# Self-driving cars struggle to detect cyclists



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

https://slate.com/technology/2018/0...-vehicle-communications-arent-the-answer.html

I agree that they autonomous cars should not rely solely on a signal sent out from bicyclists, but on the other hand, what cyclist wouldn't want their presence announced to any cars, self-driven or not?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

The auto makers would rather see cyclists banned from the public roadways and have in fact floated that very idea.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

Autonomous cars are the stupidest things ever. If they really want to stop auto collisions then offer a safe and easy to use public transit. One without crime or a homeless guy touching himself would be ideal.


----------



## dundundata (May 15, 2009)

self driving cars will undoubtedly be safer for all. not saying we are there yet. in fact i think you will see more cyclists on the roads as they become safer.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

dundundata said:


> self driving cars will undoubtedly be safer for all. not saying we are there yet. in fact i think you will see more cyclists on the roads as they become safer.


I'd have to agree with that.
I'd rather take my chances with autonomous vehicle's sensors/algorithms than what we have now. I'd wager road riding and being a pedestrian in general becomes much safer.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2018)

WHALENARD said:


> I'd have to agree with that.
> I'd rather take my chances with autonomous vehicle's sensors/algorithms than what we have now. I'd wager road riding and being a pedestrian in general becomes much safer.


 Yup, flawed sensors working full-time than flawed drivers looking at their phones most of the time.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Yeah, strongly disagree with any sort of active tech requirements on cyclists' (or anyone else's) part to make autonomous vehicles work.

If autonomous cars have a hard time detecting cyclists, then they need improved tech and software to figure it out. Frankly, I think they should be making use of multiple tiers of sensors. Optical, IR, radar, magnetic, motion, lasers, etc. Basically throw everything we've got into their abilities to map out the world around them.


----------



## Snowfat (Feb 4, 2018)

I just don’t see autonomous cars working anywhere but a big city and even then I think it is totally sketch. My work computer freezes up at times, my iPhone glitches out sometimes, I’ve had check engine lights come on in regular autos, I’m not sure why they think an autonomous car will be any different?


----------



## MCHB (Jun 23, 2014)

What about deer?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I think this will be one of many problems that stop ropbo-cars taking off. Ultimately, I think the driving environment is too complex for a computer to deal with. Even if they can drive as well as a person, or better, it still isn't good enough. They have to do it perfectly of the idea will be rejected.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

MCHB said:


> What about deer?


Good point.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

That's okay.

Human drivers have given up on the struggle to detect cyclists....


I honestly that whatever mayhem self-driving cars unleash upon us, it will actually be an massive improvement from what we have now.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

MCHB said:


> What about deer?


I hadn't even got to your comment when I was thinking about deer. It's going to be hard to get them go buy those V2X sensors and tape them to their white tails.

Or the lawsuit against GM: Sorry your kid died but the battery in their helmet was dead, sorry.

For 98.5% of driving I think autonomous vehicles will be safer than people once the tech gets there. But I can't imagine programming one to deal with cresting the top of an off camber hill in the middle of a whiteout snow storm an hitting an icy patch with an oncoming car... The processing power of an experienced human brain is amazing and NONE of the tech we have replaces it yet.

I have this "really fancy" lane departure warning in my 2017 truck (latest technology). You know when it doesn't work? When it's foggy. Yeah, right, the only time I thought it might actually be useful it was like "Nope, I can't see...Good Luck"

I do think the programming will favor caution over lawsuits so we should be safe in the hands of free roaming 300hp steel boxes, right?


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

I have a few thoughts about this:

1, I think the "big guys" like Waymo (Google) and GM are actively working on detecting cyclists without us having to use some kind of transponder.

2, If I can get a transponder that makes me even safer than sensors alone I'd probably be rocking one.

3, I think we can't expect self driving cars to be perfect, but I expect them to be a lot better than we are. Humans suck at driving, we kill something like 30,000-40,000 people a year in the US. Plus more self driving cars will create more data points and lead to better self driving cars.

