Google's Robot Car Cuts Off Delphi's Robot Car: No Road Rage Ensues
What is the self-driving equivalent of flipping the bird?

Self-driving vehicles are coming sooner to America's highways than many expect. In what appears to be the first of its kind encounter, a tricked-out self-driving Google Lexus rudely cut off a similarly accoutred Delphi Audi in the mean streets of Palo Alto, California. Reuters reports:
The incident occurred Tuesday on San Antonio Road in Palo Alto, said John Absmeier, director of Delphi's Silicon Valley lab and global business director for the company's automated driving program, who was a passenger in one of the cars.
No collision took place.
Google declined to comment.
Absmeier was a passenger in a prototype Audi Q5 crossover vehicle equipped with lasers, radar, cameras and special computer software designed to enable the vehicle to drive itself, with a person at the wheel as a backup.
As the Delphi vehicle prepared to change lanes, a Google self-driving prototype - a Lexus RX400h crossover fitted with similar hardware and software - cut off the Audi, forcing it to abort the lane change, Absmeier said.
The Delphi car "took appropriate action," according to Absmeier.
Appropriate action? What is the self-driving equivalent of flipping the bird?
For more on the how morality will need to be built into self-driving cars, see my article, "The Moral Case for Self-Driving Cars."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Why is Feyenoord kid now wearing a Carolina Hurricanes shirt?
JB: The miracle of photoshop?
No, they're not. Planes, yes. Cars, no. And I am strongly in favor of self-driving cars when I say that.
NAS: By 2020 some will be on sale.
This seem incredibly optimistic to me. By 2020 the technology to have them on sale will certainly be there (it already is), but I think you're giving the government too much credit. I expect them to weigh self driving cars down with so many binders full of regulations that they won't get up to speed for a lot longer than that.
"I expect them to weigh self driving cars down with so many binders full of regulations that they won't get up to speed for a lot longer than that."
And if you think some agency won't demand records of who traveled where, you are giving the government more credit than due.
Roberts will easily find that was the intent buried in O-care.
*ding* We have a winner. We live in the Precautionary Principle world today. There can be no risk (except to taxpayer wallets, of course).
I expect them to weigh self driving cars down with so many binders full of regulations that they won't get up to speed for a lot longer than that.
I expect government to kiss the ass of insurance companies.
Consider the increased insurance rate on your human-driven car as a penaltax.
Judicious donations can smooth over an awful lot of regulatory concerns. Unlike the drug war and other cultural relics that are slow to change, there doesn't seem to be a party with a strong financial stake in opposing autos. I'd expect a fast track.
No. You're writing as someone who has never shipped a product to market.
NAS: True that, but I believe (naively?) that it's such a killer app that fierce competition will bring it to market sooner rather than later. Let's talk in five years.
In five years I expect us to be in gulags, not self driving cars.
Gulags for some, self-driving cars for others?
The good news is that you'll be taken to the camp by a self-driving train.
And you are being quite naive. 😉
There are massive technical problems still to be solved. GPS isn't accurate enough or available enough. GPS is also trivial to jam, and there are commercial jammers available for a few hundred bucks. The gigantic databases of all streets, alleys, parking lots, etc will be a configuration management nightmare. Keeping all the data online solves some of the problems, but makes a continuous datalink from the vehicle to the central database a critical requirement. And then there are all the sensors that have to be mass produced at commercially viable price points that must never fail or must be fail passive. And these sensors must be easy and low-cost to maintain for the life of the vehicle.
The first implementation will be on big commercial rigs where the business case is positive.
I, for one, welcome our new Maximum Overdrive and Killdozer overlords.
There will long-haul vehicles capable of driving "hands-free" on limited-access freeways very, very soon (Mercedes has already demonstrated one).
A car that can go any where at any time will be decades away regardless of what Google says.
Yeah, advanced cruise control will be more like it.
yes
Engage autopilot on the on-ramp, return to manual control on the off-ramp. Really quite doable and cost effective on a big rig I assume.
Agreed. I think assistance technologies will (continue to) be a big thing, but totally self-driving cars will meet with adoption hurdles.
One problem where Google, specifically, has a problem is they don't have a clue about attractive design. Even the second-generation car design they are about to unveil looks goofy.
This isn't even getting into their approach to self-driving cars, which is to build a humongous big data map of any area where it will operate.
Who is liable if a collision takes place?
I blame BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
Deep-pocketed manufacturers, of course.
The taxpayer.
FoE: No fault?
How about the PE who signed off on the code?
QA guy is fucked more than normal in the dev-stack how'd-it-get-released blame game.
It's why they're there.
And who will keep the records of where the car has traveled with which passengers?
NSA
I still don't see the point of this when a driver in the vehicle will be required to be alert and ready to take over at a moment's notice. It's like a fancier cruise control - big whoop.
Because much like speed limits, that will only be enforced when a cop is around. Turn on waze and pretend to be alert if there is a cop in the area. Otherwise, book reading time.
