你可能懷疑過：我們到底是否真的需要自動駕駛車輛？汽車廠商一直把“安全性”做為開發(fā)自動駕駛車輛技術的訴求，但問題是，我們該如何預期 Google Car 或是其它自動駕駛車輛達到降低交通事故率、保護人身安全的目標？
那些號稱為自動駕駛車輛應用所設計的芯片、軟件與子系統(tǒng)供貨商，偏愛用一種類似的開場白來介紹他們的解決方案：也就是先提出美國與全世界每年有多少人不該因為交通事故失去寶貴生命；在日前于東京舉行的智能運輸系統(tǒng)世界大會(ITS World Congress)上發(fā)表演說的Google自動駕駛車輛安全技術總監(jiān)Ron Medford也不例外。
Gooogle自動駕駛車輛安全技術總監(jiān)Ron Medford
RWmesmc
因為Medford原本擔任美國國家高速公路交通安全局(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration，NHTSA)副局長，他所提出的數(shù)據(jù)看來更有說服力，包括：
2011年美國交通事故件數(shù)
Source：NHTSARWmesmc
2011年美國交通事故發(fā)生原因統(tǒng)計
Source：NHTSARWmesmc
本文授權編譯自EE Times，版權所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
第2頁：世界上最佳的汽車安全技術就是安全帶
第3頁：自動駕駛車發(fā)生一起事故，將會使該技術的發(fā)展延遲十年
相關閱讀：
• 為什么電動車反而更安全？
• 每日一報8月22日：特斯拉汽車安全評分“爆表”
• 汽車安全應用將邁入智能化和交互化RWmesmc
{pagination}
不過Medford的演示文稿內(nèi)容帶來了一個令人驚訝的轉(zhuǎn)折：在2011年，美國有3萬2,367人因為交通事故而喪生，其中有高達54%比例是因為沒有系安全帶：
2011年美國交通事故死亡人數(shù)
Source：NHTSARWmesmc
他 在演講中表示：“到目前為止，世界上最佳的汽車安全技術就是安全帶。”但實際上，人們?nèi)匀粫?或是拒絕)系上安全帶，以至于在交通事故中失去寶貴生命 ──這個消息所帶來的啟示是，就算是最佳汽車安全技術，也不可能拯救每個人的生命，安全技術的有效性，最后仍取決于人們?nèi)绾问褂盟?或是不使用它)。
Medford 指出，在1975至2011年間，有29萬2,471人因為安全帶而保住生命；但同時仍有45%在交通事故中喪生的小轎車前座乘客，是系了安全帶的。兒童 安全座椅的使用情況也類似，根據(jù)統(tǒng)計，雖然在1975至2011年間有9,875條生命因為兒童安全座椅而獲救，但同時也有71%的嬰兒與54%的幼童， 就算使用了安全座椅仍然在交通事故中喪生。
本文授權編譯自EE Times，版權所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
第3頁：自動駕駛車發(fā)生一起事故，將會使該技術的發(fā)展延遲十年
相關閱讀：
• 為什么電動車反而更安全？
• 每日一報8月22日：特斯拉汽車安全評分“爆表”
• 汽車安全應用將邁入智能化和交互化RWmesmc
{pagination}
類似情況是，雖然自2011年起，所有的車輛都要求配備電子車身穩(wěn)定控制系統(tǒng)(Electronic Stability Control，ESC)，該技術有效降低了交通事故死亡率，但根據(jù)統(tǒng)計，在2011年，配備了ESC的車輛乘客在交通事故中死亡率仍達到49%。
簡而言之，Medford的結論是，就算產(chǎn)業(yè)界對于自動駕駛車輛安全性抱持高度希望，但預期100%的效果是不切實際的；畢竟每一種現(xiàn)有汽車安全技術雖然都有助于降低事故死亡率，還是無法保證百分之百的效果。
“我曾聽過有人說，若是自動駕駛車輛發(fā)生一起事故，將會使該技術的發(fā)展延遲十年。”但Medford認為，這種對新技術并不公平、不切實際的期望只會帶來傷害，而非有益于自動駕駛車輛技術的發(fā)展與演進。
所以我們現(xiàn)在被打過預防針了：像是Google Car那樣的自動駕駛車輛不可能帶來道路上的零交通事故死亡率──至少現(xiàn)在不可能、短期內(nèi)也不可能，除非人們能絕對不坐在車子里！
本文授權編譯自EE Times，版權所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
編譯：Judith Cheng
參考英文原文：Google Car Director Tamps Down Safety Expectations，by Junko Yoshida
相關閱讀：
• 為什么電動車反而更安全？
• 每日一報8月22日：特斯拉汽車安全評分“爆表”
• 汽車安全應用將邁入智能化和交互化RWmesmc
{pagination}
Google Car Director Tamps Down Safety Expectations
Junko Yoshida, Chief International Correspondent
TOKYO — Have you ever wondered: Who, really, needs a self-driving car?
