KD5NRH

Skynet has confirmed how easy humans are to kill.

Rollfast

I think that was known by the cavemen.

Maelochs

yes, carvings in Lascaux, France indicate that paleolithic people knew of Skynet.

rossiny

very true.. I have seen some great bike lanes marked out here in Kenosha Wi, very good improvements but when a car comes to close at 50 mph, kinda scary. ..

RFEngineer

The family already took a settlement. I wonder if Uber already knew about the cause of this accident.

Road Fan

Based on a new Senate bill (S.1885 AV-START), no absolutely not. The new bill is to set up a national legislative framework for real-world testing of AVs, just like in Arizona. The bill prevents the 50 individual States from devising their own safety requirements for test vehicles. They can only implement safety requirements approved by the US Department of Transportation. This is normally a good thing because DoT is very experienced in automotive safety regulations (the canon of FMVSS), but they are then tying the hands of the regulators by requiring a whole family of new regulations to be written in 25% of the time. Current DoT regulators don't have anything regarding bicycle detection so far, except for the good wishes of a few automakers, like Volvo and Toyota, it will be several years before strong regulations come out requiring cars to take automatic emergency safety actions to avoid collisions with cyclists.

So the good part is,

1. there is no current regulation that says autonomous cars of any level are required to apply their automatic emergency braking to cyclists

2. Regulation that could say so are (in my estimation) over two years away,

3. The S.1885 AV-START allows each manufacturer to place 50,000 test vehicles on the public roads with zero safety requirements even for other cars, to say nothing of vulnerable road users like cyclists, pedestrians, and wheelchair drivers,

Our chief US advocate, League of American Bicyclists (LAB), has been asking state branches (for example League of Michigan Bicyclists) sign a petition asking Congress to require the AVs "to be given an eye test." This cute phrase sounds like the right thing, but it is not useful at all. For one, recent info says the Uber car did detect (i.e. see) Ms. Hertzberg and her bike, but the software was written to prevent it from acting. So eyes were not the problem. For two, one cannot measure detection on just any sensor - equipped car, because the data is not part of the public data set. Detection by radar would be on a data bus inside the radar sensor or on a bus connecting the sensor (eyes) to a data fusion and analysis box (brains). But even that data connection will most likely be proprietary, which means the Feds have to pay to get the data. With this out-of-focus request for a detection test, automakers will rightly and quickly sidestep the requirement. Whereas they do apply system activation testing for IIHS testing and for modern NCAP certifications.

Better for the LAB and us would be to ask for mandatory tests at a test track to set up a gauntlet of realistic targets (light vehicles, trucks, heavy trucks, motorcycles, pedalcycles, pedestrians, wheelchairs) and on the public data bus (perhaps OBDII, famous at least to car guys) measure whether the collision mitigation and avoidance systems activated the proper safety measures - warning, braking, attention-making, swerving, safing the interior, and finally applying maximum practicable braking as fast as possible.

So my opinion is that if AV-START passes, the AV world will be more dangerous for cyclists, not less dangerous. There will be dangerous cars on the road not restricted by any rules based on well-researched safety regulations.

MODS: apologies if I've taken even A&S off the rails here, but ... seems like one of the right places.

Maelochs

Yeah ... whatever.

Unless the new regs completely protect AV manufacturers from all criminal and civil suits, and bad publicity ... cyclists needn't worry.

Shimagnolo

You seriously think AVs will be exempted from all the pre-existing traffic regulations?
Around here it is already illegal to:
- Collide with another vehicle from the rear.
- Pass within 3' of a cyclist.
- Drive in a marked bike lane.

prathmann

Agreed. I also looked at the LAB request for the 'eye test' requirement to be added to the regulations and it seemed to me to be beside the point. Looking at the amount of negative publicity and restrictions that Uber was subject to after their car hit a pedestrian should make it abundantly clear to any AV company that they need to make safety of vulnerable road users a top priority, even if those users are violating the applicable laws.

Road Fan

The 3 foot law in Michigan has been passed as a toothless travesty. Motorists are not required to pass at three feet, only if they deem in practicable. Here the BOL exclusion is not enforced, at least in Ann Arbor. Police routinely park in the lanes. Rear end collisions are illegal, and a perpetrator who killed 5 riders in Kalamazoo has been jailed, I think for murder. But striking pedestrians is illegal, and Uber was not motivated to prevent it, in fact on the car in question I read they turned off the braking function that would have saved Ms. Hertzberg.

The issue I am raising is not that there will never be regulation. It's that the Senate bill essentially ensures no interim safety regulations will exist to be imposed on road testing.

