Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Advocacy & Safety (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/)
-   -   Driver-less cars are coming (http://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/917475-driver-less-cars-coming.html)

Capt_Sensible 10-11-13 01:43 PM

Driver-less cars are coming
 
Interesting article from the Guardian (UK). Apologies if this has already been posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ming-bike-blog

FBinNY 10-11-13 02:16 PM

Yes, if all works right, the computer might be better, more courteous drivers than humans tend to be. But how they treat cyclists will only be as good as the sensing systems, and the algorithms that analyze the data and make decisions.

Overall, it's promising, but I'm a wait and see guy.

Chris516 10-11-13 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FBinNY (Post 16153176)
Yes, if all works right, the computer might be better, more courteous drivers than humans tend to be. But how they treat cyclists will only be as good as the sensing systems, and the algorithms that analyze the data and make decisions.

Overall, it's promising, but I'm a wait and see guy.

It will also make an even bigger excuse for motorists' to kill a cyclist and get away with it. Because, More dependence on technology to make the decision, instead of a human being. So if the vehicle's program doesn't recognize the existence of a cyclist, the vehicle could run the cyclist down.

howsteepisit 10-11-13 03:07 PM

OMG Now the threat of driverless cars mowing down innocent bicyclists! Is there no end to the irrational fear/paranoia? Perhaps a road rage suffering driver could find a undetectable way to override the computer and mow down a couple of irritating bicyclists and blame the computer? Just plain ...... well you fill in the words here.

Chris516 10-11-13 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by howsteepisit (Post 16153309)
OMG Now the threat of driverless cars mowing down innocent bicyclists! Is there no end to the irrational fear/paranoia? Perhaps a road rage suffering driver could find a undetectable way to override the computer and mow down a couple of irritating bicyclists and blame the computer? Just plain ...... well you fill in the words here.

I knew you would react that way. Did it ever occur to you, that if cars are somehow put 'in tune' with traffic signals, that a cyclist in front of a fully-automated vehicle at a traffic light, could actually get run over at the traffic light. Despite anything a driver might try to override. Ever hear the phrase 'too much of a good thing'. I guess not, judging by your responses.

howsteepisit 10-11-13 05:40 PM

Chris , you totally missed my point. My point is that no matter what the situation, you seem to see danger and malice lurking around every bend in the road, be it a human driver or not. Clearly, any driverless system would have a safety systems to prevent the car from plowing over every unexpected thing that happens to be in the road. Yet in over 40 years of cycling, I have yet to be run over by a car, I have yet to be attacked by hooligans, I have fallen without a helmet and have suffered no brain injury. Yet you persist in claiming danger and malice lurk everywhere. And I have cycled in in the midwest, and both coasts, and the pacific northwest.

I mean really, driver lesss cars providing a even bigger excuse for drivers to kill cyclists without consequence?? Really are you that afraid? Do you actually believe that crap?

gpsblake 10-11-13 07:17 PM

Now we need to come out with driverless bicycles. :thumb:

DX-MAN 10-11-13 08:18 PM

Chris, the tech to avoid cyclists is already in place -- Volvo advertises it, and similar systems are under the Nissan/Infiniti umbrella. Sync'ing with traffic signals is irrelevant as it applies to 'road obstacles'.

The advantages: ROAD RAGE NO MORE.
TRAFFIC LAWS FOLLOWED.
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CAR-POOLING EASIER TO FACILITATE.

The disadvantages: VULNERABILITY TO HACKING.
KNOWN ERRATIC NATURE OF ELECTRONICS.
FURTHER DE-PERSONALIZATION OF SOCIETY.
"CONTROL FREAKS" ACTUALLY *FREAK*!

Blake, the day bikes become automated is the day I quit riding. I'll learn rollerblading first!

B. Carfree 10-11-13 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 16154080)
Chris, the tech to avoid cyclists is already in place -- Volvo advertises it, and similar systems are under the Nissan/Infiniti umbrella. Sync'ing with traffic signals is irrelevant as it applies to 'road obstacles'.

The advantages: ROAD RAGE NO MORE.
TRAFFIC LAWS FOLLOWED.
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CAR-POOLING EASIER TO FACILITATE.

