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