With the ($2500 option) HUD display, just fire up iBooks or Kindle app and read while going down road. Or Netflix.
Not going to lie. That idea makes me sick to my stomach. The book HUD, not the video HUD.
Go 'way! Batin'
Hopefully that requirement will go away.
"Unsafe At Any Speed: 2
This Time - It's Personal!"
By Ralph Nader. Available at Amazon.com and most booksellers.
My test- does an app (for lack of a better word) exist which will enable a robotic arm holding a cup of hot coffee over my lap to look through the windshield and identify bumps in the road, erratic drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, dogs and various and sundry other hazards to navigation, and correctly anticipate speed/direction changes and not dump boiling coffee on my balls?
That is essentially the baseline for the AI at the wheel, in my estimation.
You boil your coffee?
That's trivial.
When will the first hack take place?
Maybe it already has....
*fiendish chuckle*
/HaXxor
About three years ago. Hacking automobile control systems was a big topic at the Black Hat security conference about 2-3 years ago.
It's no surprise a company such as "Google" is involved with a driverless car.
That type of vehicle is so?.sheesh?.it's so freak'n sissy-like and effeminate. And with "Google" being such a feminine, wussy-like company, it's a perfect match.
Google never has to fear being associated with anything related to testosterone.
I would think especially if injury occurs.
And what if I'm driving my own car, and one of those self-driving things sideswipes or rear-ends me?
Actuaries, start your pencils!
I fail to see why it couldn't just be the owner of the car. Your insurance rates would actually probably be a lot lower.
Because someone is going to try and go for the big pockets of the car company or google instead of the payout from the insurance company, and some judge he can't even use Word is going to go along with it because of the scary technology.
I fail to see why it won't be taxpayers.
Your mandatory car insurance will be considered a penaltax.
I was writing about this very thing, then noticed this.
Liability is huge thing about these robo-wheels, the silent elephant in the room. If the Audi had been hit by the Lexus, who's fault was it? The car maker? Software vendor? Sensor factory? GIS supplier? Every fender-bender might entail vast legal exposure for Toyotas of the world.
Only two ways to figure it out: Typical Congresscritter rentals for inserting little clauses into the ag bill regarding robo-liability, and/or case law generated from the likes of John Edwards, tried (apparently) before the likes of a John Roberts gaggle.
Eeek.
Car companies might require ridiculous maintenance routines to get around the liability. Require cars come in for checkups every six months and if the driver fails to do so liability is on them. Add in that these cars will be in way fewer wrecks period and even less where the car is at fault. They may be able to hold out long enough that they can either insure for said lawsuit or get it laughed out of the court.
And what if you're driving your car and one of those police cars sideswipes or rear-ends you?
If you see what insurance industry groups and groups like RIMS are saying, they fully expect the self-driving car to lay waste to the auto insurance industry - if they insure 80-something Florida drivers, 16 year old boys, texting addled girls, etc - why wouldn't something that doesn't get drunk, suffer from slow reflexes, doesn't take its vision away from the road, etc, be a larger risk?
The cars drive like 70-something Florida drivers. The Google car gets in a ton of accidents, it's just never declared to be at fault. This is because it is programmed to drive in an overly safe manner, which is to say it's a complete nuisance to the vast majority of other drivers.
Eventually the powers that be (read:cops) are going going to start holding the Google cars partially liable for all of these collisions out of sheer annoyance and the actuaries will start to make the owners of the self-drivers pay for the fact they own rolling road hazards.
It's not inconceivable that they end up being just as big of a liability as human drivers. Frequency times cost equals liability, after all.
Nope sorry, personal responsibility time. I don't care how pissed you are. There are rules, you know what they are, and if you choose to ignore them due to road rage you get to deal with the consequences.
Necro alert (sorry man, summer Fridays don't exist for me), but that's a lovely non sequitur. It's not about my road rage; it's about the people that assess fault in the all of the accidents (and, again the cars get into a lot of accidents; if you don't think that factors into assessments then I have to assume you've never had a job that involves interacting with people).
Let's be honest here: the legal standard of fault for an accident and the folk understanding for the same are often at odds, and this is not a problem unique to driving. The simple fact is that until the self-drivers are flexible enough in their driving patterns to adapt to the style of drivers surrounding them instead of simply aping the rulebook (or until they outright outnumber human drivers) they're going to cause as many problems as they solve.
Back on topic, plenty of insurance companies are going to factor in the accident records of the driverless models regardless of fault. They already do that for humans, it would be stupid for them not to do the same for machines programmed to react by the very same humans. Your rigid adherence to the letter of the law means naught when compared to the whims of the badged who actually judge these matters. And, even if the courts consistently hold for the cars, the insurers still have to account for the money it takes to reverse the decisions of the beat cops. There's simply a lot of liability here and I think the people looking at this are basing their thoughts on a certain ideal without thinking about what will exist between the present and that future.