Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

http://www.techspot.com/news/54458-self-driving-cars-projected-to-reduce-injuries-by-90-percent-save-450-billion-annually.html

by alok-g • 13 years ago

103 141 13 years ago

techspot.com

mmanfrin• 13 years ago

I am really excited for the possible future of self-driving electric taxis. All the pieces kind of fit together: you can use an app to dispatch and gauge number of fleet vehicles to put out (Google just bought a huge stake in Uber), self-driving cabs can return themselves for a recharge when low on batter and another vehicle can replace it instantly, the amount of cars on the road can scale with demand fluidly. There'd be no need for a car ever in a metro area.

mistercow4• 13 years ago

Shhh, if the auto industry, public transit industry, and car rental industry hear you, they might band together and try to stop it from happening.

tdyo• 13 years ago

Someone still has to build them. And buy them.

sker2• 13 years ago

They'll have to fight the insurance companies.

Insurance companies will probably love to be collecting rent on every vehicle while having to cover 90% less accidents.

seanmcdirmid14• 13 years ago

Also, think of the impact in congested and developing countries: in Beijing, there is nowhere else to build roads, yet the number of cars keeps increasing. Going all self-driving in the entire city would increase road bandwidth substantially. Not to mention the problem of people flaunting traffic rules and etiquette and causing backups as a result.

This is going to be much bigger for the rest of the world than in the roads-a-plenty USA.

jrs996• 13 years ago

taxis won't need drivers to go back, so you could probably take a taxi from manhattan to like the middle of connecticut, which would be awesome.

drewrv• 13 years ago

They will be a ton cheaper too. Lower fuel costs, maintenance costs, and labor costs. The three most expensive costs associated with operating a taxi will be lowered significantly.

ekianjo6• 13 years ago

By governments will probably still tax Taxi ownership just like they do now, and just like for the airline industry you'll end up with taxes doubling the price of your trip. I don't believe in a cheap future of transportation as long as government has a say in it...

jrs996• 13 years ago

There would never be a need for a car in the suburbs. If i had an app that would just bring me a car and be ready at an exact time right in front of my house, bring me to a store and leave, and when twenty minutes before I'm done shopping I order another taxi to be ready for me outside the store, not need to go to the DMV or any auto shop, that would be a huge win for the suburbs.

jay_kyburz2• 13 years ago

Err. here in Australia thats what a taxi is now.

Sami_Lehtinen• 13 years ago

When Taxi adoption rate is high, one minute should be enough. Available cars are everywhere.

cylinder2• 13 years ago

Being driverless doesn't mean this kind of thing is necessarily going to be economically viable. You need density to optimize taxi operation and keep it affordable. There would need to be a lot of taxis driving themselves around for them to be so readily available in this kind of setting, and for that you need widespread adoption.

vincie• 13 years ago

Go all the way! Tune the traffic signals preferentially for these electric taxis. Configure them to pick up multiple fares going the same direction. To use train tracks for long distance.

mistercow4• 13 years ago

And perversely, if accidents happened one tenth as often, they'd become news, and people would think they were more common and dangerous than they do now. The question is whether we can get to a point of no return with self-driving cars before that effect takes hold.

freyrs3• 13 years ago

I think most rational people would come to realize that even if the 1/10 of deaths are caused by computer errors then at least the problem can be fixed over time. With human error, there's not much you can do.

candydance• 13 years ago

Everyone thinks they can drive without risking themselves harm though, otherwise no one would ever get in a car.

Accidents happen to other people... until they don't.

MichaelApproved• 13 years ago

Most people aren't rational when presented with this type of situation.

objclxt3• 13 years ago

if the 1/10 of deaths are caused by computer errors then at least the problem can be fixed over time.

This only follows through if you don't introduce new technology and innovations to your software (and thus new bugs), which isn't going to happen.

If you look at air travel, the number of fatal accidents occurring each decade since the 1950s has stayed around the same, even though we've significantly improved automated systems and reduced the potential for pilot error.

mistercow4• 13 years ago

With human error, there's not much you can do.

This is just it. Most people aren't rational, and they don't think statistics apply when they are causally involved. How many people have you met who think that "don't drink and drive" doesn't apply to them because they "can hold their liquor" or "have had enough practice driving drunk"?

