Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Google Self Driving Cars Top 300,000 Miles

By - Source: Google | B 16 comments

Google has launched an impressive statistic showing that its self-driving cars have now covered more than 300,000 miles, and have not been involved in a crash when under computer control.

Of course, we also know that at least one self-driving car was involved in a crash when allegedly under manual control.

Naturally, we would expect these cars to be crash free or they should have been removed from traffic. Google stated that the product team has been "encouraged by this progress, but there’s still a long road ahead." Chris Urmson, in charge of driverless car engineering added: "To provide the best experience we can, we’ll need to master snow-covered roadways, interpret temporary construction signals and handle other tricky situations that many drivers encounter. As a next step, members of the self-driving car team will soon start using the cars solo (rather than in pairs), for things like commuting to work."

In addition to the current Prius vehicles. Google has recently added a Lexus RX450h SUV to its fleet. The car is supposed to take the technology on "different terrain", even if it is somewhat clear the Lexus RX is not exactly the vehicle that you will voluntarily take on terrain other than streets. Perhaps the Google crew was simply tired of the Prius?

In case you are interested, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that there are 2.5 property damage accidents for every 1 million highway miles that are (manually) travelled. There was no information on accident rates on all U.S. streets.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 16 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 0 Hide
    lilsanta , August 10, 2012 7:14 PM
    meet george jetson
  • -5 Hide
    dogman_1234 , August 10, 2012 7:16 PM
    Just wait until the computer in the car fails.
  • 7 Hide
    tntom , August 10, 2012 7:37 PM
    Now when you do a Google search, The search engine literally "starts up" and drives you there.
  • 7 Hide
    Anonymous , August 10, 2012 7:59 PM
    @dogman_1234

    If you're speaking of the computer that does the driving, then that is what manual mode is for. If it's any of the other computerized systems then the engine may stop working, the transmission may lock into it's current gear (automatic, semi-automatic, and double clutch systems), ABS and/or Traction/Stability control systems may not operate, Climate Control may not operate, etc. Modern cars are far more computerized than you realize.

    Furthermore, airliners have been able to fly mostly computerized with the pilot there "just in case" for nearly a decade.
  • 7 Hide
    tomaz99 , August 10, 2012 8:59 PM
    Cars have computers in them right now...if the existing one failed you'd be in trouble as well.

    dogman_1234Just wait until the computer in the car fails.

  • -2 Hide
    the_brute , August 10, 2012 9:03 PM
    @beyondAllLimits

    I agree about what you said, but how many morons will there be not even paing attention or asleep if the computer fails. In a plane you have quite a while before you hit something, in a car you have in less than a second.

    Long story short it would still be user error with or without the computer.
  • 0 Hide
    dalethepcman , August 10, 2012 9:39 PM
    The question is would I get a DWI for sitting in the back seat while my car drove me home?

    if It cannot be operated without sitting in the "drivers" seat, then I don't care.
  • 6 Hide
    v1ze , August 10, 2012 10:10 PM
    "Naturally, we would expect these cars to be crash free or they should have been removed from traffic."

    Uhm, other vehicles could hit the Google car. derp.
  • 0 Hide
    fb39ca4 , August 10, 2012 11:57 PM
    tomaz99Cars have computers in them right now...if the existing one failed you'd be in trouble as well.

    Yes, your engine would cut out. That could be dangerous in some situations, but it won't make your car uncontrollably crash into something.
  • 0 Hide
    fb39ca4 , August 10, 2012 11:59 PM
    So how many near crashes were there when the human had to take control to avert them?
  • -1 Hide
    fatality1515 , August 11, 2012 2:52 AM
    I think self-driving cars are a lame idea.. People don't use the public transport because they are in love with their cars, they love the aspect of driving (especially Europeans, stick shift FTW).. What would be the point of getting a self-driving BMW or a Porsche? Thinking further ahead, if computer driven cars would become mainstream and proven more safe than human driving, the government would make this the only available way of travel (computer driven vehicles). Probably the only people allowed to drive non computer controlled vehicles would be the police..