4, I'm really looking forward to a self driving electric minivan that will take me on vacation with my bike that I can camp in after it takes me there. So I for one welcome our new robot overlords.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Can I have a transponder than tells robo-car I'm an Abrams tank?


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

formula4speed said:


> I have a few thoughts about this:
> 
> 1, I think the "big guys" like Waymo (Google) and GM are actively working on detecting cyclists without us having to use some kind of transponder.
> 
> ...


Yeah, a self shuttling car would be amazing for a lot of my big wknd rides. They should work on that first though a lot of it involves treacherous logging/mountain roads.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I could see something of a "soft rollout" where self driving mode is only permitted on interstates.

A bit like how cruise control works.

A freeway environment is probably a good bit less chaotic than a busy urban one.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

Self-driving cars will never be allowed in full-auto mode if they cannot detect cyclists - while adults may use a sensor, your average eight year old will just hop on the bike and go.

Public transit is fine if it goes where you want to go when you want to go. Public transit is Public which means anyone can take it including the dude who touches himself. That will never change.

The technology is still under development and advancing rapidly. The cyclist problem will eventually be solved. My belief is that this technology is coming faster than we all think and we will see it on the roads in the first half of the next decade. I personally am fine with letting the car drive - I get lot's of time back for my own use. As a bike commuter I am looking forward to a car that is actively looking for me, as opposed to a driver who is actively looking at their phone.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Not good.

Woman killed by self-driving Uber car identified, as company suspends testing - ABC News


----------



## socalpete (Jul 18, 2013)

So who at Uber is going to get charged with Manslaughter ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

socalpete said:


> So who at Uber is going to get charged with Manslaughter ?


Exactly. Who do the police charge? The person in the car? The company who designed it? Uber?

I think it's this legal minefield that will hamper autonomous cars, not the technology itself.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

There was a driver in the car, but the car was in "autonomous" mode. Not to make light of the incident but it will be interesting to see if someone is held accountable. She was walking her bike in the crosswalk at the time so it could have been any pedestrian. Really looking forward to my training road ride after work today.


----------



## socalpete (Jul 18, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> Exactly. Who do the police charge? The person in the car? The company who designed it? Uber?
> 
> I think it's this legal minefield that will hamper autonomous cars, not the technology itself.


Kind of makes me wonder if you would have idiots seeking out these cars trying to cause accidents for a free payday .

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Big setback no doubt. Also no doubt they will get it fixed in time. 

Then we can all safely move one step closer to being completely helpless.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

The articles I have seen said she was not in the crosswalk, but if she was close, and especially if she had the light, there is no excuse. If the driver was reading, texting, or sleeping, he is in trouble.


----------



## bjames (May 5, 2014)

I commute by bike in an area that has a lot of Waymo cars/minivans testing on residential roads. On a couple occasions I have played a bit of the "you first, no you first" at 3+ way stops. I secretly want to mess with them so they have more machine learning data points for cyclists in weird scenarios.


----------



## SlipSpace (Feb 3, 2014)

socalpete said:


> So who at Uber is going to get charged with Manslaughter ?





Mr Pig said:


> Exactly. Who do the police charge? The person in the car? The company who designed it? Uber?
> 
> I think it's this legal minefield that will hamper autonomous cars, not the technology itself.


Terrible thing to have happened.

This sort of event is mentioned in 'I Robot' when considering if 'Sonny' killed Dr Lanning.

_"Having said that, it's a machine. It's the property of USR. At worst, that places this incident firmly within the realm of an industrial accident"_

I wonder what the real world situation will be....

Lots of issues with self driving cars. If cyclists have to wear transponders, what about pedestrians. The US has jaywalking laws (I believe) but no such thing in the UK, cross when and where you like. If cars do stop for pedestrians it makes car jacking, or at least robbery of the occupants very easy.

Long way to go yet.