The match up isn't even when you have "random thing happens and you die" on one side and "dangerous situation happens where your personal ability plays a small role" on the other. The only way I can see to spin it is to convince people that they don't want to be on the road with other human drivers.

sker2• 13 years ago

The question is whether we can get to a point of no return with self-driving cars before that effect takes hold.

Insurance companies can take care of that too. Just charge a huge premium to drivers who want to drive by themselves. You'll see even the most confident macho driver submit to the AI overlords.

nick2• 13 years ago

This will be taken care of by insurance companies. If the data is there to show that automatic cars are involved in a lot less accidents than regular cars, the insurance premium will be prohibitively expensive for non-automatic cars. Only rich folks will be able to drive.

mden• 13 years ago

Why would the premium be higher than what it is right now?

clarky07• 13 years ago

why would premiums be higher than they are now? Premiums for automatic should be lower. No reason for current premiums to go up. With all other automatic cars on the road, even a man driven car is less likely to be in an accident than currently. Premiums all around should go down.

tempestn3• 13 years ago

Unfortunately this is true, much like all the news about the Model S fire. Plus many people have an inherent distrust of technology. I would go so far as to think many people would see an accident caused by an autonomous vehicle to be somehow worse than a "normal" accident.

That said, it does seem inevitable; just a matter of time (perhaps a lot of it).

Finally, I suspect it will be necessary (more for PR than technical reasons) to require a capable driver ready to take over in case the autopilot were to fail, much like with commercial airliners, at least during the initial adoption period. And if so, it also seems inevitable that the majority of crashes ostensibly caused by these vehicles will in fact be due to drivers taking control and making poor decisions at inopportune times. You know when people complain about GPS because it led them astray, but it turns out the real problem was they didn't trust it in the first place, so ignored its directions?

TIJ3• 13 years ago

I am closely following the development of self driving cars specially at google and i can assure everyone of its sophistication that it's the best driver you can get for your car. I know you all would be aware of the fact but i want to take this opportunity to state that is has covered thousands of miles without a single accident isn't that an extraordinary achievement for a car without a driver(but a computer instead) I will start to use the car the first it launches if it fits my budget but i must say these are one of the best developments of 21st century.

grogenaut• 13 years ago

so in all of those thousands of miles no one has rear ended the cars?

Also call me when they get to tens of millions of miles, eg what's driven every day in the US.

TIJ3• 13 years ago

It's still in the testing phase sir... and i am not sure what you expect when you question no has rear ended the cars??? you want a mile by mile report from google isn't it too much to ask for from a company which is just testing its new product focusing on making it a more safe car to use. you want them to maintain a driving book for this i don't wanna go on with this... let hope they manage to make a really nice and safe car in the end.

jpau• 13 years ago

Quoth Wikpeida: "In August 2011, a human-controlled Google driverless car was involved in a crash near Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA. Google has stated that the car was being driven manually at the time of the accident. A previous incident involved a Google driverless car being rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car#Incidents

pjbrunet3• 13 years ago

How about oil slick James Bond style?

dannyr• 13 years ago

Number of miles don't matter much if the driving conditions are similar.

I'd rather have them say, we can encountered 100,000 different conditions (and combinations) and we know how to react to them.

zaroth3• 13 years ago

Google self-driving cars have caused accidents, although Google claims the self-driving feature was off at the time.

I'm more concerned of what these cars will do to highway capacity and therefore traffic congestion due to the excessive lag/follow distance their algorithms impose. While they should be following at < 1sec lag due their super-human reflexes, what you actually see (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRIOE1IZrq4) is sub-human follow times and it's apparently the only car on the road that's frequently pumping on the breaks (which consequently makes following cars increase their lag time as well).

I've also read that they won't exceed the speed limit, which is significantly more dangerous than driving with the flow of traffic. I hope it knows enough to move over when being overtaken from behind. If you're driving 65mph on I-280 between San Fran and San Jose with no traffic, you are the slowest car on the road by between 20-40mph. The road has long straightaways, often 1+ miles of visibility, well paved, and I'm often overtaken while going 90mph.

