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 03-22-18, 10:27 AM
  #2376  
Cycleway town
 
MikeyMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Milton Keynes, England
Posts: 1,402

Bikes: 2.6kw GT LTS e-tandem, 250w Voodoo, 250w solar recumbent trike, 3-speed shopper, Merlin ol/skl mtb, 80cc Ellswick

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 569 Post(s)
Liked 169 Times in 117 Posts
''That is the sound of... inevitability.''
MikeyMK is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 10:43 AM
  #2377  
Senior Member
 
McBTC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3,888

Bikes: 2015 22 Speed

Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1543 Post(s)
Liked 51 Times in 39 Posts
It's all academic-- any company fielding cars that run over pedestrians will be sued out of existence and not just by victimized walkers but also by occupants who were forced to participate in a killer business model and powerless to stop the wonton carnage... about like finding yourself in the wake like a deranged religious fanatic bulldozing about without a conscience. At least on trains, passengers could have pulled an alarm chain...
McBTC is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 10:45 AM
  #2378  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Westminster, CO
Posts: 186

Bikes: 2016 Hong Fu Gravel Bike, 2015 Motobecane Turino Team

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SHBR
What is the point of a standby driver if they don't watch the road?

This. If the "safety driver" is already treating the car as infallible, what is the point? This just shows human nature. Human's will either be "engaged" or not. There is no in between.
RFEngineer is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 10:59 AM
  #2379  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,198
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4183 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times in 892 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
None of us need to "argue" here at all. All this crap of scoring cheap debating points .... we should be big enough to let stuff slide.

As it happens, i don't think jefnvk's analogy regarding seven deaths makes the point well, for the reasons others have stated.

What i wish I didn't understand, is why people are still discussing it, as opposed to all the very valid points which he and others have made, which actually move the discussion forward.

Whatever.
Bizarre.

You still discussed it and then complain about other people doing it.

How do you distinguish "the very valid points" from ones that aren't?

Presumably, he though all of his points were "very valid" (he said it "made perfect sense").

It doesn't help him (or anybody) to just ignore things that don't make sense.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:14 AM
  #2380  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,415

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7611 Post(s)
Liked 3,414 Times in 1,806 Posts
Ummm ... "wonton carnage" is what happens in Chinese restaurants .... and in WWII Japanese soldiers didn't charge into battle yelling "Bonsai" (unless they were very attached to their pruning abilities.)
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:16 AM
  #2381  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,198
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4183 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times in 892 Posts
There were three points of failure:

1- the pedestrian didn't yield nor did she appear to be looking.
2- the AV didn't take reasonable action (for unknown reasons).
3- the "backup driver" wasn't paying attention.

1- The pedestrian has a requirement (practical and legal) to take due care. She was at risk by her own actions whatever the vehicle was.
2- The AV should have (it seems) been able to deal with the less-than-careful pedestrian.
3- The "backup driver" should have been paying attention.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:18 AM
  #2382  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,198
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4183 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times in 892 Posts
There were three points of failure:

1- the pedestrian didn't yield nor did she appear to be looking.
2- the AV didn't take reasonable action (for unknown reasons).
3- the "backup driver" wasn't paying attention.

1- The pedestrian has a requirement (practical and legal) to take due care. She was at risk by her own actions whatever the vehicle was.
2- The AV should have (it seems) been able to deal with the less-than-careful pedestrian.
3- The "backup driver" should have been paying attention.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:25 AM
  #2383  
Arizona Dessert
 
noisebeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AZ
Posts: 15,030

Bikes: Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex

Mentioned: 76 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5345 Post(s)
Liked 2,169 Times in 1,288 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
There were three points of failure:

1- the pedestrian didn't yield nor did she appear to be looking.
2- the AV didn't take reasonable action (for unknown reasons).
3- the "backup driver" wasn't paying attention.