----------



## woodway (Dec 27, 2005)

I've read conflicting accounts of what happened - one said she was just outside of the crosswalk and one said she stepped out into the road at mid-block. With so little and conflicting information it's hard to know what happened exactly. It could have been the vehicle did not pick her up, it could also be she did not see the vehicle approaching and stepped in front of it.

Either way, it's a sad situation for the woman's family and a setback for the technology, but the technology is going to march on nonetheless...


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

I read that she basically stepped in front of the car, confirmed by the onboard cameras, and it would not have been possible for a human or autonomous vehicle to avoid her. But the report also said that the vehicle didn't brake either which seems like it would have reduced the impact.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-likely-not-fault-fatal-accident-involving-self-125109433.html


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Chris Smith said:


> The Volvo, meanwhile, was traveling at 38 mph in a 35 mph zone on a Sunday night, and the human sitting in the driver's seat made no attempt to break.


1. This answers my question about whether self-driving cars self-speed.

2. No attempt to "break". Wait, does this guy post in the mtbr "Brake Time" sub-forum?


----------



## armii (Jan 9, 2016)

Technically, if it requires out side input to navigate, it is not actually autonomous. 


As far as the possibility of a limited roll out for cars just on the freeway, Cadillac released its Super Cruise, certified hands free on freeways, last September 6th.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Self-driving cars will never be accident-free, because even if they are flawless there will be things like ice on roads, street light malfunctions, animals leaping onto the road without warning, etc. that will cause unavoidable accidents. The question is will people be able to tolerate seeing driverless cars get into accidents? 

Think about it this way. The military has fully autonomous airplanes that can take off, travel to a destination, and land without issue. Yet you don't see fully autonomous passenger craft, and in fact you don't even see fully autonomous cargo planes. People won't tolerate it from a psychological standpoint.

Cars are admittedly different- there's less at stake in a single car crash as opposed to an airliner with 200+ souls going down. But there will be more fatalities with self driving cards. It's inevitable. Will people tolerate it? That's the question, because the technology will get to the point where it is close to flawless sooner rather than later.

The other piece is the economic one - drivers make up something like 20% of all jobs in the USA. All or most of those people could be looking at the unemployment line if driverless cars take over. Are we as a society ready for that? 20% unemployment would be chaos.


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

Maybe Elon Musk is on to something....


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

kpdemello said:


> Self-driving cars will never be accident-free, because even if they are flawless there will be things like ice on roads, street light malfunctions, animals leaping onto the road without warning, etc. that will cause unavoidable accidents. The question is will people be able to tolerate seeing driverless cars get into accidents?
> 
> Think about it this way. The military has fully autonomous airplanes that can take off, travel to a destination, and land without issue. Yet you don't see fully autonomous passenger craft, and in fact you don't even see fully autonomous cargo planes. People won't tolerate it from a psychological standpoint.
> 
> ...


thing is, if/when someone dies, there needs to be someone to sue. sue a corporation that makes the driverless vehicle, or the electronics and logic, or sue the driver of a driver-only vehicle or their insurance. as long as there is a 'way to make whole' society is gonna be ok with that.

anyhow....there will be more deaths, and public perception of right and wrong hasn't yet been tested ...so it is a 'work in progress' and even if driver-less cars are safer overall on a global scale (make less mistakes than humans) will people accept 'robots make mistakes' I think not and ....

me personally I could accept (eventually) my family member getting squashed by a mistake prone human being at the wheel, a lot more than a robot car doing it. in fact I'd never accept a robot car doing it and would ...I don't know what I would do but I'd def not be saying 'mistakes happen no foul' as I did when me mum was squashed dead by a logging truck.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

SlipSpace said:


> The US has jaywalking laws (I believe) but no such thing in the UK, cross when and where you like. If cars do stop for pedestrians it makes car jacking, or at least robbery of the occupants very easy.
> 
> Long way to go yet.


Yes and no. Some places have jaywalking laws. Some places do, but don't really do anything about them. They are often one of those things that cops won't write you a citation for unless they get you for something more serious, and they tack that one on top. As I understand them, jaywalking laws there heavily promoted by the auto industry, anyway.