I expect that the experience of having to share the road with these devices, as they start to become more common, will transition from, "Gee that's cool" to something more like "Geez, get off the road Goorama!"

objclxt3• 13 years ago

I've also read that they won't exceed the speed limit

I don't see any way they can exceed the speed limit right now - the legal liability alone would be huge. The best solution to the problems you're posing would be to adopt an German autobahn-like system.

TIJ3• 13 years ago

You straightaway want it to overtake lemans and lamborghini's did i not mention that it is still in the development phase?? all i can say is be patient and hope for a better product.

PeterisP2• 13 years ago

"Google self-driving cars have caused accidents" - can you elaborate on that? I have only seen news reports a single minor (rear-end) accident, not plural.

But that was some time ago - were there other accidents, they've probably driven much more miles now?

And regarding speed-limits - I think that it's a great thing; speed limits need to be set to an honest number where I cannot get ticketed, ever, for simply driving at the appropriate speed, but apparantly the only thing that can force the bureaucrats to update those limits will be an army of robots that actually try to obey the law.

papandrinko• 13 years ago

When roads are fully automatic and electric, children will be able to play outside again; roads and cities will become quiet places in which to think and breathe

driver• 13 years ago

One of the big advantages of completely self-driving cars will be for the elderly. Thing about it, currently our grandparents and great-grandparents who cannot drive anymore rely on family/ public transport and expensive taxis to get around. Once we reach the age of our grandparents we will be much for fortunate to be able to still travel independently wherever we want. This is a massive plus to look forward to.

pjbrunet3• 13 years ago

Yes and degrees of disability related to driving.

Sir_Cmpwn• 13 years ago

Google had a blind man try out one of their cars a while back.

http://youtu.be/cdgQpa1pUUE

rogerbinns2• 13 years ago

Linked to this is deliveries. They can be made to your door front at any time (eg the vehicle can require you use a code or scan something to unlock your delivery). The drastically lower delivery costs would reduce the need to have to go to various places.

nl• 13 years ago

As a cyclist, I long for the day when all cars (and especially heavy trucks!) are self driving.

seanmcdirmid14• 13 years ago

What about self driving bicycles? You just need to peddle, and the integrated road traffic system removed the error prone human element completely from the equation.

recursive• 13 years ago

A bicyclist must adjust his weight to handle the bike. That seems tough to automate away.

pjbrunet3• 13 years ago

Self-driving cars = more time online = $GOOG profit

rathish_g• 13 years ago

Thats exactly that they are looking for.

Osiris• 13 years ago

It'll probably take at least 40-50 years before autonomous vehicles become the norm. The interesting thing will be what happens in the meantime, when there's a mix of autonomous and human driven vehicles.

Will the laws change to have 'autonomous only' lanes? Will they replace HOV lanes? Will autonomous vehicles be allowed to make maneuvers that human driven cars cannot in order to improve traffic flow, such as driving through red lights if determined safe?

jay_kyburz2• 13 years ago

I think it will be less. 20. I think in 50 years it will be illegal to drive manually on a public road.

gtremper• 13 years ago

It was only 60 years between the Wright brothers and the moon landing. And considering the rate of technological advance is increasing, I think autonomous vehicles will take much less time. I can't even imagine what things will be like in 50 years.

theblackswan3• 13 years ago

The tech can make it possible in just 5-7 years what matters is how much time govt will take to formalize a law.. which probably you rightly said 40/50 years.

mattlutze2• 13 years ago

Also, getting people to buy them. There are still many, many cars from the mid 80's on the road, chugging along. The used car market is nothing to shake a stick at.

I'm really, really hoping the manual drive cars abandoned for autonomous cars are maximally recycled and not just left to rot in myriad junk yards.

jrs996• 13 years ago

one thing: I do NOT like the idea of riding in a self-driven car when the majority of other cars are driven by humans. That doesn't seem ideal to me. I worry about a self-driving car driving exactly the speed limit and not being able to speed up whenever you need to, to either keep up with the traffic, or when someone is tailgating you. Especially at night, when you are driving and tired people drive straight up to you and don't slow down until the last second. I want to speed up in those instances.

kevinnk• 13 years ago

I think a solution for this would be to have the "self driving" speed limit be 10-15mph faster then the normal limit on highways. Since driverless cars can react faster this wouldn't cause more accidents and it would allow driverless cars to keep up with traffic. Plus, if traffic slows there's nothing stopping the driverless car from slowing down as well.

seanmcdirmid14• 13 years ago

Right. Speed limited are for humans. A computer could be allowed to objectively select a safe speed to travel.

tempestn3• 13 years ago

Or even better, just set speed limits at realistic levels (around the 85th percentile of natural traffic flow) for everyone. That said, I assume the driverless vehicles would at least be programmed to exceed the speed limit if necessary for an emergency maneuver.

div• 13 years ago

There's no reason for a self-driving car to prioritise adhering to the speed limit over avoiding a collision though.

