Apple Autonomous Test Vehicle Involved in Accident on August 24

[4nNtt]

I have a Level 2 Driving Assistance on my 2018 Audi S5 and it works pretty well but I wouldn't trust it 100%. It saves you a lot of strain, specially in stop and go traffic but the world is not ready for Self Driving cars yet.
In my opinion, the only way for this to work is for ALL cars to be autonomous and to communicate with each other.
There are too many bad drivers out there and the systems are not quick enough to avoid crashes, I know, I use the system every day and u need to stay alert ALL the time.

If autonomous cars are going to be a reality sooner, there probably needs to be laws to give autonomous cars the right-of-way in some situations. Maybe a different turn signal that indicates the merging car has the right-of-way. There could be a central computer that tracks autonomous vehicles to keep the system fair. Maybe smart manual cars or a cell phone app could give drivers some of the same perks if they drive less aggressively. Don't follow the rules then you get a ticket or are at fault in an accident. Kind of like how buses always get the right of way in cities. You need to be prepared to let them merge because they will expect it.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Lol, trying to train the car to drive aggressively. Wait till it figures out it can make its turn if it just merges into the other car. And maybe it'll also learn to avoid Priuses and ghetto-looking cars, which is honestly what I do.
[doublepost=1535782840][/doublepost]
Doesn't matter how far you are from the car in front. If someone approaches from the other lane then cuts in front of you and brakes for no reason*, there's nothing you can reasonably do about it. The only way to avoid it at all is to stay far behind cars in other lanes too and hit your brakes every time someone is next to you, which is of course not an option.

* I've had someone do this to me, but luckily my reaction was quick enough.

It is a sort of strange logic that makes a "great" freeway driver, and it is highly subjective, and even based on things that get to the soul of the human even! I mean, really is it fair for me to do a "read" on how the car ahead of me is driving? Im thinking, are they texting, are they on qualudes? Woman driver? all this thinking comes to my mind before I can see the driver, if it even matters..... Lots of times it does matter! (That little Eureka moment when you realize the other driver is staring into his lap, probably at his phone, and that's why he nearly crashed in the next lane - away from me!)

 

[truthertech]

Unlike 99.99% of the posters here, I have driven the Kifer & Lawrence intersection about 1,000 times in my life, along with other similar intersections along Lawrence and Central Expy. If I wanted to I could cause the car behind me to read-end me about 50% of the time just by braking after the driver behind assumed I was accelerating onto the expressway. The problem with these merges is that the driver needs to look behind their shoulder to decide to yield, which takes their eyes off the car in front, which can cause collision if the car in front brakes.

With humans I can guess behavior 99% of the time, but with self-driving cars, it's a different situation. SDCs have sensors all around, so they can make a decision at a different point, which leads to problems with humans who are accustomed to interacting with humans. I want to see the dashcam video to see who is responsible.

We already know who is responsible. When you hit a vehicle from behind the law is that it is your fault for following too close as you must leave sufficient stopping distance when following. It's never an excuse that the car in front of you slowed, or even braked completely.
[doublepost=1536034633][/doublepost]

If autonomous cars are going to be a reality sooner, there probably needs to be laws to give autonomous cars the right-of-way in some situations. Maybe a different turn signal that indicates the merging car has the right-of-way. There could be a central computer that tracks autonomous vehicles to keep the system fair. Maybe smart manual cars or a cell phone app could give drivers some of the same perks if they drive less aggressively. Don't follow the rules then you get a ticket or are at fault in an accident. Kind of like how buses always get the right of way in cities. You need to be prepared to let them merge because they will expect it.

People, you're overthinking this. There's a very good reason that vehicles merging on the freeway aren't given the right of way--it would lead to a massive number of crashes as vehicles traveling 60-70 MPH braked or swerved suddenly to allow a merging car to enter, especially as they tried to guess the speed and location the merging car would enter. Yes, the traffic safety engineers designed it this way for a reason.

You also have a faulty solution in search of a problem. Autonomous vehicles have been merging onto freeways for several years now as they have driven well over ten million miles, many tens of millions of miles more with Tesla's system, and how big of a problem has it been? Yep, that's right. No, it doesn't matter if it is an autonomous car you are following, or a 90 year old grandmother or a brand new driver, you need to watch the car in front of you and allow for a safe distance behind them. That's the rule of the road across the country.

 

[borgranta]

Merging lanes on Lawrence Expressway at Kifer Rd is free flowing in both directions right now at ~4pm and with four lanes per direction there should be no reason for Apple Car to stop on it at 2:58pm when traffic is even lighter unless its autonomous merging algorithm is broken.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3734219,-121.9961184,17z/data=!5m1!1e1

Perhaps the programming precluded getting up to the necessary speed needed to merge due to speed limit signs. Instead it decided to stop in the roadway illegally instead.

