Self-drivingcars not as safe as human drivers — yet
Fully automatedvehicles may be on public roads in as little as 5 years, some companiesestimate
Adriver sits engrossed in her laptop screen, catching up onemails as the car barrels down the highway. In the next lane, a fatherhelps his kids finish homework while their vehicle swiftlychanges lanes. Nearby, an empty car returns home after ｄropping off its owner.
These are the self-drivingcars in which humans can be mindlessly commuting in as few as five years, someambitious estimates claim.
"It's a highlydisruptive technology that's coming on a lot faster than peopleexpect," says Barrie Kirk, ｅxecutive director of the Canadian AutomatedVehicles Centre of Excellence. He helps governments and companies preparefor the advent of automated vehicles.
Many automakersand tech firms have already entered the driverless car manufacturing game. Nowit's a race to perfect the technology and start selling these Knight Rider-style vehicles.
Companies hype the carsas the best safety feature since seatbelts and airbags, but there's a sensethat phasing driverless cars onto public roads may be anything but a smooth transition.
Humansmake 'poor drivers'
Self-driving car advocates,like Kirk, believe in the technology's potential to save thousands of lives.
"Humans, generally, arepoor drivers," he says. He would like to see human drivers banned fromroads to make room for an all-automated-vehicle world.
Drivers' mistakesare responsible for more than 90 per cent of crashes, the U.S. NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administration found. Kirk hopes automated vehicles caneliminate 80 per cent of such collisions — a number often cited byadvocates.
In 2012, 2,077 people died incar crashes on Canadian roads, according to Transport Canada. If Kirk'sestimate holds, about 1,500 of those victims could have avoided an accident.
"If you're got a wholebunch of sensors that give you a 360-degree scan, 30 times a second," hesays, "humans cannot come anywhere close to that."
Testcars 'far inferior' to novice driver
Today's automated vehiclesdon't have that capability, says Steve Shladover. He'sresearched driverless cars for four decades, most recently as theprogram manager, mobility for the University of California's PATH (Partners forAdvanced Transportation Technology) program.
Thereare five levels of automated vehicles. They range fromcars with adaptive cruise control that adjust a car's speedwhile a driver steers, to the highest echelon, dubbed "fullautomation." That car doesn't need a driver. It is the driver.
"There's nothing that'seven remotely approaching the ability to do that," says Shladover, whoseestimate pegs such a car's unveiling to be decades away. "Even the mostsophisticated of those test vehicles is far inferior to a novicedriver."
Deathsand injuries are "remarkably rare" compared to how much people drive,he says. In 2012, six people died in car crashes in Canada for aboutevery one billion kilometers vehicles travelled, according to StatisticsCanada. The U.S. figure is slightly higher, according to the NHTSA.
It would be "extremelydifficult" to design an automated vehicle that can run that longwithout getting into a serious crash, he says.
"Think about things likemobile phones and laptop computers ... They don't run nearly that long withoutfailures," says Shladover. "But we're expecting a car to now operatethat long without a failure in a very complicated environment?"
Couldroad safety worsen?
Even when a companysuccessfully creates a fully automated car, there's skepticism about howwell it can manage that complicated environment peppered withpedestrians, cyclists and human drivers.
Itis "not a foregone conclusion" that a self-driving car wouldperform more safely than an experienced driver, claims a new report byresearchers from the University of Michigan's Transportation ResearchInstitute. It's unclear whether human or machine would respond faster andbetter to jaywalkers, mechanical problems, potholes or bad weather.
"There's an awful lot ofcommunication that happens by eye contact," says Shladover.Pedestrians often glace at drivers' eyes to ensure they're seen beforestepping off the curb. "You can't do that if you don't have a driver inthe vehicle."
Plus, it's difficult for acomputer system to recognize all potential hazards. When a ball bounces onto aresidential street, it's not necessarily a problem. But when a childchases that ball, the car must stop.
"Is that vehiclesupposed to stop as soon as it detects that there's a ball bouncing in the roadbecause that might be followed by a child?" he says. "There are manycomplicated challenges like that."
Asthese cars are introduced onto public roads they will have to interact with human-drivencars. During that lengthy transition "safety might actuallyworsen," the report says. Drivers could not rely on eye contact andfeedback from cars with no one at the wheel.
Even Kirk concedes thattransitional period could be rough, but he blames people in traditional carswho "take advantage of the good nature of computer drivers."
Awell programmed computer driver is very defensive.
"Human drivers will cutin front of a computer-driven car because they know they can," Kirksays. "It makes human drivers even more assertive, even moreaggressive drivers, which is what we don't need."
'Sensible'implementation key to benefits
There will be time to adjustbefore the new fleet of robot cars takes over roads.
"We're not going to bein a situation where we go from no automation to fully autonomous orself-driving vehicles," says David Adams, president of the GlobalAutomakers of Canada.
Some people already ownlow-level autonomous vehicles, like ones that parallel park once the driver hasproperly aligned it. Some U.K. cities have started experimenting with low-speedself-driving shuttles on closed streets.
Even if safety issomewhat disputed, there are other potential benefits that can make thepursuit of these cars worth it.
Seniors, disabled people andothers unable to drive will gain mobility. Families may need to own fewer carsif vehicles can travel empty to pick up and ｄrop off familymembers. Cities may require fewer parking spaces if cars can return homeafter ｄropping off owners.
But to see all those benefitsand ensure safety isn't compromised, these cars must be carefully brought intothe public realm, says Shladover.
"It has to be done in asensible way."
ArticleSource: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/self-driving-cars-not-as-safe-as-human-drivers-yet-1.2997204
ImageSource: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcST5l2YXalLqyVnKA5CZZLhYsbOCnaOGig7uSnYldUGp29HKq6p4g
VOCABULARYWORDS:
1. Engross(v.) ~ to occupy exclusively
2. Advent(n.) ~ the coming or arriving of someone or something that is important
3. Transition(n.) ~ change from one form or state to another
4. Echelon(n.) ~ a formation in which its subdivision are placed one behind another
5. Novice(n.) ~ a person new to a field or activity
6. Skepticism(n.) ~ a doubting or questioning attitude
7. Foregoneconclusion (n.) ~ an end or a result regarded as inevitable
8. Dispute(v.) ~ to express disagreement over
QUESTIONSFOR DISCUSSION:
1. Doyou think that driverless cars can be helpful in preventing car accidents? How?
2. Doyou support the campaign for driverless cars or do you think it’s a waste oftime and money? Why?
3. Accordingto the article, what are the problems about driverless car technology?