I frankly don't follow them, and don't even pay attention if the city I'm in has such laws. I'll cross the street wherever if it's safe to do so.

There are absolutely going to be no-win scenarios with self-driving cars. The benefit with them, at least, is that there's going to be a ton of data on the scenarios because of the cars' array of cameras, sensors, and recording devices. Which is so much better than we get with most cars.

Still, self-driving cars are going to have to be able to deal with cyclists and pedestrians and wildlife and all sorts of errant falling or windblown stuff on the roads, and putting the onus on everybody else to wear a transponder is ridiculous. You're not going to put transponders on all the wildlife so that cars can avoid them. Maybe finding a way to include some sort of passive system in footwear or clothing might help, but an active transponder is a big nope.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

Where is the transponder talk coming from? I haven't noticed any car manufacturer suggest that pedestrians and cyclists wear/use transponders. Did I miss that somewhere along the line?

Edit: Nevermind, duh, the original article. I haven't heard anything like that anywhere else. Seems like they just throw as many sensors on the vehicles as they can.


----------



## JoePAz (May 7, 2012)

bedwards1000 said:


> I read that she basically stepped in front of the car, confirmed by the onboard cameras, and it would not have been possible for a human or autonomous vehicle to avoid her. But the report also said that the vehicle didn't brake either which seems like it would have reduced the impact.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-likely-not-fault-fatal-accident-involving-self-125109433.html


I was able to watch the on-board camera. First look she was coming out of now where in dark. Road was two lane (each way) with median divided road with zero traffic, no cross walk and zero pedestrians in sight. You are tooling along about 35-40 then in 1 second you see a person walking a bike 50 feet in front of you. By the time you even register "person" you would not be on brake yet.

Now on replay looking closely 3-4 times I could barely see a person maybe 2 at most 3 seconds before impact. That was only because I slowly looked for person in the dark with no lights no reflectors in the middle of the road. So if you said to someone drive along here, but there will be a person there may be I might find them. If am just drving along there is no way. This to me is not the fault of autonomous car, the "driver" behind the wheel or some thing that even an attentive drive might be able to stop. I put 100% fault on person trying to cross the road in front of a fast moving car. There is no way that person walking their bike could not see the car. The road was straight and there was no weather.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Having watched the video, I agree that it appears to be the fault of the woman crossing the road. However, that is not the same thing as saying a human could not have done any better.

I'm sure you are all aware that what you can see with your own eyes in dim light and what shows up on a video are two different things. Just because the woman is almost invisible on the video does not mean that an attentive human driver could not have seen her earlier.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

kpdemello said:


> Self-driving cars will never be accident-free, because even if they are flawless there will be things like ice on roads, street light malfunctions, animals leaping onto the road without warning, etc. that will cause unavoidable accidents. The question is will people be able to tolerate seeing driverless cars get into accidents?
> 
> Think about it this way. The military has fully autonomous airplanes that can take off, travel to a destination, and land without issue. Yet you don't see fully autonomous passenger craft, and in fact you don't even see fully autonomous cargo planes. People won't tolerate it from a psychological standpoint.
> 
> ...


Could disrupt a lot more than just the drivers: auto body repair, car insurance, traffic cops, traffic reporters, drivers' ed instructors, auto manufacturers. Let's face it, our cars spend most of their time just sitting parked. But with these, they could be more like taxis, one comes by, picks you up, takes you to your destination, goes for the next rider; no need to own and a whole lot cheaper. Kids today are already less anxious to get their license than back in our day, they have Uber and Lyft.

If the cars have detectors for pedestrians and bikes, what keep asshats from abusing this? Just as some urban cyclist run lights, etc; they could cut in front of cars knowing that the car will stop (yes, that will be a ways away, once the technology has proven itself).

What if you want to go off road? Will they always have an override where you can drive if you want to? Then I guess the insurance companies, etc would survive?