1- The pedestrian has a requirement (practical and legal) to take due care. She was at risk by her own actions whatever the vehicle was.
2- The AV should have (it seems) been able to deal with the less-than-careful pedestrian.
3- The "backup driver" should have been paying attention.
Exactly. I nearly posted the same. #1 is primary root cause, 2&3 contributing factors in that order.
noisebeam is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:34 AM
  #2384  
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Look through the video and check the time stamp. It is about one second from the time the lights hit the lady's sneakers until the car hits the lady.
Be careful when looking at time stamps. There are several clips per second. I saw four distinct steps "in the car lights". The woman was not walking fast. While timing and walking I get two steps per second, so at least two seconds to react here. I stand by my previous comment because...

While motoring at 40 mph in the dark many years ago, I had a deer leap out right in front of me. It happened so close and fast that it was over before I had any chance to realize what I saw. I braked on instinct and lightly bumped her at maybe 15 mph. I saw her run away, there was zero damage to my car. There was no steering on my part, because as you pointed out, that takes more time.

I highly doubt a skilled, attentive driver would have hit this victim without braking at all, and certainly a machine that is supposed to be better than a human shouldn't have either. Which may have allowed Elaine, who made a mistake, to survive.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:39 AM
  #2385  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
Bizarre.


It doesn't help him (or anybody) to just ignore things that don't make sense.
The apologists want to ignore the issue that the Uber AV cars are allegedly equipped with sensors more effective and capable for gathering data and driving the vehicle safely on the public roads than the apparently cheapo dash cam cameras used to record the two videos released by the Tempe Police Dept. The apologists also choose to ignore that it is quite possible, if not probable, that almost any reasonable driver paying attention to the road would be able to see better than the crappy dash cam used by the Uber vehicle and react better than the Uber vehicle which did not respond at all to a hazard in the middle of the road.

It should also be noted that the two videos were released by the Tempe Police Department, not by Uber, since the police had physical possession of the vehicle and its dash cams and Uber did not have access after the collision. Whatever data Uber has on this incident has not yet been made public but I assume that the NHTSA investigators will obtain it and use the detailed data gathered by Uber from its sensors as well as its other investigative tools to come to a conclusion based on all the available facts and data.

The apologists presumably will continue in their attempts to whitewash Uber/AV failures and promote their dreams regardless of the evidence.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:44 AM
  #2386  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
???

You don't have to use an argument that is bad.
He does if he wants to reach a bad/erroneous/biased predetermined conclusion that no human or AV controlled vehicle could have avoided this collision.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 03-22-18 at 11:47 AM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:47 AM
  #2387  
Senior Member
 
Maelochs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,415

Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE

Mentioned: 143 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7611 Post(s)
Liked 3,414 Times in 1,806 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick
Be careful when looking at time stamps.
Ummmm ... yeah, I am mystified by such hi-tch stuff.

Originally Posted by jefnvk
By the time her feet are visible in the video, she is standing at the end of the second completely visible road marking, with almost no space in front of the first visible one. Those lines are standardized ten feet long, thirty feet of spacing, all over the country (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1/part3/part3a.htm), meaning there is give or take fifty five to sixty feet of stopping distance. Again, since people claim to like evidence, this study (https://copradar.com/redlight/factors/IEA2000_ABS51.pdf) shows an average reaction time of 0.96 seconds for a person to begin to take evasive actions while driving, defined as letting off the accelerator. One second at 38MPH is equivalent to 55.7 feet per second, meaning if you are an average person you have travelled 53.5 feet before you have even stopped providing power to the car. Before you say you'd steer, time to initial steering and max braking are far slower than 0.96 seconds.
She was about fifty feet from a vehicle traveling at about fifty feet per second when she became visible and was hit about a second after she was visible.

I just did the math.
Maelochs is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:52 AM
  #2388  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,198
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4183 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times in 892 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
She was about fifty feet from a vehicle traveling at about fifty feet per second when she became visible and was hit about a second after she was visible.
The video might not be a good representation of how visible the pedestrian was and for how long.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:55 AM
  #2389  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times in 495 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
There were three points of failure:

1- the pedestrian didn't yield nor did she appear to be looking.
2- the AV didn't take reasonable action (for unknown reasons).
3- the "backup driver" wasn't paying attention.

