because we are not design for braking stuff."

Which is kind of my point, we are not optimized for controlling a car, not like the AI's will be once they're properly tuned. We will always be better acordianists that the self-driving AI's, but that's the core of the issue: Humans are generalists "Jack of all Trades, Master of none, but oft times better than a master of some." the AI's will be specialists, the Master of One Trade. The jack will never surpass the master in the master's trade, but the jack can do 'mediocre' in all trades, while the Master is 'poor' in any trade not his own.

"Example, having sex with your wife but with completely focused on different woman in mind."

And how often do you do that while driving? -On second thought, skip it, I don't want to know.

I hate to burst your bubble but automatic braking will be mandatory in all USA made cars in 2020. Multi-tasking is a myth. You may be multiplexing your thoughts, but you only have one brain. It has been proven over and over that when humans multitask they simply do the different tasks less effectively and accurately than they would have if they had concentrated on a single task at one time.

Maybe quantity is more important than quality to you but with the multi-core processors available on mother boards, I don't think you will be faster or more efficient than any future AI machine.

What tends to make humans faster than machines is our search algorithm. We think in contextual terms and store memories that way. The early AI machines were sequential and had to run through all kinds of rule testing to determine the correct response. Now, with contextual considerations and multiple processors, you don't stand a chance at being faster.

But it really doesn't matter anyway. With all the lawyers to relieve us of our own responsibility we can always blame the machine for our mistakes. Machines have not yet been taught to complain.