The disadvantages: VULNERABILITY TO HACKING.
KNOWN ERRATIC NATURE OF ELECTRONICS.
FURTHER DE-PERSONALIZATION OF SOCIETY.
"CONTROL FREAKS" ACTUALLY *FREAK*!

Blake, the day bikes become automated is the day I quit riding. I'll learn rollerblading first!

Current motor vehicles are susceptible to hacking. They also have had some erratic electronic/mechanical issues that have led to quite a few recalls these past few years. I'm not sure that putting an electronic brain in charge of the driving really makes anything more de-personalized and I don't give a hoot about control freaks.

I guess I just don't see much downside relative to where we are today. Even if the self-driving cars are imperfect (as are our current drivers), at least they are likely to improve with time, as opposed to the current crop of motorists. Sometimes the devil you know is soooo bad you just have to take a chance on the devil you don't know.

FBinNY 10-11-13 09:24 PM

As pointed out above, some of the features are ready, and hopefully will be rolled out piecemeal sooner rather than later.

One that I'd like to see released ASAP is the traffic/bicycle detectors that interlock the doors to prevent opening a door into traffic. This could make dooring impossible, and wouldn't otherwise affect the car.

Another feature that's already rolling out are various possible crash detectors and predictors. These can greatly reduce the chances of getting hit from behind by an inattentive driver, or one who doesn't see you because of conditions, such as a low sun directly in the driver's eyes.

Regardless if what happens with integrated self driving, or when it happens, early rollout of partial systems is good for bicycle riders.

I-Like-To-Bike 10-11-13 09:59 PM

I read in Popular Science that flying cars are the next greatest thing. Oh wait, that was a 50 year old magazine. Maybe next year, eh?

I-Like-To-Bike 10-11-13 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpsblake (Post 16153969)
Now we need to come out with driverless bicycles. :thumb:

Plenty of 'em around already; look in any opened garage and there should be one or two.

Chris516 10-12-13 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX-MAN (Post 16154080)
Chris, the tech to avoid cyclists is already in place -- Volvo advertises it, and similar systems are under the Nissan/Infiniti umbrella. Sync'ing with traffic signals is irrelevant as it applies to 'road obstacles'.

The advantages: ROAD RAGE NO MORE.
TRAFFIC LAWS FOLLOWED.
TEXTING WHILE DRIVING NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
CAR-POOLING EASIER TO FACILITATE.

The disadvantages: VULNERABILITY TO HACKING.
KNOWN ERRATIC NATURE OF ELECTRONICS.
FURTHER DE-PERSONALIZATION OF SOCIETY.
"CONTROL FREAKS" ACTUALLY *FREAK*!

Blake, the day bikes become automated is the day I quit riding. I'll learn rollerblading first!

The technology can be overridden by a motorist ignoring the commands. I heard of cyclist that was killed just the other day by a driver that was passing too close. They won't have technology in cars' to be aware on any side of the vehicle. Also, The technology will certainly not be put in big rigs n' dump trucks. Technology is moot.

KonAaron Snake 10-12-13 08:58 AM

One of the biggest problems today is impatience - like that displayed by Chris. If it's not perfect right away, or has any failing, it is invalid and useless.

This sounds like a potentially great technology that can save lives - I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. I'm a lousy driver - I hate doing it and I avoid it...this could be very useful for me. I might even drive again. I love the comment about the door sensor - that could be a fantastic tool. The legal side will get sorted out in the courts, but driving and equipment responsibility will undoubtedly remain largely with the operator.

SFCRetired 10-12-13 09:11 AM

Why does all this business of "driverless" cars bring to mind the "fully-automated, computer-flown" aircraft that one of the major manufacturers tried some years back? If I remember correctly, it killed about seven people on its first pilotless flight.

If, and that is a big "if", the software is perfected and includes bicyclist and pedestrian avoidance, is protected against hacking, and if the hardware is hardened against electronic interference, it might turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread and canned beer. I would want to see extensive testing done, preferably by a third, disinterested party, before this technology is turned loose on the streets.

kmcrawford111 10-12-13 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake (Post 16154858)
One of the biggest problems today is impatience - like that displayed by Chris. If it's not perfect right away, or has any failing, it is invalid and useless.