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I've done advanced driver training and I can think of many ways this technology falls short. Much of what separates a good driver from a poorer one is anticipation, risk assessment and forward planning. My understanding of this tech is that it doesn't do any of this. It is reactive, not proactive. I'll give you an example.

You are driving along a road and you see a child on the pavement/sidewalk walking away from you. The child sees a friend on the other side of the road, waves and starts to run. A good driver should anticipate that the child may run onto the road without looking, consider reducing speed and move his/her right foot to cover the brake ready to do an emergency stop if necessary. 

In this situation, an autonomous car would do nothing. Should the child dart out and get hit, an investigation would conclude that it was not the fault of the robo-car. While technically, this would be correct, it hides the fact that a human driver may have avoided the accident be being proactive. 

Will robo-cars slow down when they see mud on the road or sheep on the verge? Can they re-position the car to avoid potholes? Can they make an evasive maneuver if they are at the back of a motorway/highway queue and see that the driver behind is going too fast and has not noticed the stationary traffic? 

These machines will not eliminate the flaws of human divers. They will replace them with different flaws, perhaps more insidious in nature. They cannot think, they are not intelligent and they are incapable of fully comprehending the complex world they are let loose in.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

Not trying to be argumentative, but are you sure about that Mr. Pig?

I mean about self driving cars inability to be proactive. I'd actually be very surprised if couldn't detect and anticipate someone on the side of the road (although obviously in did fail in this case). I even read about self driving cars (I think Waymo) that could detect things outside of human sight lines, I believe the example the used was something coming around a turn on the other side of a bush and the car could still detect it.

As more of them get on the road they data points will rack up exponentially, and I think it will make a huge difference. Imagine if you had the driving experience of ever other driver in the world on your side.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think the tech is going to get really good, really fast. And since people by in large suck at driving, I think we are going to get our butts kicked when it comes to safety.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

formula4speed said:


> Not trying to be argumentative, but are you sure about that Mr. Pig?


Please don't apologize for articulating a rational opposing view. That's what we're here for ;0)

You could well be right about the tech improving quickly and I think that in many situations robocars will prove to be safer than human drivers. My issue is that in the cases where they are involved in collisions it may not be obvious that they were at fault. I also think it's a retrograde step to be moving away from human drivers when in my opinion human driver training has never been as comprehensive as the driving environment demands.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

I have on numerous occasions driving the primary road out of my subdivision, come across pedestrians with no lights or light or reflective clothing. It is disconcerting how close you have to get to them to see them. I wonder if the bike had a light or lights and they were off. Some pedestrians here have learned and carry flashlights. Night and low beams affect the ability to pick up people and deer at the side of the road. Detecting people and things outside of the normal human cone of vision should be possible in these self-driving vehicles.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

What the pedestrian was/wasn't doing wrong is immaterial to the discussion of the car's technological limitations.

The pedestrian didn't jump out from behind an obstruction. She was crossing the road. Assuming that the car's sensors can only "see" what was visible to viewers of the video, then the car was overdriving it's headlights. 

But I didn't think these cars could was just using visible light sensors. What the hell happened to the radar systems that I was told would compliment this technology? Why doesn't the car have a FLIR?

We get assured that there are all these super-human systems in place, and then in an accident, we get this ghetto-looking video that looks like it's from a 2009-era GoPro, and a defensive statement along the lines of "Well you human drivers wouldn't have seen her either!". 

Yes, and human drivers suck. Getting rid of them is the whole point of this exercise. I think detecting an obstruction in the road at night should have been the easy part.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

Mr Pig said:


> I've done advanced driver training and I can think of many ways this technology falls short. Much of what separates a good driver from a poorer one is anticipation, risk assessment and forward planning. My understanding of this tech is that it doesn't do any of this. It is reactive, not proactive. I'll give you an example.
> 
> You are driving along a road and you see a child on the pavement/sidewalk walking away from you. The child sees a friend on the other side of the road, waves and starts to run. A good driver should anticipate that the child may run onto the road without looking, consider reducing speed and move his/her right foot to cover the brake ready to do an emergency stop if necessary.
> 
> ...


