Self Driving Cars: How well do they work in areas with haphazard driving rules?

[JoeN]

Third world countries, China, Lower Manhattan, etc.

It seems they work well now when they are tested on all those rural roads.  How well do they do in crazier areas and parking lots?  What is the state of the art on this now?  Anyone knowledgeable?

[rs20]

Not knowledgeable, but I doubt that anyone has even begun to try.

[Brumby]

I think DARPA might have some answers - but I'm not sure they will be keen to go into a lot of detail.

[TK]

UBER is doing it in Pittsburgh, PA

[JoeN]

My cousin sister's husband proved this personally. He was driving with in speed limit, on a non-illuminated road, and just got blinded by some dick head driving with high beam. When he managed to adjust his vision, he hit a man fixing his car at the center of the road with no warning signs or what so ever, even not head/tail lights, and killed that man. The victim's family demanded 1 million CNY settlement, which my cousin's family couldn't afford. How her husband is serving a 2 year sentence.

That sounds a lot like blood money.  Not too many advanced countries still do it this way.  I am surprised China still does, since it seems to be viewing itself as an advanced country these days.

[TK]

My cousin sister's husband proved this personally. He was driving with in speed limit, on a non-illuminated road, and just got blinded by some dick head driving with high beam. When he managed to adjust his vision, he hit a man fixing his car at the center of the road with no warning signs or what so ever, even not head/tail lights, and killed that man.

A self driving car could have avoided killing the man because LIDAR and other sensors used in the cars are not blinded by a front headlight high beam of an incoming car... and it has a reaction time that is orders of magnitude higher than of a human.

[Monkeh]

I don't think self driving will work in China due to legal issues. Chinese laws is very unfriendly to drivers compared to to pedestrians.

My cousin sister's husband proved this personally. He was driving with in speed limit, on a non-illuminated road, and just got blinded by some dick head driving with high beam. When he managed to adjust his vision, he hit a man fixing his car at the center of the road with no warning signs or what so ever, even not head/tail lights, and killed that man. The victim's family demanded 1 million CNY settlement, which my cousin's family couldn't afford. How her husband is serving a 2 year sentence.

And he's entirely innocent of blame for not stopping his vehicle when unable to see where he was going.

[Rick Law]

...
Now, if a self driving car hit and killed someone while still not breaking traffic rules, who's going to take the responsibility?
...

The USA "MO" is to sue everyone you possibly can, particularly the ones with the deepest pocket.

In other words, the question is not "who is going to take the responsibility" but instead the question is "who best can we get compensation from."

[EEVblog]

Just basic stuff like accidents, temporary road work speed limits etc are no doubt going to cause issues for driverless cars.
The permutations of possible issues is effectively infinite.

[cdev]

Here in the US there is already talk about some kind of legal exemption from lawsuits for manufacturers..

Since these applications "are essential to national security" (like fracking and its Clean Water Act and right to know acts trade secrecy exemptions) its likely manufacturers will get preemption of claims against them in some manner.

Just stay off the roads (and the first few hundred feet of your lawn ) and you'll be okay.

[TK]

Just basic stuff like accidents, temporary road work speed limits etc are no doubt going to cause issues for driverless cars.
The permutations of possible issues is effectively infinite.

self driving cars are based on machine learning + sensors (LIDAR, cameras, IR) + GPS data + real time traffic information.  GPS is needed to be able to get from point A to point B, but the driving itself is done by the car using machine learning algorithms.  The objective is for the car to learn how to drive and add more capabilities and experience as it keeps driving.  I think it was at CES 2017 that Audi showed a car that learned how to drive starting from basic pre-defined knowledge.  It is a really surrealistic experience watching the UBER self driving cars roaming the streets of Pittsburgh... and watching the Tesla self driving cars on youtube... it seems futuristic, but I think we are very close to seeing them on the roads in a near term.

[cdev]

Is it true that if a driver (typically a rich person) seriously injures somebody (typically a poor person) in China they sometimes then run them over a few times to kill them so that they have to pay less money.

Videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=driver+kills+pedestrian+in+china

That should be considered to be premeditated murder!


Quote from: blueskull on Today at 20:37:53>Quote from: Monkeh on Today at 20:22:29

And he's entirely innocent of blame for not stopping his vehicle when unable to see where he was going.

He's not completely innocent, but he shouldn't take majority of responsibility.
Current Chinese laws says if a motor vehicle hits a non-motor vehicle or a pedestrian, the motor vehicle takes at least 70% of the responsibility, and the only exception is intentional suicide. That's just bullshit.

[cdev]

I wouldn't be surprised if that statement was completely false.

Lawsuits of all kinds in the US, are so extremely difficult to finance, and many kinds of suits, especially medical malpractice claims are at historic lows, (despite very high rates of medical injury).

Why dont I see people who are injured by self driving cars being able to sue even when the other party is clearly at fault?

The system is set up to make justice next to impossible. (As long as one person in a million gets justice and the news covers it, the government doesn't care)

"Subrogation clauses" in many contracts involving insurance, especially employer plans which until recently most Americans had through their jobs if they were employed, make suing- under contingency agreements- impossible because the (health) insurance company who rendered care after the person was paralyzed, gets first crack at any "winnings".  Only after they have been reimbursed at meaningless inflated rates does the injured attorney get paid. Whatevers left after that if its not a deficit goes to the "winner" I suppose. Even if the entire rest of their lives they will need medical care, tough luck. Its the illusion of justice, not justice, that matters.



Quote from: Rick Law on Today at 20:49:45>Quote from: blueskull on Today at 19:47:16

...
Now, if a self driving car hit and killed someone while still not breaking traffic rules, who's going to take the responsibility?
...

