noisebeam

Humans also abort lane changes for good reasons. For example on a three same direction lane freeway. Driver in outside lane signals to pass slower vehicle ahead. They look behind and note there is no traffic in the middle lane. They start to merge and keep attentive as to conditions. Then a driver in inside lane decides to undertake the vehicle in front of them and merges into same space driver in outside lane was intending to merge into so that merge is aborted. A motorcyclist who chooses to pass using part of lane before a merge is completed is not driving defensively. If they were truly lane splitting (on lane line) they should have sufficient space even if vehicle moves back into lane.

Homebrew01

The topic is self-driving cars and bikes. Not your assumption about other poster's computer knowledge.
.
BTW, "On Topic" applies to everyone.

squirtdad

I predict this will be another legal battlefield.....who has right to see what the onboard systems record and when?

avole

@Homebrew01, My reply was to post 1228. My metier was informatique, so my reply seemed in order, if somewhat terse. Feel free to strike it from the records if you wish, in the overall scheme of things it doesn’t really matter.

squirtdad

Agree with not driving defensively, but that does not make it illegal. So question of who is at fault is still open.

To repeat a key observation, as best I can tell this is a current state of the art vehicle, and it apparently could not detect a situation that a human did.

Ninety5rpm

It will definitely be interesting to see how this goes. The claim that the human driver recognized the situation and tried to move the vehicle came from the defense attorney, so I wouldn't put too much weight on that just yet. It doesn't seem likely to me that the human driver was checking the mirror and saw the motorcyclist in the blind spot at that moment, which would have to have happened for him to decide to try to move the car.

Maelochs

It could equally be argued that the human driver panicked and yanked the wheel causing an accident which the AI, if trusted, would have avoided.

Ninety5rpm

Oh, wow. I didn't even think of that. But, again, the vehicle logs would show this, I would think. So you can't really argue it, unless the data is there to support it.

StanSeven

avole and Ninety5rpm,

Enough of the back and forth arguing. If you don’t like a post, ignore it.

Thanks

Stan

Maelochs

The whole point of hiring a lawyer is to have someone on your team who can make data seem to mean exactly the opposite of what it really says. That is what lawyers spend so much money to learn.

That's why nobody likes them. "Right" and "wrong" become just words, and a good lawyer can make people think a word means whatever s/he want them to think it means.

Ninety5rpm

Would you like to clarify what you intended to convey with this post?

avole

The trip to Thailand. I wasn't joking, it was a serious offer.

Maelochs

Basically he said if you pay your way to Thailand he would consent to ride with you a time or two.

I-Like-To-Bike

What a Guy!

avole

Not what was written at all. However, if you guys want to come along and sample some of the most thrilling if not actively dangerous rides around, you are welcome to come, though I’m afraid my apartment isn’t big enough to house everybody, especially if partners came too. I could probably organise an apartment for around $20 per night, which incudes use of pool, sauna and gym.

The same proviso as for 95: you write your impressions as to whether the cyclesavvy teaching would be appropriate in the cities you’ll visit. Oh, and you’d have to hire bikes, but, to be honest, the hire costs are derisory.

tyrion

At some point in the future accident arbitration could be automated. Feed all the recorded data about the accident into a system and "the computer" will render a judgement.

The lawyer lobby will fight hard to claim such a system is faulty, inhumane, and the work of Satan.

Ninety5rpm

Oh! That. Yeah, I thought you were joking.

Thanks, but I had to drop Thailand off my bucket list in the last revision...

Anyway, I don't doubt traffic and cycling there might be very different and practices that work in the western world might have to be adjusted accordingly. So what?

avole

Maelochs and i like to bike, 95 has dropped out, but you'd still be welcome. Also, it would mean free accommodation in my apartment for one person for part of the trip. Planned departure would be some time in November, which is great if you like staying in 5 star resorts for very little money. Food costs vary a lot, but, if you don't mind eating from street stalls, you'll get away with around $2 per meal. That is, unless you get a taste for one of the great beers on the planet, Singha which sends costs spiralling if you're not careful.

You have to buy water, but at 20 or 30c per litre doesn't cost much. Given the location, and my intention to cycle down the coast through some national parks, you should strongly consider getting rabies jabs before you leave. Doesn't prevent you getting it but allows more time to get to a hospital. The hospitals in Thailand mostly carry the vaccine anyway, but it's nice to be sure.

So, there you have it. Any takers?

genec

Wrong thread.

You are posting this in Advocacy and Safety, and in a thread that is about discussing how self driving cars may make cycling safer.

You are advertising a trip. You no doubt did not read nor follow the thread... at all.
And previously you expressed worry about our decorum and style.

Ninety5rpm

By the time anyone here gets around to organizing a trip to Thailand, traffic will be totally different there, dominated by self-driving cars.

Maelochs

Well, then I am sending my self-riding bike. I can't afford it myself, but the bike travels as cargo.

squirtdad

fwiw my read on this offer is that is is intertwined with all the various post's 95 has started, especially those about riding style and is essentially a challenge to apply savvy cycling in Thailand and see how it works

avole

Thank you, that was indeed the point.

Maelochs

Self-driving cars, once they have been in action for a while and have dealt with cyclists and that information has been shared, Should be a lot better for cyclists.

Self-driving cars won't look past cyclists and pull into traffic, self-driving cars won't assume they can drive wherever and however they want, self-driving cars won't think they are the only vehicles on the road. They won't assume they always have the right-of-way at 4-way stops, or that they can merge and cyclists need to bail out or ride into the weeds (or across a three-lane road) to avoid them.

Self-driving cars won't make negative judgments about the value of cyclists because self-driving cars will be programmed not to hit Anything---dog, horse, toddler, mom pushing stroller, bike, motorcycle, or other cars.

The people purveying self-driving cars will know that in a jury trial, they would get screwed totally because it would be all the fear of Terminator-style robots killing citizens versus common sense. I'd bet most juries could be convinced that the crash data was rigged, or inconclusive, or would flat deny facts if a robot car ran over a mom with a stroller or something.

To prevent this robot cars will need amazing data recording, including multiple video cameras. And .... they would never want to lose a case because after one big settlement .....

SHBR

Just wait until one of these contraptions gets hacked.

Its not a question of if, only when.