Any sufficiently advanced self-driving AI will try to avoid being rear-ended like that. Even better, when a collision is unavoidable, an AI has a much better chance at making the 'right' decision as to how to crash.

jrs996• 13 years ago

I think we'll eventually get there. But right now, it must be an obstacle to try to know if a car is "bullying" you or really going to hit you.

Ma8ee• 13 years ago

Why speeding up when being tailgated? I usually just lift my foot from the gas pedal. If you think I'm too slow, then fucking pass, don't try to bully me into driving faster.

jrs996• 13 years ago

When you're driving at like 3 am and there's someone that's approaching you, it's usually not because they're bullying you. It's that they're driving around 70mph and they're tired and their reflexes are slow when they're tired.

yongjik• 13 years ago

On the contrary, this is the kind of situation a self-driving car can (eventually) handle quite smoothly, by closely monitoring the speed of all the vehicles approaching from behind, estimate how likely each driver is paying attention (by drawing a graph of speed/position in, say, 15 seconds), and if collision is likely, either accelerate away or flash break light rapidly to warn the driver behind.

All these things are near impossible to an average human driver, but there's no reason why an AI would have more trouble looking behind than forward.

* If there are enough self-driving cars, it will also (hopefully) teach those drivers who feel entitled to go 90mph at 3am that tailgating is no longer a working strategy.

rurounijones• 13 years ago

Would be intresting to do something like

"The central zones of $CITY are self-driving only". You could still use your normal car to get to parking lot near the city and switch to public transport but if you want to get INSIDE the zone then you need to be self-driving.

(On sidenote, you could have self-driving electric taxis that ONLY serve inside the zone as well as zone-only buses)

Then gradually expand the zone.

vladikoff• 13 years ago

We can't even implement NFC payments because carriers are interested in the percentage of the revenue. Sadly judging from this, there's no way self-driving are going to be in mainstream reality. With all the insurance, oil and other companies in the way.... I hope I'm proven wrong.

tikhonj• 13 years ago

I also imagine that some sort of centralized routing could significantly improve traffic and avoid major traffic jams. Networking protocols, but in the real world :P.

theblackswan3• 13 years ago

It has some great cost advantages especially for those who run the business with multiple taxi. You can grow your fleet without worrying about the human resource.

Sadly technologies like these have not even point percentage acceptance. Trains and planes are capable of auto driven since ages but we don't actually see them put to use.

seanmcdirmid14• 13 years ago

Auto pilots have been used on trains and planes for a long time. We just haven't gotten rid of the human pilots on planes and most trains yet.

theblackswan3• 13 years ago

With this there would be huge possibilities of new age designer automatic-cars as you will have all the place to yourself. Don't assume it to look anything like regular cars. Infact some designs will enable people to live in it. It would probably be auto-driven homes.

rogerbinns2• 13 years ago

I wonder how the cars will deal with inevitable accidents - what does the self driving car prioritise? If there is no choice but to hit one of two different cars does it pick the one with the fewest occupants? Is there calculation of likely injuries (eg bounce off two cars causing less severe injuries to both than hitting one harder). Avoid all other vehicles resulting in more severe injuries to the occupant?

Cars can't stop instantly and the energy has to go somewhere.

hrjet• 13 years ago

This. I am reminded of Isaac Asimov's three robot rules.

I am also led to wonder, who will be implicated if an accident happens? What if the auto-driving car has a bug? Or if it was infected with a virus or hacked? What if the driver deliberately modified a self-driving car to cause injury to a target?

loup-vaillant• 13 years ago

What if the driver deliberately modified a self-driving car to cause injury to a target?

The same as what would happen today if someone mess with the brakes?

georgemcbay• 13 years ago

Communication between "smart" cars opens up some good possibilities to increase safety even when the inevitable accident occurs.