1- The pedestrian has a requirement (practical and legal) to take due care. She was at risk by her own actions whatever the vehicle was.
2- The AV should have (it seems) been able to deal with the less-than-careful pedestrian.
3- The "backup driver" should have been paying attention.

I will continue to believe there are only two valid points of failure. #'s 2 & 3
The vehicle failed to observe what was clearly in it's path, for whatever reasons. Was this an anomaly or does it point to a larger fault?

The woman could have easily been an animal. If it had been, would Uber have even reported it?
__________________
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
02Giant is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:55 AM
  #2390  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 284
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Is there any information on how these vehicles are doing in their bad weather testing stages? Driving in Arizona is one thing, but most of the rest of us have large swings in weather throughout the year. For me it's a big swing this week as we had snow flurries Monday, it's 65 and sunny today, and they are expecting 1-2 inches of rain in the next couple of days.


It's one of the big reasons I'm curious how the car "sees", because it's common to have really poor visibility several times a year if a storm opens up on you suddenly while you're driving. That may only occur for 10-15 seconds on the road and you drive out of it. Temporary poor to zero visibility driving capability for rain, or snow whiteouts, will be a big selling point if I'm shopping for an AV. Whether it has a dashcam built in or not to record what I see will not be a big selling factor for me. I can just move the cameras I already own.

Last edited by InOmaha; 03-22-18 at 12:04 PM.
InOmaha is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:55 AM
  #2391  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,497

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1477 Post(s)
Liked 635 Times in 435 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Ummmm ... yeah, I am mystified by such hi-tch stuff.



She was about fifty feet from a vehicle traveling at about fifty feet per second when she became visible and was hit about a second after she was visible.

I just did the math.
The vehicle was driving beyond the lights. At night with only headlights to rely on, the vehicle should have done the 2-second rule. That allows the backup system (the human operator) a chance to respond in case the primary system failed (which it did). We also know the operator wasn't paying attention, so an attention sensor should be added to make sure the backup would work.
Daniel4 is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:56 AM
  #2392  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Ummmm ... yeah, I am mystified by such hi-tch stuff.



She was about fifty feet from a vehicle traveling at about fifty feet per second when she became visible and was hit about a second after she was visible.

I just did the math.
Your so-called math about when the victim became visible based on the video recorded by the cheapo lo-tech dash cam used by Uber is mystifying.
The cheapo lo-tech dash cam used by Uber may not have even a fraction of the resolution or range of normal human vision.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 11:56 AM
  #2393  
Tortoise Wins by a Hare!
 
AlmostTrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Looney Tunes, IL
Posts: 7,398

Bikes: Wabi Special FG, Raleigh Roper, Nashbar AL-1, Miyata One Hundred, '70 Schwinn Lemonator and More!!

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1548 Post(s)
Liked 941 Times in 504 Posts
Originally Posted by Maelochs
Ummmm ... yeah, I am mystified by such hi-tch stuff.



She was about fifty feet from a vehicle traveling at about fifty feet per second when she became visible and was hit about a second after she was visible.

I just did the math.
She did not walk (rather slowly) from the center line to almost the other side of the lane in one second. (four steps!) Your math is off.
AlmostTrick is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:01 PM
  #2394  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by AlmostTrick





She did not walk (rather slowly) from the center line to almost the other side of the lane in one second. Your math is off.
She presumably had to walk, pushing a bike, at least 30 feet from the medium strip across approximately 3 traffic lanes in unobstructed view of the Uber before it struck her.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
Uber Collision.jpg (716.7 KB, 53 views)
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:02 PM
  #2395  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,198
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4183 Post(s)
Liked 1,287 Times in 892 Posts
Originally Posted by 02Giant
I will continue to believe there are only two valid points of failure. #'s 2 & 3
You'll continue to be wrong in your belief too.

