Google To Begin Reporting All Accidents After Driverless Car Racks Up Two Wrecks In One Week

Transparency is a good idea. Rumors can cause a big loss of goodwill. For example, when people read "...Driverless Car Racks Up Two Wrecks In One Week...", they might assume it's the vehicle's fault. To the best of my knowledge, the last time Google reported, they asserted that *none* of the incidents were the vehicle's fault. It would be good to know just why Google's autonomous vehicles are over-represented in incidents.

Just as a data point, an AutoSpies article reported that truck-side rolling ads with boobs caused over 500 distracted-driver accidents in Russia, and were quickly withdrawn. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that distracted drivers are running into Google's autonomous vehicles.

Situational awareness is a big factor. You can get rear ended by following all of the rules, but they can also be avoided by being aware of what other drivers are doing.

When braking quickly I look in the rearview mirror as well. If I see the car in the rear still coming unabated I then proactively move to the shoulder giving them more room to slow. From the amount of rear end accidents the Google cars are getting into, this does not appear to be a factor that is calculated.

I do believe these cars can drive well all by themselves, but it is becoming increasingly obvious they are not driving defensively.

'009 writes: "...it is becoming increasingly obvious they are not driving defensively..."

If you have the details about these incidents that leads you to conclude "they are not driving defensively", then please share them with us!

The way *my* mind works, without (1) knowing the details of each incident, and (2) understanding the software that operates the vehicle autonomously, we're just guessing or assuming what the vehicle is and isn't doing (driving defensively or not), and what caused each incident.

As reported previously, statically the Google cars are having accidents at twice the national rate.

Of these, a large percentage are rear end crashes. Why?

Technically you can connect the dots and assess that they are fundamentally not doing something a human is.

What might that be?

It is truly amazing the figures are even this good. But the technology is in its infancy.

Currently the technology can not see potholes, open manhole covers or determine if the object in the road is an empty cardboard box, or a 2 ton chunk of granite. Mush less make ethical decision of choosing between running over a 4 year old in the street or the wagon they are towing behind them.

With this many gaps in the technology I certainly feel it is plausible they are not able to accounts for all of the factor that an "alert" driver can. (an alert driver can avoid the fore mentioned hazards easily)

Yes, Like Google I can be 100% in the right in a car crash, however I can also be ticketed for contributory negligence if I could prevent the crash in the first place by being observant.

Once the first fatality is recorded this will be a litigation nightmare.

I am sure the NHTSA will find a reason to fine Google a billion dollars. But then again maybe not since Google is "one of their own". Everythang for Americuh!

From the article: "Our goal is to beat human drivers." Pretty ambitious words, Google. While I am positive that this kind of technology could help end car accidents, I'm not ready for a system to replace my actual driving skills. It all sounds great - but I hope it doesn't go over our heads.

californiaattorneyhelp.com