    Besides, I rather be in control of my life.. In an airplane you don't have a choice, you are at the mercy of the pilots (or in the case of self-driving cars -the computer), but actually driving a car you posses the control of the vehicle and of your life, there is a choice of decision.

    Without a sophisticated fully developed AI that is on par of human intelligence you have to be insane to let a computer drive you.
  • 0 Hide
    dogman_1234 , August 11, 2012 3:04 AM
    BeyondAllLimits@dogman_1234If you're speaking of the computer that does the driving, then that is what manual mode is for. If it's any of the other computerized systems then the engine may stop working, the transmission may lock into it's current gear (automatic, semi-automatic, and double clutch systems), ABS and/or Traction/Stability control systems may not operate, Climate Control may not operate, etc. Modern cars are far more computerized than you realize.Furthermore, airliners have been able to fly mostly computerized with the pilot there "just in case" for nearly a decade.

    The issues with computerized flight is, that flying is very complex and a computer cannot make a judgement call when the shit hits the fan. No, you cannot program it to do certain things like what to do if an engine fails. humans should be the ones flying, not be 'just in case' units. That is a very dangerous thing that even the airline industry has failed to realize.

    Flying is more complex than you think. If it was not, then everyone would have their own Cessna and or copter and private certificate.

    I applaud Google for their innovative style and wish them the best; however, humans will always be the the most powerful computers in the world.
  • 0 Hide
    belardo , August 11, 2012 3:59 AM
    Yet, the Air-France that crashed into the Atlantic a few years ago leaving South America wouldn't have crashed if the two co-pilots left the plane alone. More so on the jr. pilot who was pulling UP on the controls the entire time without others knowing. Because Airbus is stupid in that the two controls (each pilot can have control) are not connected and couldn't feel his actions. Also, their flight computers takes the input from two controllers to avg. out what it assumes the pilots want.

    That said, the computer didn't know the humans were messing up. This info, from the black box - found 2+ years later.

    Uh oh... anyone else get the feeling that Apple will have this patented in 3 weeks?

    And worse still... that means we are a few years from Judgement day, when the Terminators start their war on mankind.
  • 0 Hide
    bin1127 , August 11, 2012 4:13 AM
    but does it gas up itself?
  • 0 Hide
    shahrooz , August 11, 2012 4:17 PM
    fatality1515I think self-driving cars are a lame idea.. People don't use the public transport because they are in love with their cars, they love the aspect of driving (especially Europeans, stick shift FTW).. What would be the point of getting a self-driving BMW or a Porsche? Thinking further ahead, if computer driven cars would become mainstream and proven more safe than human driving, the government would make this the only available way of travel (computer driven vehicles). Probably the only people allowed to drive non computer controlled vehicles would be the police..Besides, I rather be in control of my life.. In an airplane you don't have a choice, you are at the mercy of the pilots (or in the case of self-driving cars -the computer), but actually driving a car you posses the control of the vehicle and of your life, there is a choice of decision.Without a sophisticated fully developed AI that is on par of human intelligence you have to be insane to let a computer drive you.


    lol airplanes are mostly on autopilot :) 
  • 0 Hide
    shahrooz , August 11, 2012 4:22 PM
    fatality1515I think self-driving cars are a lame idea.. People don't use the public transport because they are in love with their cars, they love the aspect of driving (especially Europeans, stick shift FTW).. What would be the point of getting a self-driving BMW or a Porsche? Thinking further ahead, if computer driven cars would become mainstream and proven more safe than human driving, the government would make this the only available way of travel (computer driven vehicles). Probably the only people allowed to drive non computer controlled vehicles would be the police..Besides, I rather be in control of my life.. In an airplane you don't have a choice, you are at the mercy of the pilots (or in the case of self-driving cars -the computer), but actually driving a car you posses the control of the vehicle and of your life, there is a choice of decision.Without a sophisticated fully developed AI that is on par of human intelligence you have to be insane to let a computer drive you.


    and the AI is as sophisticated as a human, how diff rent is it to have a human drive the car or the AI both at have same safety