I-Like-To-Bike

More on the AZ governor - Uber connection:Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

I-Like-To-Bike

From your cited article "But emails between Uber and Ducey’s office, obtained by The Guardian, suggest that Ducey wasn’t always so concerned with Uber not prioritizing public safety. The Guardian reports..."

njkayaker

I didn't say the Gardian didn't publish the report about the emails first.

I said it's old news (22 hours old).

The "cozy relationship" is even older news.

Coasterbrakefan

Whoops.

Oh and I did read and understand the article, I was just quoting him because I felt he had summarized the issue fairly well. I wasn't saying he (the author) wanted us to wear beacons.

BTW You could have informed me a little more politely of the fact that a thread on this subject already existed.

RFEngineer

For those of you saying it won't cost that much more to basically go from "good enough" safety to "almost perfect" safety, how much do LIDARs cost? Last I heard, it was ~$70k. I know they are working hard to reduce that, but still, where will they end up? $5k? Uber went from the Ford Fusion with 7 LIDAR sensors to the Volvo SUV with 1??? You aren't going to make that up with software. If there are blind spots in the LIDAR coverage.... The hardware is where the cost is, and companies are going to try to minimize hardware cost. Again, software can't make up for significant hardware limitations.

I-Like-To-Bike

You are the only individual who seems so concerned about who is first at posting some news or factoid, or if somebody else posts something that may have also been reported elsewhere, whether on BF or the Internet. Relax and try to pay attention to the content, rather than the timestamp of the posting.

njkayaker

You posted it in as a reply to something I wrote..

I said that I had heard about related stuff earlier.

For some weird reason, got your knickers in a knot.

You get upset and then you tell other people to relax.

njkayaker

That's the part you missed.

The author is saying he (the author) wants "us" to wear beacons.

No, it's the cyclist-author who wants it. I haven't heard of any of the "guys making self driving cars" saying they want it. So, it's not "apparent" at all.

And you could have put a little more effort into knowing what else is going on. One problem with this thread is new people keep "discovering" it and recycle stuff that has been mentioned multiple times already.

Coasterbrakefan

I honestly assumed you knew what you were talking about. Guess I was wrong.

njkayaker

Bikesnob is referencing this article:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/02...he-answer.html

The beacon idea predates "the guys making self driving cars".

The recommendations for beacons is not just about automated vehicles.

Here's another article recommending beacons (it's not from ""the guys making self driving cars"):

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/bike-beacons

mr_bill

EMPHASIS ADDED, because.

-mr. bill

njkayaker

Yes. That was the thread Coasterbrakefan knew nothing about.

Some people are making like it's "the guys making self driving cars" who started the beacon stuff.

The recommendation for beacons isn't from "the guys making self driving cars".

(It wouldn't be surprising that they would also support the idea.)

No doubt, "the guys making self driving cars" are also behind sinful rock-and-roll music too!

Maelochs

So basically ... nothing new to see here, folks. move along.

Some real news will come up eventually. The Guardian article was a little stale info, a little innuendo, and a lot of spin, trying to pretend they had a "Smoking Gun!" scoop ... but they didn't.

The Guardian article was a case of an assignment editor saying 'we got good interaction on the last couple Ubercrash articles ... try to come up with a new angle."

Maelochs

I have a unique proposal---let's not turn this thread into an epeen-measuring thread ... like we do with all the other threads.

I readily confess that I have been as guilty as any other party ... but i do think we all have free will, and sometimes, just plain will ... so let's not do it wrong again.

No one of us is perfect, and no one of us becomes a better person by posting the latest, snarkiest post on the page.

robertorolfo

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea who you are talking to, Mr. "Wellas"?

You claim that the video is overexposed, with only some vague knowledge of photography to back you up. And that, my friend, is laughable. Because I do have some knowledge of photography, as well as knowledge of cell-phone video, as well as knowledge of amateur internet videos, as well as knowledge of street lights and their effect on ambient lighting, as well as knowledge of driving at various speeds, in various lighting conditions, on various types of roadway, in various types of vehicle.

Even if we accept the claim that the video is somehow overexposed (which we will only do here for argument's sake), it is clearly more indicative of what the human eye can perceive, as opposed to the first video that was released. So even if it is overexposed, the point remains that a human driver should have noticed the woman sooner. And that is all that matters.

Anything else is your failure to use basic logic and think critically.

Are you kidding me? What difference does it make what was hanging off of the bike? What does the person's lack of an address have to do with anything?

Are you really unable to see the big picture? What if the next human to enter the road unlawfully is a kid chasing a ball? What if it is a bike rider that has to swerve into the lane, or simply take the lane, for any number of legitimate reasons? And should the punishment for jaywalking now be death, without even having the benefit of a trial?

Some really amazing people out there...

italktocats

texting in a self driving car is still not allowed, neither is texting and running into people

Shimagnolo

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1H337Q

The new Uber driverless vehicle is armed with only one roof-mounted lidar sensor compared with seven lidar units on the older Ford Fusion models Uber employed, according to diagrams prepared by Uber.
...
Autonomous vehicles operated by rivals Waymo, Alphabet Inc’s self-driving vehicle unit, have six lidar sensors, while General Motors Co’s vehicle contains five, according to information from the companies.
...
Velodyne acknowledged that with the rooftop lidar there is a roughly three meter blind spot around a vehicle, saying that more sensors are necessary.

RFEngineer

Isn't this what we should be talking about??

mr_bill

They were using a SINGLE 360 degree LIDAR, roof mounted, on the Volvo.

-mr. bill

Shimagnolo

Correction noted, and edited.

njkayaker

Sure! Go ahead!

We don't know much about it other than it was settled.

noisebeam

The kid and bike gets hit by a HV or AV if there was insufficient time to react.
'Taking the lane' is different as it is not a sudden change of position.

Sadly one of the downsides of jaywalking is the much greater potential for death - jaywalkers are killed every day due to their mistake. Eventually AVs will be better than humans in helping prevent hitting them.

robertorolfo

If there is insufficient time to react. But, as this story is unfolding, it looks like there might have been enough time for a human to react. Even if the woman could only be spotted at the last second (which is now being disputed, because of questions about the true level of light), swerving might still have been possible. Or, at leas a human would have attempted something, unlike this AV that just kept going.

And when taking the lane, you must be seen in order to avoid being hit from behind. This AV completely missed an object that it should have "seen", and that is the point here. If the various systems failed to noticed a human and a bike, when approach from the side, couldn't they also miss a human and a bike approached from behind, when their profile is at least 25% smaller?

That you think AV's will eventually be better at avoiding jaywalkers is fine, but even if that eventually becomes true, we are still a long way away from that being the case. In the meantime, we shouldn't have inferior systems allowed on public roads, no?

I-Like-To-Bike

Possibly; maybe sooner, maybe later, maybe never. Also eventually Uber might stay in business long enough to run a profitable and/or ethical AV business.

noisebeam

You asked about the 'big picture' and provided some vague hypotheticals. I responded to them and now you are talking about the specific incident again??? Stay focused.

I know AVs will detect lane taking cyclists. The better designed ones already do and do so very well. BUT like any driver one needs to trust AND verify. Fortunately the AVs I encounter make it easy to verify relative to human drivers.

We don't know yet if the Uber missed the object or didn't respond appropriately and why.

I do agree we need better training and licensing for motorists to reduce the number of inferior drivers out there.