Self-Driving Car Faces Off Against Pro On Thunderhill Racetrack 151
Hugh Pickens writes "Rachel Swaby reports that a self-driving car and a seasoned race-car driver recently faced off at Northern California's three-mile Thunderhill Raceway loop. The autonomous vehicle is a creation from the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS). 'We tried to model [the self-driving car] after what we've learned from the best race-car drivers,' says Chris Gerdes (who talks more about the development of autonomous cars in this TED talk). So who won? Humans, of course. But only by a few measly seconds. 'What the human drivers do is consistently feel out the limits of the car and push it just a little bit farther,' explained Gerdes. 'When you look at what the car is capable of and what humans achieve, that gap is really actually small.' Because the self-driving car reacts to the track as if it were controlled in real time by a human, a funny thing happens to passengers along for the ride. Initially, when the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then brakes just in time to make it around a curve, the person riding shotgun freaks out. But a second lap looks very different. Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel. 'We might have a tendency to put too much confidence in it,' cautioned Gerdes. 'Watching people experience it, they'll say, oh, that was flawless.' Gerdes reaction: 'Wait wait! This was developed by a crazy professor and graduate students!'"
sorry, pedantry (Score:5, Funny)
(This post brought to you by the collective might of the Oblivious Flaw In The Headline Committee, newly formed to point out the obvious flaw and thereby negating 50% of the discussion dealing with grammar and spelling.)
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Turn left
Turn left
Turn left
Kill all humans
Turn left
Re:ONLY a few seconds? (Score:3, Funny)
Not that I will ever trust an autonomous vehicle with my life.
Because you're irrational. I bet you'd trust a human, though!
Betteridge's Law (Score:5, Funny)
No.
Re:Seconds? (Score:5, Funny)
And that would be technically correct. The best kind of correct.
Re:Been there, done that..... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:BRAKE (Score:5, Funny)
No.
If "the car accelerates to 115 miles per hour and then breaks" several fragments of it might make it around the corner as TFA suggest, but typically, the larger portions of the broken car will continue in a straight line until deflected or destroyed by a wall.
In that event, the idea that "Passengers tend to relax, putting their faith in the automatically spinning wheel" seems unlikely, unless we're talking about permanent relaxation and some kind of Tibetan prayer wheel.
Re:Seconds? (Score:5, Funny)
But clearly autonomous cars are bad for everyone because of (insert fringe case) where the car can't perform above 98.5%. Also, humans are better at (thing that rarely happens,) so since I think I'm a better than average driver (just like 90% of people think they're above the median,) then this is clearly a failed technology that shouldn't be allowed to be used by anyone.
Also, I don't use a seatbelt, airbag, or ABS because I'm not fooled into thinking that researchers, engineers, empirical evidence, and years of track record prove that these things make driving more safe. Obviously me, an IT professional, knows better.
Re:It will win soon (Score:4, Funny)
Retinas are breaking?