Apple is testing its self-driving vehicles in a number of Lexus SUVs out on the roads of Cupertino, and on August 24, one of those vehicles was involved in an accident.

Apple is required to disclose autonomous vehicle collisions to the California DMV, and the information on the accident was published on the DMV's website.

According to the accident details, the vehicle in question was in autonomous mode at the time, and sustained moderate damage in the crash, but it does not appear that Apple was at fault for the collision. From the accident report:Apple has been testing its self-driving software in Lexus RX450h SUVs in Cupertino, California and surrounding areas since early 2017, but this is the first time an Apple vehicle has been involved in a crash.

Apple's test vehicles are outfitted with a host of sensors and cameras, and while they are autonomous, each one has a pair of drivers inside. At the current time, Apple is testing its software in more than 60 vehicles.

It's not yet clear what Apple plans to do with its self-driving software, but it could be added to existing cars and there are still rumors suggesting Apple is working on its own Apple-branded vehicle that could come out by 2025.

Apple is also working on a self-driving shuttle service called "PAIL," an acronym for "Palo Alto to Infinite Loop." The shuttle program will transport employees between Apple's offices in Silicon Valley.

Article Link: Apple Autonomous Test Vehicle Involved in Accident on August 24

Why was the autonomous vehicle not also held responsible for stopping on the highway ramp.
Less than 1 mph would legally be considered a stop. Even if not considered a stop it would be considered driving to slow for conditions.
[doublepost=1536035719][/doublepost]Who is held responsible if self driving cars kill people? Will the engineers be tried for manslaughter?

 

[amaze1499]

Doing an article on a test vehicle being involved in an accident is like pointing out errors in a beta. Neither is a rumor.

 

[Bacillus]

perhaps it was another apple employee testing its abilities?

Psssht - it was Joni looking for his headphone jack
(while his driver’s driver got entangled in dongles)

 

[dilbert99]

At ONE MILE PER HOUR. That wasn't merging, that was just before having finished a complete stop. And don't post nonsense that you must KNOW is nonsense, then people are a lot more polite.

Why all the shouting, please be civil. Sorry if i am not up to your standards of comprehension reading the story. There were very few facts in the submitted accident report, far fewer details than an ordinary person would expect.

Hence why most of the discussions are making assumptions.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Instead it decided to stop in the roadway illegally instead.

Why was the autonomous vehicle not also held responsible for stopping on the highway ramp.
Less than 1 mph would legally be considered a stop.

Um, perhaps because you're supposed to stop there? It's a right turn lane with an implicit yield, not a highway ramp!

 

[pete2106]

What's with all the Leaf hate? I have a Leaf and it's the best car I've ever owned. I wonder if the leaf was on Autopilot when it hit the Autonomous car. That would be funny.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Any car going 1 mph to merge onto a highway is an epic fail, period.

 

[ravenstar]

Um, perhaps because you're supposed to stop there? It's a right turn lane with an implicit yield, not a highway ramp!

It's not even implicit -- Google street view shows a yield sign on that ramp. I haven't seen a highway onramp that didn't also have an explicit yield posted, contrary to what many posters here seem to think. I can't help feeling that those who are trying to blame the Apple car aren't the great drivers they think they are.

And while we don't know much about the circumstances at the time of the accident, given that the ramp is at a traffic light, it's very easy to come up with a scenario where right turning traffic would have to stop, even if it weren't rush hour.

 

[Kettil]

“Humans learn” is literally the worst argument against autonomous vehicles.

That's fine, as I wasn't arguing against autonomous vehicles specifically. The post I first quoted suggested that real humans shouldn't be behind a wheel at all (I don't think you're defending that notion, but I might be wrong). When the intelligent vehicle is so good as to be able to predict and prevent accidents, the interaction between a human driver and the vehicle could easily be enhanced to improve our traffic behaviour, tailored to the needs of the individual.

Generally though, I'm questioning the extremely car-centric paradigm of our societies, which is even harder to challenge if cars are seen as perfected machines, 'an epitome of development', from my viewpoint a fundamentally flawed and wasteful mode of going about our business on a global scale...

 

[_Refurbished_]

If the streets only had autonomous vehicles, then I'd say autonomous vehicles would be the safer choice. They'd follow the rules of the road. The only uncertainty is how they deal with pedestrians, especially in crowded areas.

I think the uncertainty of human behavior is what makes the near-term success of autonomous vehicles skeptical. Imagine testing these cars in NYC. You're going to have all kinds of accidents all over the place.