Consider: Car #1 suddenly realizes (for whatever reason) it is going to impact car #2 or car #3 at approximately equal energy for either crash, pings both, #3 isn't "smart", no reply. #2 pongs back, car #1 heads for car #2, reports this to #2, car #2 deploys air bags proactively using a lowered-energy inflation mode since there is some advanced warning of the impact and sets its own transmission mode and braking (or lack thereof) to be optimal for safest possible (to inside occupants and other detected cars in the impact area) energy transfer.

landryraccoon• 13 years ago

Does anyone think that self driving cars will lead to increased traffic? I think they're an amazingly good idea, but a lot of people live close to the city center and take public transportation because a long driving commute is a pain. If you can work or surf the web while commuting, why not have an hour and a half commute both ways? This could actually lead to way more driving and way more petrol burned.

jl6• 13 years ago

It's important to note that that $450bn isn't just ploughed into the ground each year. That's the wages of taxi drivers, truck drivers, mechanics, engineers, and all their associated support. While losing all that will be a net win for the economy, we're talking about millions of people becoming unemployed.

This is not a new problem. Automation has already rendered a very large part of the world's population economically unnecessary.

PeterisP2• 13 years ago

As far as I understand from the article, they are talking about the estimated benefit from crashes. If in the end we need less ER surgeons and less cars go to junkyards then that is still clearly a good thing, as per classic 'broken window' economic thesis.

Anyway, truck driving is exactly the kind of job (e.g., http://io9.com/5933246/why-truck-driving-is-one-of-the-most-... ) that we should make sure that no homo sapiens should be forced to do in the future.

thesash• 13 years ago

I can't wait to explain to my grandkids someday that back when I was young we used to let humans drive big hunks of plastic and steel at breakneck speeds, with nothing more than our laughably slow reflexes standing between life and death. They'll rightfully think it was barbaric and tragic that we let thousands of people died each year in accidents caused by distraction, drunkenness, exhaustion, and plain old human error, all at the hands of people granted the right to operate killing machines by way of a test passable by the average teenager.

smokinn• 13 years ago

Thousands is kind of downplaying it too. 32 thousand in the us alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in...

Probably in the hundreds of thousands globally.

Self-driving cars can't come fast enough.

anonymfus• 13 years ago

According to mentioned in neighbour Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re... ) WHO report (http://www.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/78256/1/978924156456... , "Preface", page V), it's about 1.24 millions deaths in 2010.

bolder888• 13 years ago

Just to give a counterpoint (I know this opinion will be extremely unpopular on HN)

I'd explain how there was a time when we were free to drive our own cars, and make our own decisions. And simply hop in a car and drive.

Not like now where you get in the car and it asks you to download the latest software update, then it monitors your every move, sending back data to the car makers/NSA and showing you ads as you drive along at ridiculously slow speeds. It'll probably also drive you past a certain shop if they pay the car maker enough money! Oh no, the car has crashed. Better turn it off and on again and hope for the best. Nothing like putting my life in some low paid software engineers hands! Oh dear, the car maker has gone bust. Now you can't get any software updates, and the software has stopped working as it can't dial home anymore. Oh well, tough luck! You didn't really think you could buy a car to own and do what you want with did you? You can only pay subscription fees for cars now.

Freedom is certainly a double edged sword. With freedom comes responsibility. But taking away freedom isn't the answer. Making people more responsible is.

It's going to be pretty impossible to take away the peoples right to drive cars (Even harder than taking away the right to bear arms in the US!) Stop drinking the kool-aid. It's not going to happen.

I'm rooting for some massive disasters/scandals with self driven cars, to put the idea to bed. And you can be pretty sure there will be some big disasters if they ever get anywhere with it.

JonSkeptic2• 13 years ago

I agree. The first large accident involving a self driving car will pose a real challenge to its adoption.

I also agree with you about trusting my life to a disgruntled software/firmware engineer: I'd rather not. I know people like self driving cars because 'ZOMG! Computers react so much quicker!' but I'm not convinced that they will react better, or at least, that they will react better in critical circumstances. I don't want a software bug, a flaw in an algorithm, or a dust covered sensor to kill me.

rubinelli• 13 years ago

The attitude I see from younger generations is that the freedom to drive your car is like the freedom to wash your dishes or balance your checkbook by hand. Driving, specially in overcrowded cities, is increasingly seen as a chore and a hassle. Getting rid of it means freeing up from one to four hours a day to study, play, or talk to their friends.