I generally agree that a good human driver can predict much better than a self driving car. But there are some pretty good videos out there showing technology doing a better job than humans. This one in particular appears avoid an accident that might have been missed by a human. The autopilot warning comes on before any apparent problem. 




There are plenty of others. Some impressive, some not.




At the end of the day they are still being programmed by humans that are trying to predict all the problems that could occur on the road. We're trusting our lives to a FMEA. And I'm not a huge fan of FMEAs because you can't predict what you can't think of. The good thing about them is that they improve over time.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

bedwards1000 said:


> I read that she basically stepped in front of the car, confirmed by the onboard cameras, and it would not have been possible for a human or autonomous vehicle to avoid her. But the report also said that the vehicle didn't brake either which seems like it would have reduced the impact.
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/uber-likely-not-fault-fatal-accident-involving-self-125109433.html


I just saw the video for the first time. And want to change my opinion. Even though the pedestrian made a bad choice it appeared that there was plenty of braking time for the car to at least slow and avoid killing her. Especially a car with advanced detection system like radar and lidar.

Probably the most concerning thing is how complacent the "safety driver" was. Indicating how quickly the population will give over the responsibility of driving to their cars.


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

I just watched the video and my first thought was what the hell was that cyclist thinking? 
She did a hell of a job putting herself in harms way. That said, between the lighting and the shadows, and her poor decision, I would not blame the vehicle regardless wether it’s autonomous or not.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

I saw the video. The driver was not watching the road - she was letting the car drive itself. Why is she even in the car? It really appears to me that a driver could have hit the brakes and swerved and possibly saved the bicyclists life. Can't be certain about that, as I am not sure if or when the brakes were applied. It was all clear for a left swerve though.

If Uber is not monitoring the habits of the human drivers that are on standby, that is a big problem. Let's face it, watching a car drive itself is going to get boring after a while, and it will be difficult to remain vigilant for long periods of time. 

If a cyclist has any reflective clothing on at all, you can see them a long way off on a dark street. Does not appear the cyclist did though. Also I'd say the headlights on the car are pointing a little low. This is an issue with the newer brighter headlights. They light up the foreground very well, but need a cutoff to prevent blinding oncoming cars, especially when coming over a rise (there is technology coming on to address this, but it's just in the high-end cars). 

Unless it is a poor quality video, the driver was over-driving the headlights. No other cars were oncoming, if I couldn't see down the road I would have switched on my high beams, or reduced speed and covered the brake. 

But then again she was not driving at all.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

OK, the vehicle should have been moving 35mph. That is 51 feet/sec. The person in the frame travels about halfway across the lane in 1.5 second. So she would have been in the other lane traveling into the path of the car for at least 3-5 seconds or 150 to 250 feet away. The car uses radar and lidar both which don't require light to sense objects. The stopping distance of a XC70 is about 180ft from 70. Assuming it is approximately linear that is only 90 feet from 35MPH (it should be less). So there is no reason this vehicle should not have stopped unless the radar and lidar failed or the software didn't detect the oncoming obstacle.

Also as previously stated, the human eye has a much higher dynamic range than a camera so an attentive human driver could have seen the person up to a second earlier than the video giving 2.5 seconds total. Subtracting off the average braking reaction time of 1.5 seconds the human should have started braking about 1 second/100 feet from the pedestrian and stopped in 70 feet.

In my professional opinion the self driving car should have stopped well short of this person. And a good driver would have too. I hope that others will come to the same conclusion.


----------



## ALimon (Oct 12, 2017)

JACKL said:


> I saw the video. The driver was not watching the road - she was letting the car drive itself. Why is she even in the car? It really appears to me that a driver could have hit the brakes and swerved and possibly saved the bicyclists life. Can't be certain about that, as I am not sure if or when the brakes were applied. It was all clear for a left swerve though.
> 
> If Uber is not monitoring the habits of the human drivers that are on standby, that is a big problem. Let's face it, watching a car drive itself is going to get boring after a while, and it will be difficult to remain vigilant for long periods of time.
> 
> ...