I think this is the greatest point of skepticism, but I have a strong feeling that it will turn out to be unfounded. Computers have instantaneous reaction time, a 360 degree FOV, and can't get distracted. Once trained properly, they will obliterate their human counterpart in this area.

As someone that grew up in NYC, have you ever seen what happens when a human police officer takes over a street light due to malfunction? It's a mess. Computers regulate things much better than we can. People don't realize that our traffic lights are already computer controlled and not manually regulated (like stop signs). How many people are scared that a traffic light will show two green lights at a stop light?

 

[fairuz]

Remember that the car was not driven by a human being but by a computer. A computer that knows the exact speed at the time of the accident. One mile per hour is your speed just a tiny moment before your car stands still after hitting the brakes, OR your speed just after you start driving from stand still. Like if you are hit from behind one tenth of a second after the traffic light turns from red to green.

In the same situation, you wouldn't know your exact speed. This car does.

You aren't supposed to stop to merge. Red lights at freeway entrances are different; that's before the merge.

 

[ravenstar]

Any car going 1 mph to merge onto a highway is an epic fail, period.

Perhaps you

You aren't supposed to stop to merge. Red lights at freeway entrances are different; that's before the merge.

Take a look at the intersection. It's a traffic light controlled intersection, not an interstate highway. There could easily be situations requiring right turning traffic to stop and wait for an opening to merge into.

Anyway, yield means, well, yield to other traffic. Granted, you should try into the flow of traffic at the same speed, but if you are unable to do so safely, you must yield to that traffic. You can't just plow into traffic and hope they'll make an opening. If that's what you think, the law, physics and common sense aren't on your side.

 

[Bacillus]

Any car going 1 mph to merge onto a highway is an epic fail, period.

Assuming there was a car under that mammoth facade of camera’s ...

 

[Appurushido]

The Leaf misses being on the Apple, duh!

 

[ipponrg]

I think this is the greatest point of skepticism, but I have a strong feeling that it will turn out to be unfounded. Computers have instantaneous reaction time, a 360 degree FOV, and can't get distracted. Once trained properly, they will obliterate their human counterpart in this area.

The problem with computers is you need to program just about every scenario into them. The hardest part is not take me to point A to point B. The hardest part is handling the different scenarios and relying on your human intuition to figure out the best possible outcome. For example,
- What if you have a person going the wrong way, what do you tell the computer to do?
- What if you have a person cutting in over double yellows, what do you tell the computer to do if you are being tailgated?
- What if you hydroplane on the road for whatever reason, what do you tell the computer to do?

As someone that grew up in NYC, have you ever seen what happens when a human police officer takes over a street light due to malfunction? It's a mess. Computers regulate things much better than we can. People don't realize that our traffic lights are already computer controlled and not manually regulated (like stop signs). How many people are scared that a traffic light will show two green lights at a stop light?

Many cities have sensors in their traffic lights, and if it plays well with autonomous cars that'd be great. But we all know there will be some political battles here to be fought. NYC just like every US major metropolitan city has an interesting conflict with budget and financials.

On a side note, here is an example of showing 2 "green lights" at a stop light:

Go to Williamsburg. Corner of Metropolitan and Meeker. Earlier this year (and not sure if they have fixed it since), they had pedestrian lights showing "walk" crossing Metropolitan towards Meeker, but they also had the green turn lights showing for oncoming traffic turning right onto Metropolitan from Meeker. The resulting mess was cars would go because they don't know the pedestrian light is on. Remember that in NYC you aren't allowed to turn on red, and green turn lights imply you have the right of way (i.e. the pedestrian lights should be stop).

 

[Johns12]

I think many people are way too optimistic as to when fully autonomous cars will be sold to the public. There is so much work still needed. Driving in winter weather is one of the largest problems facing these cars. Also, many people are looking at this from a large city view. There is a lot of open country all over the world were the economics of this has not been figured out yet.

We're a long way away.

 

[Juan007]

We already know who is responsible. When you hit a vehicle from behind the law is that it is your fault for following too close as you must leave sufficient stopping distance when following. It's never an excuse that the car in front of you slowed, or even braked completely.

Try reading for a chance, it's good for your health. Since you have zero knowledge of this situation, zero experience navigating this intersection, zero knowledge of the rules of the road in the State of California, your post is worth zero. If you'd like to become educated then hop a flight to SJC, I will offer to pick you up and drive you to this intersection and point out all the features I wrote about. Until then I would appreciate you not talking about things you have no idea about.