This sounds like a potentially great technology that can save lives - I'm looking forward to seeing how it works. I'm a lousy driver - I hate doing it and I avoid it...this could be very useful for me. I might even drive again. I love the comment about the door sensor - that could be a fantastic tool. The legal side will get sorted out in the courts, but driving and equipment responsibility will undoubtedly remain largely with the operator.

The bigger question is: does it matter? People are already totally irresponsible. Even in my walkable community, there's plenty of drivers zooming around with total disregard for the people that are walking. There's every reason to believe that this technology will only increase that. Does anyone really believe "operators" will be paying attention in driverless cars when they already aren't paying attention as drivers? To me, it doesn't matter much if the ultimate responsibility lies with the operator. This technology is going to result in more inattentiveness, and the sad existing "deterrents" for reckless driving (primarily read as: it's clearly more OK to kill someone with a car than with any other means) just aren't effective. If they were, distracted driving wouldn't be the pandemic that it is.

Call me paranoid, but this scares the hell out of me. Do any of you truly relish the thought of a car that isn't under human control coming up behind you? I sure as hell don't. Too bad the post-peak driving dropoff isn't steeper. At least trends in the younger folks (more affinity with city living, less desire for driving) are encouraging.

kmcrawford111 10-12-13 09:33 AM

Put more simply: it doesn't much matter where the ultimate responsibility lies because there are are too many irresponsible drivers. What really matters is the number of innocents being injured or killed.

KonAaron Snake 10-12-13 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmcrawford111 (Post 16154930)
The bigger question is: does it matter? People are already totally irresponsible. Even in my walkable community, there's plenty of drivers zooming around with total disregard for the people that are walking. There's every reason to believe that this technology will only increase that. Does anyone really believe "operators" will be paying attention in driverless cars when they already aren't paying attention as drivers? To me, it doesn't matter much if the ultimate responsibility lies with the operator. This technology is going to result in more inattentiveness, and the sad existing "deterrents" for reckless driving (primarily read as: it's clearly more OK to kill someone with a car than with any other means) just aren't effective. If they were, distracted driving wouldn't be the pandemic that it is.

Call me paranoid, but this scares the hell out of me. Do any of you truly relish the thought of a car that isn't under human control coming up behind you? I sure as hell don't. Too bad the post-peak driving dropoff isn't steeper. At least trends in the younger folks (more affinity with city living, less desire for driving) are encouraging.

You are paranoid - and exaggerating the auto menace. That's a pandemic here.

howsteepisit 10-12-13 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris516 (Post 16154457)
The technology can be overridden by a motorist ignoring the commands. I heard of cyclist that was just the other day. Technology is moot.

The technology is not intended to instruct the driver, it does the driving while the human does other things, not related to driving. I have no clue about what the cyclist that you heard of was up to. Adding coherence and sense to your posts would be helpful.

turbo1889 10-12-13 10:44 AM

Why don't they just build an automatic braking system into existing cars that makes it almost impossible to hit something with a car that is right in front of you? That would be a relatively simple thing to build and program just program for progressively lower speed the closer the object in front without the brakes being applied and the more drastic the situation is (closing speed and range) the harder the brakes get applied when they do get applied. Wouldn't be a complete solution since an operator could still drive the car as fast as possible and then turn into what they were trying to hit/run-down at the last moment but it would be an excellent way to prevent so many incidents involving people hitting things with cars that are right in front of them.

Basically I would love if when the texting idiot driver looking at their device and not even looking where they are going and are about to plow into someone or something right in front of them the brakes get slammed on hard enough for their face to fly forward and bounce off the steering wheel inside the car leaving some appropriate assorted bumps, bruises, and lacerations. Do that enough times and maybe with enough good bounces the loose wires inside their heads will get lined up properly for them to actually pay attention and treat their vehicle as the dangerous machine it is with the proper respect and due care accordingly and cease and desist in the criminal reckless endangerment of the lives, health, and property of other innocent people around them.