Road Fan

Agreed, "violating the applicable laws" is not a condition for ignoring human life. Jaywalking is not a capital offense.

As to whether public pressure will affect car/software company action significantly, I do not have confidence that companies whom are developing AVs and their software will satisfy safety as you expect, in the pre-production interim. There are peripherally relevant international standards, such as ISO 26262 and specialized standards for forward collision mitigation, and even for pedestrian protection, but they are not mandatory in the United States. Many such ISO standards are legally required in the EU market.

Car companies believe they must provide safe products, and make reasonable efforts considering technology, societal demand, regulations, and feasibility. My experience with Ford and Volvo bears this out. But we are at the edges of all of those factors. When I worked at Ford's main supplier my group used a handful of self-engineered vehicles to develop radars and other sensors and active safety systems, and we maintained a checklist of safety requirements and self-imposed safety requirements, all of which we had to meet. I'm not worried so much about the Fords, Toyotas, General Motors, and Volvos of the world. I am worried about the non-traditional auto companies and auto-related companies like Uber, Tesla, and the many startup EV companies that are out there.

As far as public pressure, a callous management attitude ("circling the wagons") can result in a reduction in safety, just as it can affect quality. Is this what we should trust? As cyclists we don't trust our fellow road users, two-wheeled or four wheeled - that's largely the motivation of A&S as a forum. Well, these drivers are also the executives, managers, engineers and technicians who may make AVs safe for cyclists.

Road Fan

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...driving-crash/

This article contains the story about how the Uber software may have had a bad design feature - to ignore obstacle signals that could have been created by a wispy object, like a plastic bag. Unfortunately it was Ms. Hertzberg.

I think we've briefly discussed it, but I don't think the link to this one has been shared. At least I don't see it on a quick skimming of the thread.

Shimagnolo

Uber in fatal crash detected pedestrian but had emergency braking disabled

https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/24/ub...king-disabled/

I-Like-To-Bike

NTSB Preliminary Report:
https://goo.gl/2C6ZCH

Perhaps some of the posters who previously bought into the Tempe police chief's haste to exonerate Uber and AZ's willingness to turn over all control of prototype testing on public streets to the likes of Uber and their ilk would care to comment.


More at https://www.citylab.com/transportati...nicate/561230/

Maelochs

Interesting. As I read it Uber screwed up---no auto-braking and no alarm when auto-braking might be needed.

But more than that ... the pedestrian screwed up. Just as some of us thought, she pushed her bike right into the path of an oncoming car, with working headlights, and was oblivious to it until an instant before impact.

Uber's system was definitely not ready for prime time ... but if pedestrians are going to walk in front of cars totally without looking, sooner or later they are going to get hit.

Oh and by the way ... this was denied at the start and has now been um ... Clarified ...

"Toxicology test results for the pedestrian were positive for methamphetamine and marijuana"

I-Like-To-Bike

So what? It only clarifies excuses for those who share your victim (of Uber and the AZ Governor's indifference/incompetence) blaming tendencies

Maelochs

An intoxicated pedestrian like an intoxicated cyclist or an intoxicated driver, is apt to make bad decisions and put him or herself in harm's way, and even to take actions which result in harm which others cannot avoid because others cannot predict the irrational behavior.

If the safety driver had been drunk, even in a self-drive car, no one would be saying "So what?" If a cyclist gets hit and it turns out the cyclist was drunk, or high on meth and marijuana, the driver of the car would bear less or no blame ---the erratic behavior of the intoxicated person, the impaired motor response, the bad judgment---would all be considered contributory factors.

And we all know this.

This is another case where once a debate starts, truth flies out the window and "winning' becomes paramount.

The reason impaired driving is a crime is because people who are impaired and impaired. Very simple. People drunk or on drugs do dangerous things.

For instance, this person walked in front of a oncoming car and apparently didn’t notice it until the car was only a few feet away.

If this had been a human driver without AI backup, said driver would have been exonerated----the driver was not behaving recklessly, and the cyclist was nearly invisible in the dark, and Was behaving recklessly.

Uber’s AI system fell down on the job---or was never up to the job,. That fact had been established Before this accident. But the fact that the pedestrian was impaired cannot be overlooked by any honest person trying Not to apportion blame, but to fully understand the situation.

By the way, a careful reading of the available information suggests Gov. Ducey made the laws lax to favor Google/Waymo, and Uber slipped in along with. There are a lot of AI car companies/ component companies with headquarters in the Phoenix area, taking advantage of the year-round clear weather. The laws were drawn up to suit the big ones (Waymo and Intel.) Everyone knew Uber was fourth-rate at best. And now … Uber, which was given a chance, is gone from Arizona.