The USA "MO" is to sue everyone you possibly can, particularly the ones with the deepest pocket.

In other words, the question is not "who is going to take the responsibility" but instead the question is "who best can we get compensation from."

[EEVblog]

In other words, the question is not "who is going to take the responsibility" but instead the question is "who best can we get compensation from."

That's entirely what insurance is for.
No point suing someone who doesn't have insurance, too hard to get anything. But an insurance company will simply pay out as a statistical loss.

[cdev]

How much do lawyers get paid in China?

Here in the US better attorneys often make over a thousand dollars an hour. Mediocre attorneys might make $300/hr.

[JoeN]

...
Now, if a self driving car hit and killed someone while still not breaking traffic rules, who's going to take the responsibility?
...

The USA "MO" is to sue everyone you possibly can, particularly the ones with the deepest pocket.

In other words, the question is not "who is going to take the responsibility" but instead the question is "who best can we get compensation from."

Sure, but the U.S. (and most countries with English laws) difference from blood money countries is that the law doesn't turn an accident into a crime if and only if you are not able to come up with a large settlement.  That was the sum of my point.  It's not that their law is invalid, just interesting to me.  I wonder why insurance wouldn't cover it, that's how we do it in the U.S.  I have $300,000 worth of liability insurance, which is considered on the low side, that is a lot more than $1M yuan.

[coppice]

I'd really like to see some coverage of how things like the Uber and Google self driving cars react to completely unstructured situations like accidents, and slightly more structured things which are off the script, like lane closures for road repairs. Its easy to see how an automated car would adopt a safe position, but how it would get through situations that even humans would puzzle over is more interesting.

[BrianHG]

I'd really like to see some coverage of how things like the Uber and Google self driving cars react to completely unstructured situations like accidents, and slightly more structured things which are off the script, like lane closures for road repairs. Its easy to see how an automated car would adopt a safe position, but how it would get through situations that even humans would puzzle over is more interesting.

We will only be told as little as possible.  I'm sure potential issues may be inadvertently exposed by releasing such information.  Believe me when I say Google and Uber will hide everything just like drug companies with their hidden multiple tests for a new drug, while selecting only the positive trials to be disclosed to the FDA to get approval.
Google and Uber are in it for the money.
They will guard/hide any fault or problems any way they can so they can get a product on the market ASAP and assure the public that it is safe.
They will avoid any tests they can which may reveal any such problems.
If you think otherwise, you are a fool and have no clue what and how so much money involved can manipulate US approvals.

[AndyC_772]

I'd really like to see some coverage of how things like the Uber and Google self driving cars react to completely unstructured situations like accidents, and slightly more structured things which are off the script, like lane closures for road repairs.

I'm curious about how they react in situations where obeying the rules of the road is not the norm.

Programming a machine with "when X, do Y" is fair enough. For example, provided it's in a country where people do generally stop at red lights, a machine programmed to stop at red lights won't have a problem.

But what if it's driving through somewhere where expectations are different. What if, for example, stopping at a red light is likely to get you rear-ended by someone who's not expecting it? What if it will get you car-jacked?

What if the way to minimise the chances of an accident isn't to do what you're supposed to do, but to do what other local drivers expect you to do?

What rules-of-the-road do you program in?

[SeanB]

They can try them here in South Africa. If they can drive for a year in any big city and not get hit by a taxi driving on the wrong side of the road, stopping anywhere, crossing across 6 lanes on the freeway to pick up a fare, driving the wrong way to avoid traffic cops, running red lights ( Eish it was fresh red mlungu, fresh red), taking the rule book and using as toilet paper. Then they will be fine everywhere. You can do the same testing in Mumbai as well, all you get extra is a few more animals in the road, few more, not many more, but less drunk drivers and pedestrians.

[cdev]

In the US the worth of a human life appears to be far more income dependent, meaning dependent on future projected earnings, and familial needs. Thats why undesirables (toxic facilities) are always located in poor areas, and lawyers won't ever work on contingency for poor people. The lives of children or old people are valued on their future earnings too, which gives you an idea of how much lawyers want those cases.


I can hear them now.


"Look, if you don't trust modern technology, stay off the roads."


China no longer requires that people get permission slips to travel, right?


I see the networked self driving cars and lack of widely used inexpensive public transit as a form of insurance for despotic regimes sort of like the "Internet kill switch" concept.

[BrianHG]

Enjoy!

 

[nctnico]

Third world countries, China, Lower Manhattan, etc.

It seems they work well now when they are tested on all those rural roads.  How well do they do in crazier areas and parking lots?  What is the state of the art on this now?  Anyone knowledgeable?

I think that is the easiest part to fix: don't hit other objects while travelling towards the destination. I have some hands on experience with driving in Jakarta (Indonesia) and you just go with the flow and don't hit anything. There is no other way to go so even driving on the left side of the road isn't hard to do.

[AndyC_772]

you just go with the flow and don't hit anything

As an engineer, would you ever program a machine to "just go with the flow", if that meant contravening the local rules and regulations that apply?

How would you justify that decision, in court if necessary?

I don't think I could. I'd probably try and demonstrate that a vehicle which adhered rigidly to the law was incapable of functioning in that environment, and leave it for others to argue over what the solution should be. Most likely, not using a self-driving vehicle at all would be the best decision, IMHO.

[nctnico]

you just go with the flow and don't hit anything

As an engineer, would you ever program a machine to "just go with the flow", if that meant contravening the local rules and regulations that apply?

Note the title of the thread!