CB HI

https://www.yahoo.com/news/self-driv...205642937.html

So much for the cars seeing or reacting better than a driver.

Will they save cyclist or kill cyclist?

FullGas

I'll take my chances with computer-driven vehicles over dumbass humans any day...

B. Carfree

At this point, we don't know if the self-driving car reacted better than a human or not. All we know is that the Tesla was left-crosses by a big-rig. That can happen mighty quickly and it may be that there was literally no escape from a poorly driven truck.

Personally, I will happily take my chances with autonomously driven vehicles. How could they create more CARnage than the human drivers? So far, the evidence is pretty strong that the more of them are out there the safer our roads will be.

howsteepisit

Or to put in some perspective if a driver-less car has to hit either another car/truck or a bicyclist which will it choose. I am pretty sure most human drivers pick the cyclist. Then again, maybe the driver-less car is is less likely to get in the one or the other situation. I would love to see the decision tree of a driver-less car.

genec

According to some simple stats regarding self driving cars verses human drivers... apparently the self driving cars have a collision history of being twice as safe as human driven cars... of course the sample size is ridiculously small, and the vehicles are primarily only doing either slow speed driving, or limited access road (freeway) driving.

But over time, if the vehicles prove to be safer than human drivers, this alone might be reason enough to encourage the use of such vehicles.

HTupolev

Tesla's current stuff isnt really self-driving, and even with this incident it has a better record than purely human-operated vehicles (granted, with very low sample size).

The tech is maturing at a very rapid pace, and keeps getting better and better.

And just in general, I find it a little bit bizarre that anyone on a cycling forum would stick up for human spatial awareness. Even if you're one of the majority who doesnt realize that they suck at driving, we cyclists are constantly at the receiving end of crap like drivers looking but not seeing, or bad velocity judgement. Human spatial awareness is absolutely full of holes. With a robot, those holes aren't subconscious quirks of how a brain processes data, they can be programmed away and then they're solved.

howsteepisit

But based on comments from a number of folks in A&S if the algorithm chooses to hit a single cyclist rather than a busload of kids there will be all kinds of squawking about vulnerable users and how cyclists are marginalized by these inhuman cretins who write the programs.

I-Like-To-Bike

"Evidence"? Provided by whom, besides Google, Tesla and other biased promoters of this technology?

CB HI

What we do know is that neither driver or car touched the brakes at all.

CB HI

What I find bizarre is such faith in unproven technology that too many cyclist express.

catgita

The tesla has basically an advanced cruse control. The human must still be alert and hands on the wheel or it will stop. He didn't react, so human reactions were not better.

For many years yet, we will see more proactive safety features in cars. It will resist or outright refuse to squeeze into gaps too small or crash into things, including cyclists, pedestrians, motorcycles, other cars, trucks... all the things our human brains filter out due to limited capacity. 100%? Maybe not. But that does not mean it isn't going to be way better.

Also, that moral dilemma question is purely hypothetical, and rare in the extreme. It is human poor choices that put vehicles into such situations in the first place, and at that point, there is almost never any choice within the realm of physics to be made.

B. Carfree

The problem is that the technology currently in widest use, that of an often distracted human, is proven to be deadly. Given the poor performance of human driving, I'm willing to give an alternative that shows promise a whirl.

In a better world where people at least attempted to follow our vehicle codes and didn't get behind the wheel drunk or become distracted, I might feel differently about it. As it stands, the devil I know is bad enough to chance the devil I don't know. Besides, Google, BMW, Tesla, Volvo and other self-driving car making companies will have deep pockets if they don't nail it. The typical drunk driver, not so much.

rydabent

Maybe some day, but as of yet self driving cars are not ready for prime time.

cyccommute 

This is an important distinction to make. The car was not "driverless". The car has a driver assist function which means that the drive is supposed to back up the car in the event of an emergency. This is, possibly, the worst possible situation for human/machine systems.

I have operated systems at work where we have "automated" systems but they have to have a human monitor them all the time. If something goes wrong, the human is supposed to step in to make corrections. The problem is that the human parts has nothing to do most of the time and can become bored, complacent or just plain distracted. I can't really take my eyes off the automated process but there is nothing there to help me keep alert while watching a system that is running at a steady state. I used to have to log data at regular intervals...about 4 minutes between measurements...which makes you keep an eye on the process over the course of several hours. That's actually easier than having nothing to do for several hours.

Frankly, I think modern cars are far too stable and comfortable. Yes, they are safer than cars of old but they surround the driver in a cocoon without much to do and then offer distractions within the vehicle. I'm convinced that we would have far less problems with cell phones, texting and distracted driving if the cars were a bit less easy to drive. I'm convinced that manual transmissions would eliminate talking on the phone in a car...especially in urban situations. I have a manual transmission car and I simply can't operate the phone and drive in traffic.

Moe Zhoost

[QUOTE=cyccommute;18884419] The car was not "driverless". The car has a driver assist function which means that the driver is supposed to back up the car in the event of an emergency./QUOTE]

Exactly.

1) Driving in rural Florida without paying attention is not likely to end up well
2) Harry Potter - really?

baron von trail 

I was surprised to read that they relied so much on cameras instead of laser beam reflection or sonar. Even I know camera's aren't that reliable yet.

KD5NRH

As much faith as the engineers that designed it.

CB HI

But they also have lots of high priced lawyers to keep all that money in those deep pockets.

molten

Take it from 1 who only commutes via BIKE & public transportation --

the WORST (least intelligent) motor vehicle drivers are: (1) the old-aged, [as we have known for so long] lacking coordination;
[2] Blonde Females, of any age. But especially the young --- are the worst.

I only listed (1) first, because that been a category for way more years, than [2].

molten

[QUOTE=Moe Zhoost;18884950]Florida 'plates driving in the soCal area -- where I drive: is negative nearly all the time. Negative, via too close of driving distance --- as the most generous form of behavior. Floridans are a HAZARD. Just like their traditional hurricane conditions. California doesn't get the amount of earthquakes, compared to the hurricanes that Florida gets.

molten

Before we know it,
there will be a new 'motorsport.' Self-driving-car DUELS. etc

Sponsors on the cars.
Farther into the future: maybe it be that self-driving get deeper into motor racing, that sponsors will be endorsing driverless cars. Meaning no contracts to sign with humans.
Meaning no pay to a human driver.
Meaning more profit to the sponsor.
But who owns the car?

genec

While I really tend to agree with the larger premise in your message, the problem is, the cat is out of the bag, and there is no way to get it back.

Eventually this technology will be fully hands off... But that Tesla, as you full acknowledge, was not there yet, nor was that the intention of the Tesla designers at this point.

GravelMN

One thing that nobody talks about is that as autonomous vehicles become the norm, there is a good chance that non-computer controlled vehicles, including bicycles, will be banned from many roadways. A big part of the safety of autonomous transportation is that all vehicles will eventually communicate with and respond to each other, allowing much higher speeds and closer following distances with narrower lanes. Human operated bicycles will not be part of that picture.

Dave Cutter

Both! Computer guided cars are coming... that can not and will not be stopped! The safety realized by automated driving will completely alter the idea of safety as it relates to transportation. Even airplanes will receive an even greater degree of automation.

Non-automated vehicles will become considered UNSAFE.... and be banned from public roadways. Motorcycles and bicycles will disappear.

CB HI

On that note of greater airplane automation, you should realize that some of the recent airplane crashes killing all aboard resulted from that greater automation.