"Safety," of course, is the big pitch, and the strongest argument, the automotive industry has trumpeted in its case for autonomous cars. The question now is how truly effective we expect Google cars, or any other self-driving cars, to be -- in terms of saving people's lives.
Marketing presentations for chips, software, and subsystems -- all supposedly designed to enable the building blocks of autonomous cars -- tend to start with a similar setup: a litany of depressing numbers illustrating how many people are needlessly killed every year in traffic accidents in the United States and worldwide.
So, there were no surprises there, when Google's director of safety for self-driving cars, Ron Medford, started his speech at ITS World Congress in Tokyo last week by running through a set of depressing slides repeating the familiar premise.
Ron Medford, Google's director of safety for self-driving cars, at ITS World Congress Tokyo
Considering Medford's previous position (he was the former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's deputy director until he was recruited by Google earlier this year), the figures he rattled off, based on 2011 numbers in the United States, were both scary and convincing:
Traffic accidents in the United States in 2011 (Source: NHTSA)
Causes for traffic accidents in the United States in 2011 (Source: NHTSA)
But his presentation made a surprising turn when Medford showed the following slide.
Death tolls in traffic accidents in the United States in 2011 (Source: NHTSA)
Of 32,367 people who died intraffic accidents in the United States in 2011, 54 percent of them were not wearing seat belts.
As he put it in his speech, "the best automotive safety technology ever invented" is the seat belt. And yet, in reality, people are still dying in droves simply because they forget (or refuse) to buckle up.
Medford's message was clear. Even the best automotive safety technology can't possibly save every life. The limit to the effectiveness of safety technology is the way people use it (or don't use it).
Between 1975 and 2011, Medford said, 292,471 lives were saved by seat belts. And yet, during the same period, 45 percent of people killed in front seats in passenger cars were wearing seat belts.
The same applies to child seats, according to Medford. Despite 9,874 lives saved between 1975 and 2011 because of child seats, 71 percent of infants and 54 percent of toddlers killed in accidents died in their child seats.
Thanks to Electronic Stability Control (ESC) -- required in all vehicles by 2011 -- fatality rates have been dropping. Still, in 2011, death tolls in ESC-equipped cars were 49 percent in single-vehicle accidents.
In short, sure, the safety expectation for self-driving cars is very high. But expecting it to be 100 percent effective isn't really realistic, concluded Medford. After all, every automotive safety measure has helped to reduce fatality rates, but none has proven to be 100 percent effective.
"I've heard people saying that one accident in a self-driving car will set back the technology for 10 years," said Medford. But in his opinion, that sort of unfair and impractical expectation can only harm, rather than advance, the development of technologies for autonomous cars.
So, we have been forewarned. Google cars will not result in zero fatalities on the road -- not now, not soon, not until you can get people out of cars entirely.
責編：Quentin