Originally Posted by 02Giant
The woman could have easily been an animal.
The difference is that, with a small amount of extra care, she could have avoided being killed.

Originally Posted by 02Giant
If it had been, would Uber have even reported it?
If it had just been a human driver, would the driver even have reported it?

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-22-18 at 12:11 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:05 PM
  #2396  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by Daniel4
The vehicle was driving beyond the lights.
I would agree if the headlights actually were as dim to human vision as they appear in the video recorded by the cheap dash cam used by the Uber vehicle. I assume the NHSTA will investigate if the headlights were really as dim as the dash cam portrays.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:08 PM
  #2397  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
One problem with open source is that it devalues programming as a career.
Oh sure, try to blame open source. What devalues programming as a career is the "ship it unbelievably broken and we'll fix it piece by piece with weekly updates" mentality. If any other industry recalled their product several times a month as a standard practice, they'd be bankrupt, banished from civilized society and quite possibly imprisoned for fraud.

At least with open source, the end user has the option of finding someone ethical to fix the product.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:11 PM
  #2398  
Senior Member
 
robertorolfo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Queens, NY for now...
Posts: 1,533

Bikes: 82 Lotus Unique, 86 Lotus Legend, 88 Basso Loto, 88 Basso PR, 89 Basso PR, 96 Bianchi CDI, 2013 Deda Aegis, 2019 Basso Diamante SV

Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times in 113 Posts
Wow, a lot of stuff going on here, and (as predicted), we now have video of the incident.

Starting with the video itself, I don't think it was "doctored" or manipulated in any way, but it does seem particularly dark. You cannot see the victim at all until the beam of the headlights reach her. This seems a little strange, since there were street lights on either side of the road. Yes, she was in a "shadow" between the lights, but in a situation like that you still don't expect total darkness between the areas of light. And although she wasn't wearing any bright clothing, her shoes were white and should likely have been visible sooner.

I know it's impossible to say for sure, but a human driving at that time would likely have their eyes acclimated to the amount of light available and able to see at least something in the area between the streetlights. Also, considering the nature of the road, they would likely have had their high beams on in this situation, which would have made all the difference to an attentive human driver.

The observer is of course an afterthought, as she was clearly looking at her phone, and this only goes to show that putting in observers who aren't required to actively observe is completely pointless.


Moving on to some of the discussion here, it is indeed quite surprising the sensors didn't notice here, even in the dark. This is exactly the situation where we expect the technology to be superior to human perception, and clearly it is/was not.

Do human drivers kill thousands of people on the roads every year? Yes. We all know that. But how is that argument relevant to the idea that testing these AV's on public roads is a mistake?

Most testing is done on closed roads for a reason. No car company would ever get away with testing a brand new braking system for the first time on public roads, would they? Can you imagine if they did, and a fatality resulted, if their argument was that, 'a regular driver with a regular braking system probably would have done the same or worse, so move along...'? Point is, some of you are being way too dismissive here.

With the resources these companies have, it should be very easy for them to test these things in a closed, safe environment. Situations like these could be simulated with numerous permutations, so it would likely even be superior. Surely something like a pedestrian moving perpendicular into the path of the vehicle could, and should, be simulated in a better way then waiting for it to actually happen.
robertorolfo is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:16 PM
  #2399  
Senior Member
 
KD5NRH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697

Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The cheapo lo-tech dash cam used by Uber may not have even a fraction of the resolution or range of normal human vision.
"May not?" I have yet to find one that shows even a quarter of what's visible to normal sight unless it has an actual low-light mode.
KD5NRH is offline  
Old 03-22-18, 12:27 PM
  #2400  
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,906

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,493 Times in 1,016 Posts
Originally Posted by KD5NRH
"May not?" I have yet to find one that shows even a quarter of what's visible to normal sight unless it has an actual low-light mode.
I'll take your word on that, I was just trying to be conservative at pointing out the obtuseness of those who assume that the dash cam recording provides an accurate representation of what would be visible to a human paying attention.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.