Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

Would a self driving car world make it safe for cyclists?

Old 06-02-17, 06:50 PM
  #126  
C*pt*i* Obvious
 
SHBR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 1,337
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 596 Post(s)
Liked 53 Times in 44 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Indeed, the automobile DOES function as expected... the "problem" is not the automobile, it is the idiot behind the wheel that DOES NOT function as desired... as that idiot often chooses to circumvent the rules designated by society for safe cooperative use of the road. It is that idiot that the "brains" of self driving cars are attempting to replace.

Cars work fine... and we would have few "incidents" if only the rules and laws were followed.


How to solve this idiot problem though?

Autonomous technology has existed in many forms for decades, such as elevators, perhaps we need to rethink all of this?

I'm a bit wary of any technology that restricts freedom of movement.

There will be a massive downsizing of the population if automation takes over completely.

Reality is often stranger than fiction.

Humanity is the enemy.
SHBR is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 06:55 PM
  #127  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,730
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1524 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 923 Times in 514 Posts
Originally Posted by northernlights
Companies don't spend billions to make their products look good for nothing.
But what constitutes "looking good"? It changes with the times and with the target market. What looks good today may appear dated in a decade. What appeals to me may not strike the fancy of a younger person. Of course, what looked good when I was a child is sometimes now retro hip to that set.

A lot of those billions are invested to influence what we think is cool. So I have little doubt they'll be able to market whatever look they come up with.

I'm also not sure looks matter as much anymore. Sure, the Tesla looks cool, but your average sedan looks about the same as the next one no matter who makes it. Utilitarian shouldn't be a tough sell.
jon c. is offline  
Old 06-02-17, 10:14 PM
  #128  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by northernlights
Tesla cars are great at what they can currently do, but they are not driverless.
No, they are not, but I said "as close as we have today..." The latest Tesla cars have much the same tech as one of the ugly prototypes.
Originally Posted by northernlights

In theory appearance shouldn't matter. But in reality it does.
Most people don't want to drive something (or have it drive you) that looks like a UFO.

Even when it comes to cellphones and computers, people want something that looks nice.
Companies don't spend billions to make their products look good for nothing.
Actually, good point... industrial design DOES exist as a dicipline.
genec is offline  
Old 06-03-17, 06:16 AM
  #129  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by SHBR


How to solve this idiot problem though?

Autonomous technology has existed in many forms for decades, such as elevators, perhaps we need to rethink all of this?

I'm a bit wary of any technology that restricts freedom of movement.

There will be a massive downsizing of the population if automation takes over completely.

Reality is often stranger than fiction.

Humanity is the enemy.
Not a whole lot of decision making in an elevator... that job is mostly up and down, in a well known area.
genec is offline  
Old 06-07-17, 06:37 PM
  #130  
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 959 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by northernlights
Safety issues aside, I wonder how driverless tech will impact the aesthetics of the car. And aerodynamics. You got all these camera and radar gizmos sticking out of the roof, it does not look pretty. Automakers spend billions to make their cars look good, as well as on wind-tunnel testing and aerodynamic design. Because people want to drive a nice-looking car and all those extra doodads sticking out of it doesn't help. The system could be streamlined to a certain extent but it's not easy to do. In order to have a clear view of everything around it the radar has to be mounted high up on the roof. So trying to streamline it may compromise safety.
Within 10 years most people will not own their own cars and will be relying on inexpensive driverless rideshare cars instead (and probably a bit more walking, biking and mass transport than today). They'll care about the aesthetics of the vehicles as much as they care about the aesthetics of taxis, Uber and Lyft cars today: very little.
Ninety5rpm is offline  
Old 06-07-17, 07:25 PM
  #131  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninety5rpm
Within 10 years most people will not own their own cars and will be relying on inexpensive driverless rideshare cars instead (and probably a bit more walking, biking and mass transport than today). They'll care about the aesthetics of the vehicles as much as they care about the aesthetics of taxis, Uber and Lyft cars today: very little.
That pretty much is what I am thinking too... however, no doubt, for that "certain set," there will be some sort of "stylish" vehicle by which they can "arrive" at "the event..."
genec is offline  
Old 06-08-17, 05:39 AM
  #132  
Banned.
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I guess yes
Ryan12 is offline  
Old 06-09-17, 04:27 PM
  #133  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Looks like self driving cars will be given a real test up in Washington State...