 

[truthertech]

Try reading for a chance, it's good for your health. Since you have zero knowledge of this situation, zero experience navigating this intersection, zero knowledge of the rules of the road in the State of California, your post is worth zero. If you'd like to become educated then hop a flight to SJC, I will offer to pick you up and drive you to this intersection and point out all the features I wrote about. Until then I would appreciate you not talking about things you have no idea about.

Facts, and the law, don't care about your feelings or impressions of the situation or what the law "should be." We can't have hundreds of millions of cars on the road in the USA without some fundamental rules of the road. One of the universal ones is that you need to leave sufficient stopping distance between you and the car in front of you. To cut to the chase, this is the rule of the road in California you'll want to copy and paste in your search field.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21703: “Following Too Closely”

“The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon, and the condition of, the roadway.”

 

[wigby]

If we use Mr Spocks logic here.

Is it logical to say, no, 30,000 killed by a computer driver is not acceptable.
We need to move back to humans only and back to 50,000 killed.

In any rational sense no, that would be stupid, and whilst we don't want deaths, less is better.

As you say there will be a massive crossover period of probably many decades.
Accidents will still happen, due to unforeseen road events/conditions.

My fear is, it will only take a few major incidents of people killed by a autonomous car, due to some error, for the media to jump all over it. legal cases start happening and companies in major trouble.

I just don't think we as a society are ready to accept this yet, nor will be accepting of it for a long time to come.

Obviously I wasn't speaking in practical terms but like you say, society won't be ready for the handoff to autonomy for a while longer. That's based on FUD and not at all practical either. Nevertheless, we progress.

 

[marco114]

With all the sensors merging should be a piece of cake vs stopping on the expressway like what a bad or inexperienced driver would do. Also, doesn't it have collision avoidance like Tesla to avoid those situations?

it was rear ended and was going 1mph, did you read the article?

 

[truthertech]

You're right about all three...even though you should be wrong about automatically getting the ticket for following too closely.

I had to deal with a traffic court matter where the client rear ended another car on the the highway. The car in front had slammed on their brakes, the client rear-ended them, and the idiot cop gave the client a ticket for following too closely.

Court day came, the driver from the car in front said the car in front of her slowed down, she slammed on her brakes, and about 4 seconds later she was hit from behind by the client.

The defence was that if it took 4 seconds to hit, the client clearly wasn't following too closely and the ticket should have been for careless driving. The ticket was thrown out.

Interesting legal twist that your client was actually guilty of careless driving and not following too close. I don't think that the cop would be properly be called "an idiot" when it isn't clear that the driver of the vehicle in front had made it clear that it was four seconds later that she was hit. Moreover, a recommendation in many places is to follow a two or even three second "rule" to allow room to stop, and the likelihood that a lot of judges would have found the "estimate" of 4 seconds to mean your client was not following to close is probably a low probability in most courts. Especially since it's just a recommendation and the law places the responsibility on the following vehicle.

Finally, there's no double jeopardy with civil infractions, so what would prevent the city attorney from simply refiling with the more serious "careless" driving charge against your client?

 

[DevNull0]

Interesting legal twist that your client was actually guilty of careless driving and not following too close. I don't think that the cop would be properly be called "an idiot" when it isn't clear that the driver of the vehicle in front had made it clear that it was four seconds later that she was hit. Moreover, a recommendation in many places is to follow a two or even three second "rule" to allow room to stop, and the likelihood that a lot of judges would have found the "estimate" of 4 seconds to mean your client was not following to close is probably a low probability in most courts. Especially since it's just a recommendation and the law places the responsibility on the following vehicle.

Finally, there's no double jeopardy with civil infractions, so what would prevent the city attorney from simply refiling with the more serious "careless" driving charge against your client?

I'm in Canada (Ontario) so I'm not sure what a US court would do. I'm surprised though that you say they'd take the 4 second estimate and then infer it may have been shorter and they make still have been following too close.

Here, the judge can only go on the evidence in the courtroom, so if the only witness to give a time estimate says 4 seconds, that's what the judge has to go with, they can't go out on their own and say maybe it was shorter. Beyond reasonable doubt still applies to highway traffic act cases, so there's no way with a 4 second estimate between the person in front hitting the brakes and the collision to find that the car was following too close beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe the US system is different though.

I do know that in traffic courts, many of the justices tend to completely ignore the law and their job when the accused person doesn't have a lawyer. I remember one who refused to read case law that was presented to them saying they don't care what it says. Canada is a common-law jurisdiction and the justices are legally required to consider case law from an equal level of court, and case law from a higher level is legally binding on them. But the average person isn't going to know their rights or how to bring an appeal, so they system abuses them.

As far as laying new charges, it took nearly 2 years to get a trial date, and the limitation period on new charges had expired. You have to love how inefficient our system is here.