Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday August 09 2015, @06:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the do-you-remember-your-stopping-distances? dept.

Einstein once said, "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

So 5-8 seconds seems like a (relatively) short amount of time. But, is it enough to safely take back control of a self-driving car and negotiate a road hazard? And if the driver is given less time, is it better or worse? Researchers at Stanford attempted to find out:

In this study, we observed how participants (N=27) in a driving simulator performed after they were subjected to an emergency loss of automation. We tested three transition time conditions, with an unstructured transition of vehicle control occurring 2 seconds, 5 seconds, or 8 seconds before the participants encountered a road hazard that required the drivers' intervention.

Few drivers in the 2 second condition were able to safely negotiate the road hazard situation, while the majority of drivers in 5 or 8 second conditions were able to navigate the hazard safely.

Although the participants in the current study were not performing secondary tasks while the car was driving, the 2 second condition appeared to be insufficient. The participants did not perform well and liked the car less. Additionally, participants' comfort in the car was also lower in the 2 second condition. Hence, it is recommended to give warnings or relinquish control more than 2 seconds in advance. While not necessarily the minimum required time, 5 second condition from a critical event appeared to be sufficient for drivers to perform the take over successfully and negotiate the problem. While the results of this study indicated that there was a minimum amount of time needed for transition of control, this was true when the drivers only monitored the car's activity and did not perform secondary tasks. It is possible that these results can change if the drivers are occupied with other activities.

Full research paper available here.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:43PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Sunday August 09 2015, @09:43PM (#220419) Homepage

    Self-driving cars are a great idea, but they're not ready until they are ready - which means that they need to be better at dealing with obstacles than a human driver.

    That's a very low hurdle which we've almost certainly passed.

    Self-driving cars don't need to be able to drive better than Mario Andretti on the morning of race day after a good breakfast and coffee.

    They just need to be able to drive as well as the average driver taking the license test at the DMV.

    Because, you see, that's the best that your average human ever actually does drive...and your average human is going to spend a significant fraction of time behind the wheel driving much worse than that -- distracted, sleepy, drunk, suffering from testosterone poisoning, you name it. The robot, on the other hand, is always going to be driving at its peak ability. So, even if that's not enough to avoid all potential crash situations, it's enough to avoid the ones most people would avoid when taking the driving test -- which is the standard we already accept as the maximum (not minimum!) for motor vehicle operation safety today. Simply making that maximum the new minimum would result in a massive increase in safety.

    b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 10 2015, @02:33AM

    by frojack (1554) on Monday August 10 2015, @02:33AM (#220519) Journal

    Self-driving cars don't need to be able to drive better than Mario Andretti on the morning of race day after a good breakfast and coffee.
    They just need to be able to drive as well as the average driver taking the license test at the DMV.
    Because, you see, that's the best that your average human ever actually does drive.

    What drivel. Really, where do you come up with such nonsense.

    Just a casual look at accident rates by age would teach you that experience counts for a LOT.
    Newly licensed drivers are pretty much expected to be high risk drivers. Experienced drivers
    are expected to have far far fewer accidents.

    Some states are starting to restrict new drivers as to hours of the day they can drive, number of other young people in the vehicle, etc. Why? Because accident statistics say new drivers are inexperienced, and have more fender benders (to say nothing about fatalities).

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by gnuman on Monday August 10 2015, @02:55AM

      by gnuman (5013) on Monday August 10 2015, @02:55AM (#220523)

      Just a casual look at accident rates by age would teach you that experience counts for a LOT.
      Newly licensed drivers are pretty much expected to be high risk drivers. Experienced drivers
      are expected to have far far fewer accidents.

      That's less to do with experience and more to do with "showing off" and over-confidence.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 10 2015, @04:39AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 10 2015, @04:39AM (#220551) Journal

        That's less to do with experience and more to do with "showing off" and over-confidence.

        In other words, lack of experience.

    • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Monday August 10 2015, @03:48AM

      by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Monday August 10 2015, @03:48AM (#220538) Homepage

      So the only time you've ever taken a driving exam was when you first got your license? And you don't see a problem with a system in which somebody could go half a century without being re-certified?

      Would you get on an aircraft if the pilot didn't have a current BFR [aopa.org]? Would you get on a bus if the driver's CDL had expired?

      If not, what makes you think anybody else should be operating heavy transportation machinery without regular recertification?

      b&

      --
      All but God can prove this sentence true.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by theluggage on Monday August 10 2015, @10:03AM

    by theluggage (1797) on Monday August 10 2015, @10:03AM (#220613)

    Self-driving cars don't need to be able to drive better than Mario Andretti on the morning of race day after a good breakfast and coffee.

    I don't think you're talking about a comparable skill-set there.

    They just need to be able to drive as well as the average driver taking the license test at the DMV.

    Now, that is too low a bar. Self-driving vehicles won't be accepted by drivers, or by the law, unless they can prove that they are significantly safer than human drivers.

    One day, a self-driving vehicle is going to kill someone - its inevitable, even if they are safer than 95% of drivers, even if the victim deserved a Darwin award and 0% of human drivers would have avoided the accident, it will happen and there will be huge scrutiny of self-driving cars. At that point, if self-driving cars are to survive, there will have to be clear-cut evidence that they are, overall, an overwhelming safety win.

    If not, what makes you think anybody else should be operating heavy transportation machinery without regular recertification?

    They shouldn't. Driver certification is a joke that only serves to exclude the spectacularly incompetent and the unlucky. In any sane world, drivers would be re-tested every 10 years and getting a license would require logging tens of hours supervised driving covering all road types and conditions. The problem is, we have developed a society where, in many areas, a non-driver is a second-class citizen so it is politically and economically unacceptable to make the qualification to drive too arduous. Society is a bit more picky about who it lets drive a bus full of potential lawsuits.

    Self-driving cars won't get given the same leeway - they'll need the same sort of certification as mass-transport drivers (from the government POV they will be mass transit drivers).

    Would you get on a bus if the driver's CDL had expired?

    Would you a car with a driver who got an 'average' score on their test the previous month? Maybe - but only because it would be rude not to. People won't be so worried about being rude to computers - in fact, they will be more inclined to suspicion. People, and the law, won't accept self-driving cars without proof that they are overwhelmingly safer than human drivers. Even then, its going to be touch and go the first time an autonomous vehicle kills someone (and that will happen) and the media and ambulence-chasers get on the case.