Self-driving cars, with or without a human behind the wheel, could begin testing on Washington roads in 60 days, under an executive order signed by Gov. Jay Inslee Wednesday.

Inslee said that 94 percent of accidents are caused by human error, a number that autonomous-vehicle technology has the potential to cut drastically.

The event took place at the headquarters of Echodyne, a Bellevue company that makes high-resolution radar that could be used in driverless cars. It’s one of more than a dozen companies in the state working on aspects of the autonomous-vehicle industry.

“One thing I know about radar, it doesn’t drive drunk, it doesn’t drive distracted,” Inslee said. “We humans are really good at a lot of things, driving cars isn’t necessarily one of them compared to the automated processes that are digital and foolproof. I just have huge confidence in the safety aspects of this.”

Inslee’s move is similar to one signed in Arizona in 2015, which also established pilot programs with loose regulations for companies to test self-driving vehicles and set up a committee to evaluate the outcomes.

Both Uber and Waymo, Google’s self-driving car company, are testing their vehicles in Arizona, although both companies still use a driver who can take control of the vehicle when necessary.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-...145f-122550353

California requires a driver for all testing... Apparently some other states do not, I believe Michigan, Colorado, Texas, Tennessee and Georgia do not require a backup driver for self driving car testing.

The cars are being tested in several cities. Data is being collected. Results to follow, when published.
genec is offline  
Old 06-09-17, 05:52 PM
  #134  
Senior Member
 
coominya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brisbane Aust
Posts: 1,643

Bikes: Giant ToughRoad Giant talon

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 705 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Self-driving cars, with or without a human behind the wheel, could begin testing on Washington roads in 60 days, under an executive order signed by Gov. Jay Inslee Wednesday.
I wonder what the kickback will be for him? Politicians never do anything unless they are getting some remuneration.
As for the belief that one day our roads will be full of driverless cars, well don't hold your breath. There are still 50 Million on food stamps and I doubt those families will ever afford one. Of course in 15 years they could probably afford a second hand one, but how well will 15 year old computers and sensors perform...
coominya is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:07 AM
  #135  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: PGH
Posts: 84
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by coominya
I wonder what the kickback will be for him? Politicians never do anything unless they are getting some remuneration.
As for the belief that one day our roads will be full of driver-less cars, well don't hold your breath. There are still 50 Million on food stamps and I doubt those families will ever afford one. Of course in 15 years they could probably afford a second hand one, but how well will 15 year old computers and sensors perform...

Think outside of the box on that one. Low income family's may not fall into the scheme from a traditional standpoint, but if we move to more of a ride share system (Uber Cars) etc low income individuals may be given credits as a part of assistance programs to allow them to use these vehicles. Also in some states vehicle funding is a part of government assistance. We could see something similar. I think the shift to this technology is just a small part of a overall larger change that is coming to our society.

As for the government kick backs. Absolutely, the grease that makes the wheels of our government move!
PoorBob is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:34 AM
  #136  
Senior Member
 
coominya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brisbane Aust
Posts: 1,643

Bikes: Giant ToughRoad Giant talon

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 705 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by PoorBob
Think outside of the box on that one. Low income family's may not fall into the scheme from a traditional standpoint, but if we move to more of a ride share system (Uber Cars) etc low income individuals may be given credits as a part of assistance programs to allow them to use these vehicles.
Yes, I see your point. Of course there will be technical snags to figure out before they come into widespread usage. Things like who's going to clean the vomit and urine up, cover the graffiti, and figure out a way to prevent them from being used for drive by shootings
coominya is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:40 AM
  #137  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Windham, NH
Posts: 311

Bikes: Bianchi Campione, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2
I thought of this thread when I read this article earlier today.
TL;DR version: Autonomous bolt slams on the brakes when another car cuts in front and gets hit by a biker from behind who couldnt stop in time.

