First self driving (reported) fatality

[deptfordmarmoset]

Oh well. At least the UK isn't testing them on roads.

They're testing them on cycleways

Yes, I was thinking that too. It certainly was the case on the NCN1 by the O2 dome in Greenwich. Have cycleways been used elsewhere?

 

[Illaveago]

I was shocked when I saw the footage on the news last night .
If the person had been killed by a gun there would be calls for tighter control or outright ban on firearms . If the person was in control of the vehicle some people would say that they should have been driving at a speed where they could have seen the person and taken avoiding action.
The Australian's view of the incident seems to be correct in questioning how a vehicle with all of the sensors wasn't aware of the person. The fact that the person came out of the shadows doesn't count when the car was equipped with radar.
It is becoming more difficult driving on modern roads with bad driving and pedestrians thinking that they can suddenly leap out in front of you at the last second. You have to be aware of people making stupid decisions all the time and the introduction of driverless vehicles could lull people into a false sense of security.

 

[mjr]

Yes, I was thinking that too. It certainly was the case on the NCN1 by the O2 dome in Greenwich. Have cycleways been used elsewhere?

A section in Milton Keynes was approved, but I don't know if it's still used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37618574

 

[Jody]

If the person had been killed by a gun there would be calls for tighter control or outright ban on firearms .

Straight after would be the Vehicle Drivers Association to say the only way to combat this menace would be for everyone to have a car to protect themselves from other cars

 

[mjr]

It is becoming more difficult driving on modern roads with bad driving and pedestrians thinking that they can suddenly leap out in front of you at the last second. You have to be aware of people making stupid decisions all the time and the introduction of driverless vehicles could lull people into a false sense of security.

Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU

 

[Welsh wheels]

The danger here is not that someone's died but that legislation follows which outlaws from roads anything a self-driving car would struggle to avoid, i.e. pedestrians, horses, cyclists. It's potentially a massive industry and we are (literally) in their way.

If they brought in self-driving cars, as a cyclist I would be very nervous and constantly looking over my shoulder!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Straight after would be the Vehicle Drivers Association to say the only way to combat this menace would be for everyone to have a car to protect themselves from other cars

That car-to-protect-from-car mentality is already there. It's often behind that slightly scandalised reaction when you suggest someone might consider using a bike. ''Too dangerous....''

 

[Welsh wheels]

[QUOTE 5190627, member: 9609"]I already do that, I visually make sure any thing that is about to pass me has moved out. You can usually hear when they are approaching that they have seen you and are preparing for a pass, but all the same I watch over my shoulder to make sure they are going to give me room. Lorries (particularly, loggers, bulkers & tippers) I usually get off the bike and off the road.

I had hoped autonomous would make things better, but sadly not, I would rather take my chances with drunk drivers then this new technology.[/QUOTE]
True, I often do the same now.

 

[Illaveago]

Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU

The stupid decisions are when pedestrians suddenly cross a road without looking or making any signs of body language which suggests that they are about to cross the road.
Do or can self driving cars read body language ?
As shown in the incident footage a similar thing could happen again as they haven't discovered the cause. I have seen a lot of pedestrians taking a casual approach to crossing roads in which case they have relied on the motorist to take avoiding action. Now put those people in to the same situation as happened in America and the result would be the same. The vehicle wouldn't see them and neither would the driver as he or she assumed that the machine was in control.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Why is it a stupid decision? Self-driving cars have been marketed for years as good for pedestrians, allowing them to cross wherever they like and the cars will just smoothly adapt, as shown in videos like:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SmJP8TdWTU

See that big patch of sawdust in the middle of shot?
It's soaking up the blood of a software glitch during the first take.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Remember all those times people said AVs would be useless because pedestrians or cyclists could lazily wander about the road and the AV would slow or stop to avoid a collision?

You'd have to be super-cycnical to wonder if the AV manufacturers would consider this as a lesson taught to those who'd be minded to disrupt an AV's progress.

They're already calling for cyclists to be forced to wear a beacon so they can be detected, and pedestrians will be next.
That idea alone makes it clear to me that AVs are nowhere near ready to be trialled on public roads.

(Oh, and what do you do when you're miles from home and your beacon goes flat?)

 

[Inertia]

Remember all those times people said AVs would be useless because pedestrians or cyclists could lazily wander about the road and the AV would slow or stop to avoid a collision?

You'd have to be super-cycnical to wonder if the AV manufacturers would consider this as a lesson taught to those who'd be minded to disrupt an AV's progress.

They're already calling for cyclists to be forced to wear a beacon so they can be detected, and pedestrians will be next.
That idea alone makes it clear to me that AVs are nowhere near ready to be trialled on public roads.

(Oh, and what do you do when you're miles from home and your beacon goes flat?)

AVs need to be able to operate in the world as it is, not in some artificial world we make for them. It just illustrates the blinkered view that is prevalent. The car is so important that we all have to adapt to suit it, rather than the other way around.

 

[Inertia]

Interesting article focusing on ubers self diving car program.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/03/video-suggests-huge-problems-with-ubers-driverless-car-program/

There should be a few worried people at uber.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Apparently this Marsillo guy has connections with a software development company that's involved with AVs. Looks like he's been slipped in to his role at the Confederation for the European Bicycle Industry to exert influence in making cyclists adapt to AVs rather than, as it ought to be, the other way around.

How can the average rider hope to resist when an international cycling body calls for this shoot? They're crafty b'stards these motor industry people.

 

[humboldt]

There's been a shocking amount of victim-blaming floating around regarding this, especially tech site comment sections who can't bear to see AVs threatened. It seems like it's enough to them to say 'well she was jaywalking so really it's her fault'. Personally I think jaywalking is a nonsense 'offence' and only crops up in countries like the US where cars may as well be demigods. Yes it's not good when a pedestrian steps out and you have to take evasive action but they are still the most vulnerable people who will be on the road at any time, plus they have a certain right to actually use their streets once in a while outside the narrow constraints of signage and walkways and not have to think that the incredibly dangerous metal boxes speeding around will just plough through them with impunity and lay the blame on them. This woman wasn't even suddenly jinking off to one side and stepping into the street; she was purposefully making her way across a road and the car hit her seemingly without slowing down. If a human driver came at you without attempting to even scrub off speed just because you were in their way you would think they were monstrous or blind (or on their phone like the Uber safety driver).
I've also been unhappy with responses from safety advocates who seem to be settling on 'this is bad but let's sort of gloss over it because in the long term AVs = SAFETY! Once the tech's ready we'll remove stupid human error forever!' Personally I didn't want autonomous vehicles just to be normal cars driving on their own; I had hoped we would end up with lighter, quieter, less dangerous and more efficient/greener vehicles for this purpose but that may just be pathetically idealistic of me.