Let’s face it, the software in these cars won’t take the “risks” that humans will. Expect them to get rear-ended with frequency, while the terrified passengers look over their shoulders in terror. Robots and humans won’t mix well on the road. If these Google cars don’t already have stickers that read, “Keep 250 feet back”, they should. And they should have been designed after 1971 Ford Pintos. NO ONE tail gates THOSE. And let’s give them a coral snake “Don’t tread on me!” paint pattern.
insexpert, you are making an excellent reason to do away with human driven vehicles.
These situations sound like human driving error problems not a driverless car problem. Isn’t it always the fault of the person doing the rear ending? Drivers need to pay attention to traffic patterns.
It is interesting to see the increased frequency. There must be a discrepancy between the way we should drive (the way it’s programmed) and the way humans actually drive. In heavy city traffic, I expect the vehicle in front of me will be tailing close to the one in front of it because we are all trying to make the light, etc. The computer might be doing a fine job of predicting what other vehicles are doing, but we are not doing a great job predicting what it will do.
I don’t think there’s an increase in frequency – the article merely stated that the vehicles are hit surprising often from behind by distracted drivers. Any increase in frequency, if there is any, can likely be attributed to the increase in testing. We should all drive according to what the vehicles around us are actually DOING, not according to what we THINK they should be doing. If you do that, and keep your head out of your cellphone, then there should be no reason for you to rear-end any car – driverless or not.
I think insexpert nailed it and I have been thinking this from the beginning of the discussion of driverless cars. if 100% were driverless, things would flow smoothly. with a mix, the drivers are willing to cut in traffic and tailgate, which a driverless car can’t stand and as a result these types of accidents will happen more often.
We may never get to point where all cars are driverless but I could envision autos that are capable of being driven in both diver & driverless modes. There could be certain areas and roads where driverless driving mode is required and things proceed smoothly. While I don’t relish the idea of giving up driving, I could certainly see the benefits of traveling from one destination to another while completing other, non-driving tasks.
I think more people would take road trips to their destinations vs flying with driverless vehicles. Just think, drive until you get tired, take a nap, then wake up again and continue driving. No more having to worry about sleeping at a rest stop. However, with the price of a barrel of gas going down, yet a gallon going up, who knows if we can afford these driverless cars and the gas to put in them.
Let’s face it, the software in these cars won’t take the “risks” that humans will. Expect them to get rear-ended with frequency, while the terrified passengers look over their shoulders in terror. Robots and humans won’t mix well on the road. If these Google cars don’t already have stickers that read, “Keep 250 feet back”, they should. And they should have been designed after 1971 Ford Pintos. NO ONE tail gates THOSE. And let’s give them a coral snake “Don’t tread on me!” paint pattern.
“Expect them to get rear-ended with frequency”? Not if another self driving car is behind them.
insexpert, you are making an excellent reason to do away with human driven vehicles.
These situations sound like human driving error problems not a driverless car problem. Isn’t it always the fault of the person doing the rear ending? Drivers need to pay attention to traffic patterns.
It is interesting to see the increased frequency. There must be a discrepancy between the way we should drive (the way it’s programmed) and the way humans actually drive. In heavy city traffic, I expect the vehicle in front of me will be tailing close to the one in front of it because we are all trying to make the light, etc. The computer might be doing a fine job of predicting what other vehicles are doing, but we are not doing a great job predicting what it will do.
I don’t think there’s an increase in frequency – the article merely stated that the vehicles are hit surprising often from behind by distracted drivers. Any increase in frequency, if there is any, can likely be attributed to the increase in testing. We should all drive according to what the vehicles around us are actually DOING, not according to what we THINK they should be doing. If you do that, and keep your head out of your cellphone, then there should be no reason for you to rear-end any car – driverless or not.
I think insexpert nailed it and I have been thinking this from the beginning of the discussion of driverless cars. if 100% were driverless, things would flow smoothly. with a mix, the drivers are willing to cut in traffic and tailgate, which a driverless car can’t stand and as a result these types of accidents will happen more often.
We may never get to point where all cars are driverless but I could envision autos that are capable of being driven in both diver & driverless modes. There could be certain areas and roads where driverless driving mode is required and things proceed smoothly. While I don’t relish the idea of giving up driving, I could certainly see the benefits of traveling from one destination to another while completing other, non-driving tasks.
I think more people would take road trips to their destinations vs flying with driverless vehicles. Just think, drive until you get tired, take a nap, then wake up again and continue driving. No more having to worry about sleeping at a rest stop. However, with the price of a barrel of gas going down, yet a gallon going up, who knows if we can afford these driverless cars and the gas to put in them.