Self driving cars good for cyclists?

[Brandane]

(unless a human driver causes the incident by failing to give way).

I think this will be a massive problem while there are a mix of self driven and human operated vehicles on the road. I can foresee a lot of situations where a human will "cut up", or pull out in front of, a computer driven car - safe in the knowledge that it's sensors will cause it to stop or give way, and that there won't be an ensuing road rage incident.
Thrill seeking kids will have a field day too, stepping out in front of computer driven cars and seeing how long they can hold the traffic up. At least until the novelty wears off.

 

[toontra]

I think this will be a massive problem while there are a mix of self driven and human operated vehicles on the road. I can foresee a lot of situations where a human will "cut up", or pull out in front of, a computer driven car - safe in the knowledge that it's sensors will cause it to stop or give way, and that there won't be an ensuing road rage incident.

This also. Drivers where I am (central London - though I suspect it's the same everywhere) will use any tiny situation to their advantage - cut up timid drivers, run red lights, play dare with on-coming drivers, etc. They will certainly try and take advantage if they think they can shunt driverless cars out of the way.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

The difference is that a company will have decided in advance whose safety to prioritise, not the spur of the moment impulse of one person. If I, as a pedestrian or cyclist, was on the receiving end of that decision I wouldn't be happy (were I still alive).

The question is how do you decide? Maximising human life? What if the computer decides squashing the cyclist is better than harming the occupants, since there are 4 occupants and only 1 cyclist?

But when there's only 1 person in the car, maybe it will choose to crash it into the HGV, and not through the 7 pedestrians on the cross road.

What criteria could be used?

 

[toontra]

The question is how do you decide? Maximising human life? What if the computer decides squashing the cyclist is better than harming the occupants, since there are 4 occupants and only 1 cyclist?

But when there's only 1 person in the car, maybe it will choose to crash it into the HGV, and not through the 7 pedestrians on the cross road.

What criteria could be used?

Precisely. It could be argued that if these actions are pre-programmed then they couldn't actually be described as accidents in the sense we know them now. Rather they would be pre-determined and with predictable outcomes, and almost certainly with the safety of the driver paramount (because s/he who pays the money calls the tune).

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Precisely. It could be argued that if these actions are pre-programmed then they couldn't actually be described as accidents in the sense we know them now. Rather they would be pre-determined and with predictable outcomes, and almost certainly with the safety of the driver paramount (because s/he who pays the money calls the tune).

Unless it's legislated, then they get the protection

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Precisely. It could be argued that if these actions are pre-programmed then they couldn't actually be described as accidents in the sense we know them now. Rather they would be pre-determined and with predictable outcomes, and almost certainly with the safety of the driver paramount (because s/he who pays the money calls the tune).

There's a TV series from last year called Extant. In it there's a super computer designed to test all outcomes and give the best course of action to allow survival of the maximum number of humans.

It evolves to a point where it recommends starting wars to save a large number of other humans, or openly murders people to save a number. Interesting concept, but your points on self driving cars and deciding who survives made it come into my head.

 

[Brains]

PCs are unrecognisable from 20 years ago. Roads are pretty much identical, just a bit busier.

Roads of the early 1890's were unrecognisable by 1920's with the advent of street lighting, pavements, tarmac, white lines, parking restrictions, driving tests etc. all because of the invention of the motor vehicle.

Self driving vehicles will bring about a similar change as there will be no need for road lighting, white lines, parking restrictions, driving tests etc.
My guess is 30 years from now our urban road system will unrecognisable to us today

 

[toontra]

Self driving vehicles will bring about a similar change as there will be no need for road lighting, white lines, parking restrictions, driving tests etc.

?? What about other road users - pedestrians, oh... and cyclists?

How can a driver take control in emergencies if:

1) They can't see where they're going?

2) There are no road markings?

3) They don't know how to control a vehicle?

I see a few problems with your vision!

 

[PhilDawson8270]

If your car is self driving. Is there any point of owning one?

What I'd like to see is a council fleet of taxis that run at a reasonable cost. Book via a smartphone it takes you where to go, and that's it.

No parking hassle, no need to own a vehicle.

 

[toontra]

If your car is self driving. Is there any point of owning one?

What I'd like to see is a council fleet of taxis that run at a reasonable cost. Book via a smartphone it takes you where to go, and that's it.

No parking hassle, no need to own a vehicle.

Some form of "public" transport has to be the way of the future. The idea of everyone being entitled to own a car and drive more or less where they like has so many problems attached it's really quite astonishing it's still the norm.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Some form of "public" transport has to be the way of the future. The idea of everyone being entitled to own a car and drive more or less where they like has so many problems attached it's really quite astonishing it's still the norm.

I think it's still the norm, as for many it's still the only option. For all the failings of the motor vehicle, it has done a lot for social migration of working classes.

Until a public transport system becomes affordable, reliable, and meets modern working requirements it will never replace the personal vehicle. I detest commuting by car, but have no other choice. If public transport met my needs, my car would be sold the day after.

 

[Crackle]

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law

 

[Brains]

?? What about other road users - pedestrians, oh... and cyclists?

How can a driver take control in emergencies if:

1) They can't see where they're going?

2) There are no road markings?

3) They don't know how to control a vehicle?

I see a few problems with your vision!

Start thinking out of the box.

One of the issues that is being looked at legally at the moment in California is "Should an automated car have a steering wheel ?"
In an emergency, where your car is not capable of operating on its own it has 'broken down'
You therefore call the RAC/AA to deal with the problem

The automated trucks that UPS, DHL et al and the like are now experimenting with are essentially a box on a chassis, the engine is between the wheels, there is no place for a human to travel in the vehicle.

So 1, 2, 3 above do no apply

As for pedestrians they stay on the pavements as they do now, no change except to the lighting as you may light the pavement, no need to light the road.

Urban cyclists will simply need to get better lights, urban junctions etc will be made for the only non automated vehicles and pedestrians,