CliffordK

There aren't a lot of self-driving cars out there. So, it is hard to actually get valid statistics.

But, one can only hope.

Reading the more recent reports on the Uber incident, apparently they wanted the "drivers" to control emergency braking/evasive actions. Yet, in this case, the driver was distracted, likely by a personal device, and their system didn't have adequate alarms to alert the driver of a dangerous situation ahead.

The idea was that excessive responses to "false alarms" could be as dangerous as actual emergencies.

Tesla has apparently had at least 2 divers killed with truck collisions. Hopefully the cars are better at detecting cyclists than semi-trucks. Oh, also killing a driver by steering into a fixed concrete barrier.

parkbrav

That is exactly what I am trying to say, and I appreciate you taking the time to be so thorough in your response. I do apologize, I wrote that thread at work and so I'm often busy moving on to my next thought.

The other half thought I had was that there is discussion in the U.S. Senate in terms of requiring self-driving cars to obey local driving laws, and apparently some in the industry are fighting it, claiming that they will "self-regulate."

CliffordK

What laws are they wanting to break?

They would likely still be liable for speeding, school zone, crosswalk, and similar laws.

As we move from computer assisted human backup to independent computer control, then things like speeding tickets will get messy.

Who will pay? The occupant? The car owner? The manufacturer/programmer? Mapping agency?

Some things like drivers licenses will become obsolete, although vehicle registration may cover some of that.

Maelochs

I am pretty sure you know better.

TESLA DOES NOT.MAKE A/Vs. Zero. None. Doesn't build them, doesn't test them.

A few Tesla drivers failed to pay attention to warnings when driving with "Autopilot" which is NOT a driving program. it is a program which keeps a car in the lane and sounds warnings when the driver needs to steer or stop---the same kind of "driver aid" program many manufacturers offered. What happened there was a some people with a lot more money than brains drove into barriers (in at least one and I think two case, parked fire trucks---hard to see them because of all the flashing lights, I guess) because they assumed their driver aids would drive for them.

I can stab myself to death with a fork, it doesn't mean forks are a menace.

So far there has been exactly One documented fatality involving a "driverless" car. Making up stuff is not helpful.

Personally, given what I have seen from humans behind the wheel, I have Zero issue with driverless cars. They could not possibly do worse. And in any case, driver or no, I would treat every car the same, so as a cyclist, this seems to be a non-issue. As far as any impact on pedestrian fatalities ... some one in some other post who had no clue made a clueless claim. No real harm done unless the claim is repeated as fact,.

detroitjim

It's even worse in Denver

https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/...rtly-to-blame/

Daniel4

Rejecting ALL self-driving cars because of one pedestrian fatality is like rejecting all vaccinations because of the 1 out of a million complication.

If the two Uber fatalities were to drivers in a collision, I would assume the car didn't meet the crash test. What happened to the seatbelts and airbags?

Regulations requiring a driver to oversee the self-driving car doesn't give me much confidence. The response time of electronics would be much better than that of any human. Furthermore, if most of the drive had no incidences or obstacles, chances are the driver would not be paying attention. My suggestion would be for the human driver to feel like he's in control but the self-driving car is doing all the real driving. So the car won't work unless both hands are on the steering wheel and a foot on either the gas or the brake pedal.

Maelochs

There was One Uber fatality ... and (OI! people, try Google!) which happened because Uber has such crappy software that a lot of the car's safety equipment was turned off because it interfered. And the driver was busy watching some entertainment show. And the lady who was tragically hit was crossing a dark road not at a crosswalk (which was right down the street, but ... ) it was basically a huge failure of every system except an actual functioning A/V system, which other companies have tested for millions of miles.

The Tesla impacts were people too stupid to realize that the system advertised repeatedly as Not being an "autopilot" was in fact not an autopilot.

So far A/Vs have some trouble making decisive traffic maneuvers which most of us would make because the A/V systems are programmed for maximum caution. An A/V will avoid a left turn across traffic if there is even a slight chance of impact, where most drivers would realize that a decisive stab at the gas would get them across. The A/V will opt to wait for a marked intersection.

A/Vs are Not yet ready for prime time---but not because they are dangerous.

Whatever.

detroitjim

In 2016 41,237 for the US and Canada. 39,339 and 1898 respectively

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...R20171121.aspx

https://www.cacp.ca/index.html?asst_id=1626

KraneXL

I guess they should appreciate the gesture, but they certainly know how to squeeze them in in this town. It would be nice if the sign included the 3 ft law. At least the space is clear of debris.

parkbrav

All the traffic laws you mention, I'm not sure what you're saying? I'm trying to say, the self-driving motorists should never engage in a traffic violation, especially a traffic violation causing injury. If a self-driving car blows through a pedestrian crosswalk, it should be the same as if the car had a human driver that blows through the sidewalk. And I guess the other point I'm making is, these self-driving cars should be introduced when they are ready to recognize local traffic laws

Maelochs

Ahh .... our missing friend, Google.