If you want to keep driving as a hobby, I'm sure there will be some accommodations made. But just as you can't tote a rifle in a downtown mall, there will be some restrictions to make sure you don't endanger anyone.

exodust2• 13 years ago

> "It's going to be pretty impossible to take away the peoples right to drive cars"

No, they will simply phase out manual cars. No big deal, it just means it will be almost impossible to crash, and that's a good thing.

It doesn't mean you won't be able to drive, but you'll be driving with a computer keeping watch over the road ahead and obstacles around you.

Put the car in auto mode and sit back... Most people will choose that. Those who prefer to drive themselves can do, but within limits. You couldn't for example deliberately crash into the back of someone. There won't be a setting to turn off to achieve an outcome whereby the car touches any other object. It just won't happen while you're driving on public roads. For example the computer will not let you cross over double lines at certain speeds, or accelerate too fast at busy intersections, and so on. But it may let you accelerate fast if it determines that doing so won't put anyone else at risk, and conditions are suitable etc. The algorithms controlling when the computer takes over will be clever enough to almost be invisible, and that's what will win people over.

Regulations will prevent car manufactures from making fully manual operated vehicles. Every car will be required to have automatic safety overrides for any action deemed to put the car at risk of impact with another object.

Everyone thought it would be people who override the computer, but it will be the computer who has the final say in the direction and speed of travel in a hazardous situation. I think car manufacturers and the public will LOVE the fact that driving is safer.

Any driverless car accidents will be statistically unlikely, and everyone will see this. Even when just one car crashes, it will be headline news each time, like commercial airline crashes are now. People continue to fly because accidents are rare.

So, the "right to drive" won't actually be taken away. Your right to put yourself and others in danger on public roads WILL be taken away. Have a cry, but then you'll need to get over it because 450 billion is significant.

maxerickson2• 13 years ago

What a horrible attitude in your last paragraph.

Anyway, your right to drive a car probably won't be taken away. Your ability to afford the insurance necessary to operate on public roads is probably a different matter.

fexl• 13 years ago

I upvoted you before I read your last paragraph. I am massively in favor of personal freedom, but I am not rooting for massive disasters or scandals with self-driven cars. Nevertheless, it creeps me out in the same way it must creep out Richard Stallman.

philwelch2• 13 years ago

I'm rooting for some massive disasters/scandals with self driven cars, to put the idea to bed. And you can be pretty sure there will be some big disasters if they ever get anywhere with it.

During the Vietnam War, more Americans were killed in auto accidents on the DC beltway alone than in the actual war. Auto accidents are one of the leading causes of death, and driver error is the leading cause of auto accidents. No, I think you just want to watch people die.

EricDeb• 13 years ago

As someone who just had occipital nerve decompression surgery due to a whiplash injury, I can say I am very excited for self-driving cars. The amount of scar tissue the surgeon removed from those nerves was horrifying, and it was a relatively minor accident.

jballanc• 13 years ago

I think a lot of the objections/concerns in this thread would more-or-less melt away when you consider that we already have practically self-flying planes. Crashes? Contingency protocols? Hacking? Bugs? All these have and are continuing to be addressed by the airline industry.

In fact, while I don't know this for a fact, I would highly suspect that the number of airline accidents that are the result of a flaw in the automated systems is dwarfed by the number of accidents caused by humans overriding the automated systems.

(If you want a feel for just how automated flying has become, I particularly like this video of an A380 landing at SFO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HKN-FWNq0 . Just look at how much the pilots aren't doing.)

glibgil• 13 years ago

The objections will melt away when my self driving car pulls up to the curb, I roll out of the bed I had installed in place of the back seat and I toss my martini glass into the bin. The person next to me will care fuckall for safety when they see all that comfort and distraction.

DannoHung2• 13 years ago

I have a question that is possibly very simply answered: How do multiple LIDAR systems interact when they are in a very close vicinity? Say bumper to bumper traffic in NYC at rush hour?

Self-driving cars projected to reduce injuries by 90%, save $450B annually

Related Stories