First self driving (reported) fatality

[Fab Foodie]

[QUOTE 5191091, member: 45"]. Who needs a rev counter?[/QUOTE] ...a bishop?

 

[jarlrmai]

In a debate on another forums, non cyclist users of that forum seem to be of the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to expect cyclists to carry transmitters to help self driving cars identify us as bikes. They say it is no different to lights.

Thoughts?

 

[Bazzer]

And pedestrians, horses, temporary traffic lights. Should they also be required to carry transmitters, or do the non cyclists expect self driving cars to see those?

IIRC the woman killed by the Uber self driving car, was being a pedestrian at the time of her death.

If you use or buy something, you expect it to work as intentioned and properly in the environment for which it was designed, not go around killing or maiming people. If it doesn't then there is something wrong. Its called taking responsibilty.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

In a debate on another forums, non cyclist users of that forum seem to be of the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable to expect cyclists to carry transmitters to help self driving cars identify us as bikes. They say it is no different to lights.

Thoughts?

It's a load of nonsense. If the technology embodied in a self-driving car is incapable of recognising other road users, and static objects such as street furniture, trees, walls etc then that technology is simply not fit for purpose. Do you also fit transmitters to all deer, dogs, foxes etc, so they can also be "seen"? Self-driving cars on public roads are an idiotic idea, and one that is fundamentally flawed. Cyclists are required to display lights for the very good reason that humans cannot see an unlit cyclist in darkness, and our primary sense used is visual.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

It's a load of nonsense. If the technology embodied in a self-driving car is incapable of recognising other road users, and static objects such as street furniture, trees, walls etc then that technology is simply not fit for purpose. Do you also fit transmitters to all deer, dogs, foxes etc, so they can also be "seen"? Self-driving cars on public roads are an idiotic idea, and one that is fundamentally flawed. Cyclists are required to display lights for the very good reason that humans cannot see an unlit cyclist in darkness, and our primary sense used is visual.

Exactly, where there's inadequate technology, the answer is not more technology for all the other road users to prevent themselves from becoming targets, it's better technology in the first place. Or even less technology, and certainly none on public roads until it can be guaranteed to work safely.

 

[humboldt]

[QUOTE 5217848, member: 9609"]I certainly don't want to be a passenger in a car that would not be able to recognise a 10 ton boulder that had rolled or fallen onto the road. And what happens if a bridge has been wash out ?[/QUOTE]
All boulders must be fitted with transmitters. Easy.

 

[theclaud]

Item about driverless cars on R4 'All in the Mind' right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b1r3j1

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Item about driverless cars on R4 'All in the Mind' right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b1r3j1

Did you catch the bit about the driverless shuttle buses in Greenwich (''Where shall we put it? Oh, yes, let's use a riverside cycle path....'') where someone with a name like Ed Galeia said, around 5 minutes into the programme, ''we may need pedestrian crossings for pedestrians to enforce the pedestrian behaviour that we want?'' Which makes it look very much like the problem with the interaction between driverless vehicles and other path users is that the pedestrians are doing it all wrong. And the word ''enforce'' suggests we need laws to keep people out of the way of driverless vehicles. Which, of course, is getting the whole thing completely arsey versey.

 

[theclaud]

Did you catch the bit about the driverless shuttle buses in Greenwich (''Where shall we put it? Oh, yes, let's use a riverside cycle path....'') where someone with a name like Ed Galeia said, around 5 minutes into the programme, ''we may need pedestrian crossings for pedestrians to enforce the pedestrian behaviour that we want?'' Which makes it look very much like the problem with the interaction between driverless vehicles and other path users is that the pedestrians are doing it all wrong. And the word ''enforce'' suggests we need laws to keep people out of the way of driverless vehicles. Which, of course, is getting the whole thing completely arsey versey.

He should stick to fire safety. Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.

 

[winjim]

It woild appear that the pedestrian was detected by the car's sensors, but dismissed as a false positive by the software.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/20...-woman-before-fatal-crash-but-failed-to-stop/

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

. Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.

That situation will never be allowed to happen, as you would then have mischievous idiots deliberately bringing the roads to a standstill by walking in front of driverless vehicles and obstructing them. They don't do that very often with driven vehicles, because it won't be long before some irate driver will get out and bash them senseless, but no driver = no repercussions.
The reality is that ever since the days of horses & carts, there has always been a pecking order on the roads, and cyclists & pedestrians are at the bottom of the pyramid. Recognising this fact, and always acting with self-preservation in mind, is the key to survival on the roads - with or without driverless cars.

 

[jarlrmai]

They do it all the time in Kirkby mate.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

He should stick to fire safety. Hammond fleetingly gestures towards the possibility that, if autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop instead of hitting people, then 'pedestrians will rule the road', but sadly lets Galea close that down PDQ.

I was surprised to see his name crop up again in the media as an expert on a completely different topic; Grenfell Tower. He gets about does our Edwin.

 

[theclaud]

That situation will never be allowed to happen, as you would then have mischievous idiots deliberately bringing the roads to a standstill by walking in front of driverless vehicles and obstructing them. They don't do that very often with driven vehicles, because it won't be long before some irate driver will get out and bash them senseless, but no driver = no repercussions.
The reality is that ever since the days of horses & carts, there has always been a pecking order on the roads, and cyclists & pedestrians are at the bottom of the pyramid. Recognising this fact, and always acting with self-preservation in mind, is the key to survival on the roads - with or without driverless cars.

No. Resisting this domination is the key to reclaiming space that rightfully belongs to people and creating neighbourhoods and cities where people can go where they please without the threat of being killed and maimed. You should be thanking me every time I cross in front of a car, driverless or otherwise.

 

[theclaud]

I was surprised to see his name crop up again in the media as an expert on a completely different topic; Grenfell Tower. He gets about does our Edwin.

Their investment in car culture can turn perfectly reasonable people into crazed authoritarians. I bet he'd never suggest responding to the risk of fires in high-rise blocks by banning people from preparing their own hot dinners and insisting they all have to eat from the takeaway on the corner.