As I noted above (and as a brief search will reveal) A/Vs are currently too cautious. They refuse to break any traffic laws, and more so have such large safety margins designed in, they are often unable to make left turns across traffic, even when the most cautious human driver would say it is safe.

A/V makers realized, as soon as Uber screwed up, that further deaths could be a death knell for investment. Too much association between "self-driving cars" and "Mad Max-style killer robots patrolling or roads ..."

AVs are designed to obey Every traffic law To the Letter. This makes them somewhat of an obstacle for human drivers, who see the law as more flexible.

AVs are Not ready for general use, as I keep saying, but the issues they have are in no way related to the gross stupidity evinced by Uber, its programmers, and its absentee "safety" driver in Arizona last year.

Road Fan

I-Like-To-Bike

Driving safely involves more than just strict compliance with traffic codes, it also involves an ability to respond appropriately to the environment, to include road conditions, weather and probably most importantly, other drivers' activity in the vicinity. Drivers are not driving safely if they are unable to smoothly merge into traffic gaps, or change lanes or make left turns without causing traffic backups and driver frustrations due to a need for excessive clearance from other vehicles (caused by timidity, incompetence, physical disability, fear or computer programming).

Driving at or below the speed limit on the highway when everyone else is going significantly faster is not necessarily a "safe driving" regimen, nor is it any guarantee against being in collisions.

JoeyBike

No joke. I would never speed on an Interstate highway if everyone else complied with the local 70mph limit, which is fast enough for me. There are situations when 5mph over the limit, for a limited period of time, seems much safer than letting cars race up behind me and make some stoopid move to get around me in a crowded field of lawbreakers. I may join in with the speeders for a minute or two until we all break free of the stream of mayhem. Then I take my place far right and set the cruise for 70 again. Maybe 69, maybe 71 but right there.

Maelochs

For ther record, for those unwilling to research their claims, AVs have not been holding up traffic. They have been instead opting to proceed to the next regulated intersection-a traffic light or some such guaranteed safe intersection. This might add five minutes to a half-hour trip---which is enough to make people go ballistic. "Five extra minutes sitting in this padded easy chair, sipping my favorite beverage and surfing on my phone? Outrageous!!"

As far as traveling the speed limit ... if that is not "safe," the locality needs to address posted speed limits.

No one said the AVs were driving like scared old ladies. The AV brains just calculated the odds of making a maneuver safely and opted not to take a risk---because they were programmed that way.

It is hilarious that so many people complain so loudly about bad drivers making unsafe maneuvers and then also complain about AVs not making risky maneuvers.

In any case---as has been restated--AVs are not ready for prime time yet. But they are not unsafe in any way.

EDIT: if anyone has Actual Facts showing that AVs are actually unsafe right now, I would be interested in seeing them. I know I don't know everything. More unsupported opinions, though, I really don't need.

I-Like-To-Bike

Share the humor, who complained loudly about bad drivers making unsafe maneuvers and then also complained about AVs not making risky maneuvers. Where did you see these people posting those hilarious posts, for the record?

jon c. 

And yet people do this all the time. People in this very forum proudly proclaim they regularly drive in this manner.

mr_bill

Where is this mythical highway where EVERYONE ELSE is going "significantly faster" than the speed limit?

-mr. bill

I-Like-To-Bike

You are correct, some people on this forum swear by strict compliance with the letter of the traffic code by bicycle or motor vehicle; some even proudly proclaim that they lawfully "take the lane" when bicycling regardless of traffic conditions.

Some seem unconcerned about the effect of their "strict compliance" behavior on traffic; and in fact some some seem happy with creating negative attitude and behaviors by their "control" of traffic flow.

bikecrate

My knee jerk reactions based solely on observation...
1. More distracted behavior by motorist, cyclist and pedestrians.
2. Like many cities ours has grown since the 80's where two lane roads went to four lanes, then six - eight lanes. Based on watching pedestrians crossing the roads it is by no means an easy task. Also drivers in this area seem to have no idea what a crosswalk is.
3. Sidewalks are not prevalent in many places in my city. In my urban core neighborhood there is very few sidewalks so you have to walk in the street. I was told in my last neighborhood, which dated from the 1920's, they let the homeowners decide if they wanted sidewalks or curbs. On some blocks the sidewalk starts and ends for no reason.
4. I hear on the news about many pedestrians getting hit in rural areas. I would assume, but not sure, they were walking on the roads.

JoeyBike

Interstate 10 or Interstate 12 between Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Take your pick. Especially where the limit drops to 60 mph from 70 mph for a bit. West of Mobile, Alabama on I-10 is a good place as well.

livedarklions

Route 293 through Manchester NH and the Everett Turnpike through Nashua come pretty close. I don't see a lot of people sticking to anything like 55 mph on Route 3 in Mass., either.

parkbrav

Very interesting ideas

Maelochs

95 North through Georgia ... I think it is marked 75, but I cannot recall seeing anyone going that slow unless they were in the breakdown lane with the four-way flashers tuned on.

jon c. 

That is one of the faster stretches around. If you're doing 80, you need to get out of the way.