Now, usually its the fault of the person who hits from behind.

But in this case, I wonder if a more alert human would have swerved instead of slammed on the brakes and saved both the cyclist as well as itself?
Amitoj is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:45 AM
  #138  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by coominya
I wonder what the kickback will be for him? Politicians never do anything unless they are getting some remuneration.
As for the belief that one day our roads will be full of driverless cars, well don't hold your breath. There are still 50 Million on food stamps and I doubt those families will ever afford one. Of course in 15 years they could probably afford a second hand one, but how well will 15 year old computers and sensors perform...
The answer was in my post...

The event took place at the headquarters of Echodyne, a Bellevue company that makes high-resolution radar that could be used in driverless cars. Itís one of more than a dozen companies in the state working on aspects of the autonomous-vehicle industry...
No doubt this is seen as a jobs program for WA state.
genec is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:49 AM
  #139  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by Amitoj
deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2
I thought of this thread when I read this article earlier today.
TL;DR version: Autonomous bolt slams on the brakes when another car cuts in front and gets hit by a biker from behind who couldnt stop in time.

Now, usually its the fault of the person who hits from behind.

But in this case, I wonder if a more alert human would have swerved instead of slammed on the brakes and saved both the cyclist as well as itself?
There is no "more alert human" that is faster reacting than an always on machine. You've been watching too many car chase movies.
genec is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:53 AM
  #140  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Windham, NH
Posts: 311

Bikes: Bianchi Campione, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
There is no "more alert human" that is faster reacting than an always on machine. You've been watching too many car chase movies.
I am not questioning reaction times here. But the actual reaction itself. It is obvious that the bolt did not factor the cyclist into its equation when it decided to slam on the brakes.
"More alert" was in comparison with the general population of half asleep human drivers.
Amitoj is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 08:13 AM
  #141  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by Amitoj
I am not questioning reaction times here. But the actual reaction itself. It is obvious that the bolt did not factor the cyclist into its equation when it decided to slam on the brakes.
"More alert" was in comparison with the general population of half asleep human drivers.
Would a human? Most human drivers dismiss any following vehicle pretty quickly... no doubt more so when they are cyclists (if the human driver is EVEN aware of cyclists on the road).

You commentary is pure conjecture, based on an assumption that humans are better drivers. For all you know, in this instance, the robocar had already determined that a swerve would have caused more damage to others.

Perhaps the human cyclist should have swerved, eh?
genec is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 02:16 PM
  #142  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,495

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 634 Times in 434 Posts
Many times swerving creates a bigger problem than just going straight. Swerving involves vehicles and others in the other lane. With an average reaction time of 0.7s, do you really rely on human judgement to check his blind spot, all the mirrors and swerve into a clear area with no obstacles in less than that time?

By slamming the brakes, it looks as if the vehicle did the right thing as the rear ender was most likely the least of all the possible damages.
Daniel4 is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:16 PM
  #143  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Windham, NH
Posts: 311

Bikes: Bianchi Campione, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
You commentary is pure conjecture, based on an assumption that humans are better drivers. For all you know, in this instance, the robocar had already determined that a swerve would have caused more damage to others.

Perhaps the human cyclist should have swerved, eh?
Originally Posted by Daniel4

By slamming the brakes, it looks as if the vehicle did the right thing as the rear ender was most likely the least of all the possible damages.
You both are assuming in favor of the AV. I don't see how your argument is any better than mine, given that all of us are basing our arguments on assumptions that suit our POV.
Amitoj is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:24 PM
  #144  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,495

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 634 Times in 434 Posts
Originally Posted by Amitoj
You both are assuming in favor of the AV. I don't see how your argument is any better than mine, given that all of us are basing our arguments on assumptions that suit our POV.
1)Over 30,000 deaths by motorvehicles in the US every year;

2) The biggest complaints by motorists are about other motorists.