Post Script: I know I and I think others have linked (in this thread) to many articles and reports which discuss relative disengagement rates f the various systems, which is why I say "everyone:" knew Uber was fourth-rate. In fact, they were by far the worst---the evidence was there before Uber went to Arizona, and before the laws there were signed.

I-Like-To-Bike

Since when does positive toxicology test results for the presence of methamphetamine and marijuana in a victim's blood indicate that the individual was intoxicated?

More importantly, in your quest to heap all blame and fault on the unfortunate dead victim, just like the Tempe police chief and other Silicon Valley apologists, is your lack of focus on the significant issue: the AZ governor's lack of concern for the safety of the people being exposed to his unholy alliance with Uber and other techno-whizs given free reign to use public roads to test their prototypes.

To rebut your incorrect "by the way" nonsense above, see https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...nor-doug-ducey

I-Like-To-Bike

More on "business friendly" (especially Uber friendly) Arizona Governor Ducey. https://www.azcentral.com/story/opin...ace/639118002/

In August 2015, Ducey signed an executive order aimed at luring Uber out of California, one that permitted self-driving cars to be tested on Arizona's streets.

In December 2016, he crowed over Uber’s decision to test hundreds of its driverless cars in Arizona “due to California’s burdensome regulations."

“Arizona welcomes Uber self-driving cars with open arms and wide-open streets,” Ducey said at the time. “While California puts the brakes on innovation and change with more bureaucracy and more regulation, Arizona is paving the way for new technology and new businesses.”

Maelochs

read ALL the articles ... and also, Uber played for a lot o fpublixcity and tried hard to get involved in AZ politics ... Ducey let them in a little, then shut them out.

And yes, Every government does a rpess release or a press event to welcome new business .... makes the politician look like he is getting things done.

Read ALL the articles and you might come to the conclusion that Intel (which has a factory in nearby Carson, where Waymos started its testing) and Waymo were the firms Ducey was playing to ... Not Uber, which already had a terrible record in California.

In fact, the signing of the March 1 bill to allow driverless testing just happened to coincide with Waymo being ready to start testing its driverless cars on the road in Carson.

rossiny

If u really want safer conditions for the cyclist push for some kind of barrier system and follow the rules.. I think a concrete barrier would be best..all the millions and billions spent could be spent on this and public transit..self driving is bull sh*t. There is still the massive problem of pollution both in driving a car and the manufacture of the car and roads. Only when the last breath of air is gone will "intelligent" humans understand.....

Shimagnolo

Statistics on intoxicated driving are a pet peeve of mine.


From: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publicatio...rugged-driving
It is difficult to determine how specific drugs affect driving because people tend to mix various substances, including alcohol. But we do know that even small amounts of some drugs can have a measurable effect. As a result, some states have zero-tolerance laws for drugged driving. This means a person can face charges for driving under the influence (DUI) if there is any amount of drug in the blood or urine.

So in some states, if the woman had been operating a motor vehicle, she would have been charged with DUI regardless of her blood level, and regardless of who was at fault in the accident.

From: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812231
Drivers are considered to be alcohol-impaired when their blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) are .08 grams per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatal crash involving a driver with a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher is considered to be an alcohol-impaired-driving crash, and fatalities occurring in those crashes are considered to be alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities. The term "driver" refers to the operator of any motor vehicle, including a motorcycle.

Suppose you were minding your own business driving down the street at the speed limit, and some fool ran a stop sign at a cross street and hit you. If you happened to have 0.08g/dL alcohol in your blood, you could be arrested for DUI, and this accident would be classified as an "alcohol-impaired-driving crash", even though alcohol had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause.

I-Like-To-Bike

And if the woman was riding on a flying pig, it would not have made any difference that the so-called self driving car ignored its own sensors and run her down without making any effort to slow down or avert the collision. And the indifference to the safety of the public in the AZ prototype testing playground may not have become a roadblock in the blitz of PR hype and promotion of autonomous vehicles as the savior of public transportation.


But she wasn't riding a flying pig, nor driving a motor vehicle so the presence of meth and/or weed in her bloodstream is a red herring for those looking to divert attention from the near criminal indifference to public safety by Uber, Tempe police chief, and Az government officials.

Rollfast

https://www.quantamagazine.org/overt...sync-20180606/

It could have implications for AI.

unterhausen

If Uber thought their software could respond appropriately to the situation that killed the cyclist, they would have had it do that. They didn't think it would work in a significant number of situations.