Most two legged trash that don't give a hoot about anyone else still care about themselves and if the only way to deal with the situation is make it such that they get they get their face banged up by it bouncing off the steering wheel when the automatic emergency collision braking system kicks in ~ then so be it. Not to mention that it would personally give me great pleasure to see their faces beat up by bounding on the steering wheel when the brakes kick in rather then seeing innocent people being turned into hamburger on their hoods and front bumpers.

kmcrawford111 10-12-13 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonAaron Snake (Post 16155016)
You are paranoid - and exaggerating the auto menace. That's a pandemic here.

Pray tell just what I typed that was exaggerated. As long as car crashes remain the #1 killer of young kids through adults in their 30s, I'll continue to call the distracted driving that is absolutely a large contributor to those statistics a pandemic. Feel free to suggest a more appropriate term.

kmcrawford111 10-12-13 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo1889 (Post 16155065)
Why don't they just build an automatic braking system into existing cars that makes it almost impossible to hit something with a car that is right in front of you? That would be a relatively simple thing to build and program just program for progressively lower speed the closer the object in front. Wouldn't be a complete solution since an operator could still drive the car as fast as possible and then turn into what they were trying to hit/run-down at the last moment but it would be an excellent way to prevent so many incidents involving people hitting things with cars that are right in front of them. Basically I want it so that when the texting idiot driver looking at their device and not even looking is about to plow into someone or something right in front of them the brakes get slammed on hard enough for their face to fly forward and bounce off the steering wheel inside the car leaving some appropriate assorted bumps, bruises, and lacerations. Do that enough times and maybe with enough good bounces the loose wires inside their heads will get lined up properly for them to actually pay attention and treat their vehicle as the dangerous machine it is with the proper respect and due care and respect accordingly.

+1. One would think doing this would be less complicated than having an entire automated control system. My only concern here would be braking so sudden and hard as you describe - I could see that causing other problems. But it seems at least a more modulated automatic brake would be a good idea.

As to the why? I think it's obvious - car makers are courting to drivers who want to be distracted. All their pushing for all these hands-free devices and touchscreens are a clear reflection of this. There's a good reason for having tactile controls - you don't have to look at them. The emphasis clearly is not about safety for car makers - just look at all the crazy **** you see promoted in car commercials. Aggressive driving, even in the middle of large cities. Cars playing football! Cars playing duck duck goose! It would be just stupid if people didn't actually drive that way. It's about power, comfort, and convenience, and always has been. I've seen two commercials lately where people who were almost plowed into by inattentive drivers appear happy that the two-ton machines that nearly ended their lives had some new technology that averted disaster. If it were me, or my kid, I'd give those drivers hell regardless. I'm supposed to appreciate that your car has a sensor that lets you look away even more? The hell with that.

I-Like-To-Bike 10-12-13 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmcrawford111 (Post 16154930)
Call me paranoid, but this scares the hell out of me.

OK. You are.

ItsJustMe 10-12-13 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpsblake (Post 16153969)
Now we need to come out with driverless bicycles. :thumb:

Then we'll need electric monks to believe things for us!

FWIW, even the autonomous cars that are in testing now are fully able to recognize pedestrians and cyclists. They use LIDAR and RADAR both I think. The Google cars have driven something like a million or two miles and the only incident they've been involved with was when some other driver hit one. VW and Mercedes both have cars that can navigate European cities which certainly have plenty of cyclists for hours on end without any issues.

I would ride on the road with autonomous vehicles over human drivers gladly.

Chris516 10-12-13 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmcrawford111 (Post 16154930)
The bigger question is: does it matter? People are already totally irresponsible. Even in my walkable community, there's plenty of drivers zooming around with total disregard for the people that are walking. There's every reason to believe that this technology will only increase that. Does anyone really believe "operators" will be paying attention in driverless cars when they already aren't paying attention as drivers? To me, it doesn't matter much if the ultimate responsibility lies with the operator. This technology is going to result in more inattentiveness, and the sad existing "deterrents" for reckless driving (primarily read as: it's clearly more OK to kill someone with a car than with any other means) just aren't effective. If they were, distracted driving wouldn't be the pandemic that it is.

Call me paranoid, but this scares the hell out of me. Do any of you truly relish the thought of a car that isn't under human control coming up behind you? I sure as hell don't. Too bad the post-peak driving dropoff isn't steeper. At least trends in the younger folks (more affinity with city living, less desire for driving) are encouraging.

I agree with you.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:51 AM.