And none of these are attributed to self-driving vehicles.
That's how.
Daniel4 is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 07:27 PM
  #145  
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Windham, NH
Posts: 311

Bikes: Bianchi Campione, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked 11 Times in 8 Posts
How many self driven vehicles are out there? and how many human driven?
Amitoj is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 10:35 PM
  #146  
Senior Member
 
coominya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brisbane Aust
Posts: 1,643

Bikes: Giant ToughRoad Giant talon

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 705 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Amitoj
I am not questioning reaction times here. But the actual reaction itself. It is obvious that the bolt did not factor the cyclist into its equation when it decided to slam on the brakes.
Originally Posted by genec
Would a human? Most human drivers dismiss any following vehicle pretty quickly...
No, genec, you're grasping at straws now. The computer hasn't a clue what's behind it, it could be a trash can dropped from a passing truck, but a human will know it's a cyclist and have the concept in their conscious mind long after they have looked away from the mirror. Computers can be made to do simple tasks like the one I am doing now now on my laptop because they have been programmed to. But take a computer out of it's depth even a little and it locks up or jinxes or makes any number of errors.

navigating the constantly fluid road environment is simply beyond them and they will always crash into barriers, run under trucks, and eventually be killing people as they prioritize inanimate objects above a living organism in their senseless pursuit of the lesser of two collision options.

AI is a SiFi fantasy, always has been, will probably remain so, and nothing short of AI would be safe on the roads.
coominya is offline  
Old 06-10-17, 11:13 PM
  #147  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Originally Posted by coominya
No, genec, you're grasping at straws now. The computer hasn't a clue what's behind it, it could be a trash can dropped from a passing truck, but a human will know it's a cyclist and have the concept in their conscious mind long after they have looked away from the mirror.
The software systems aimed at true autonomous car operation (as opposed to driver assistance) do actually maintain a view of all the relevant objects in the vicinity of the car and classify them as other vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians, birds, ground animals, etc. So the computer in the car actually has a much better clue of what's behind it than the typical driver. See the TED talk about the Google software as one example:
https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urms..._road#t-917034
Not only are cyclists correctly identified, but their hand signals are also observed and taken into account as well as the possibility that they (as well as motorists) will sometimes act contrary to the vehicle code.
prathmann is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 05:38 AM
  #148  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by coominya
No, genec, you're grasping at straws now. The computer hasn't a clue what's behind it, it could be a trash can dropped from a passing truck, but a human will know it's a cyclist and have the concept in their conscious mind long after they have looked away from the mirror. Computers can be made to do simple tasks like the one I am doing now now on my laptop because they have been programmed to. But take a computer out of it's depth even a little and it locks up or jinxes or makes any number of errors.

navigating the constantly fluid road environment is simply beyond them and they will always crash into barriers, run under trucks, and eventually be killing people as they prioritize inanimate objects above a living organism in their senseless pursuit of the lesser of two collision options.

AI is a SiFi fantasy, always has been, will probably remain so, and nothing short of AI would be safe on the roads.
If humans are so good at this driving stuff, why didn't the human riding the bike just avoid crashing into the rear of the car?
genec is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 07:49 AM
  #149  
Senior Member
 
coominya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Brisbane Aust
Posts: 1,643

Bikes: Giant ToughRoad Giant talon

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 705 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 1 Post
Originally Posted by genec
If humans are so good at this driving stuff, why didn't the human riding the bike just avoid crashing into the rear of the car?
If computers are so good at driving stuff, why aren't they controlling motorcycles?
coominya is offline  
Old 06-11-17, 09:01 AM
  #150  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,530 Times in 3,157 Posts
Originally Posted by coominya
If computers are so good at driving stuff, why aren't they controlling motorcycles?
Probably not enough room for the sensors and computers.
genec is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.