Do you really think people will be watching the road when they purchase an autonomous vehicle? They can't even watch the road when their driving as is. Distracted drivers everywhere, which explains all the wheels with flowers along the roadways in my area.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

https://www.wsj.com/video/experts-b...ash/1E24A9B7-0B7B-4FA6-96BD-AD1889B921C5.html


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

mtbxplorer said:


> https://www.wsj.com/video/experts-b...ash/1E24A9B7-0B7B-4FA6-96BD-AD1889B921C5.html


As much fun as I had bashing Uber here, I actually like where this is headed. A massive array of pre-crash data, national news attention, and industry experts asking tough questions.

It sounds like a formula to actually improve something.

If a human driver alone had done this, we would have had none of these things.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

ALimon said:


> Do you really think people will be watching the road when they purchase an autonomous vehicle? They can't even watch the road when their driving as is. Distracted drivers everywhere, which explains all the wheels with flowers along the roadways in my area.


this

first thing I am gonna do if I ever find myself in an autonomous vehicle is take a nap.

though....chances of me being in an autonomous vehicle between now, and dead, is zero.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

I know we can all act much more stupid than we normally do at times, but it seems a bit imprudent and fails the reasonable test to cross a 4 lane 2-way street mid block with no attention to oncoming traffic at least from the time we first see her until she is finally looking at the car and knowing it is going to be a least a permanent mark. No bike lights, no high vis, and no attention. Maybe an attentive driver would catch it, but I doubt it. The lidar covers a wider space than low beams and has a better chance but maybe could not process fast enough? 

I witnessed a pedestrian get hit in daylight crossing a similar street away from a crosswalk and against the light. He survived with major head trauma, but I had to put the lion's share of the responsibility on him as he gave the driver no chance at avoidance and he was lucky the driver got on the brakes at all. I regret her death, sure. However it shows that acting stupidly, even if just briefly, can be deadly. The good news is the systems will be improved and I hope no one else is sacrificed on the altar of autonomous vehicles.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

BrianMc said:


> The lidar covers a wider space than low beams and has a better chance but maybe could not process fast enough?


Don't you think that maybe it should?


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

^^ Cleraly so. Thought that was obvious.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Both the driver and the pedestrian were doing something needlessly hazardous at the time of the collision.

Which is exactly what this technology was supposed to address. It didn't. 

But now we have a plane-crash blackbox amount of data, and a plane-crash amount of investigation budget and media attention. Thus I remain optimistic.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

After watching the video and reading that the authorities believe there was no fault to Uber, I think someone must have been paid off. Are you kidding me? The uber operator was clearly not paying attention, and the car made absolutely no attempt to avoid the accident. Even if the brake was applied moments before impact, it might have made the difference between life and death for the pedestrian. 

I'm also not convinced that the pedestrian wouldn't have been seen by the human eye. Just because it was hard to see the pedestrian with the camera did NOT mean that a human eye could not have perceived movement or seen something. 

The pedestrian certainly would bear some of the blame for not crossing in a crosswalk and not wearing more reflective clothing, etc. But that certainly doesn't completely absolve the operator or uber.


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

Statistically, over 100 pedestrians have been killed since this happened.

How many of them have made national news?

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/5900...are-at-a-33-year-high-and-how-to-prevent-them


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

kpdemello said:


> After watching the video and reading that the authorities believe there was no fault to Uber, I think someone must have been paid off. Are you kidding me? The uber operator was clearly not paying attention, and the car made absolutely no attempt to avoid the accident. Even if the brake was applied moments before impact, it might have made the difference between life and death for the pedestrian.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that the pedestrian wouldn't have been seen by the human eye. Just because it was hard to see the pedestrian with the camera did NOT mean that a human eye could not have perceived movement or seen something.
> 
> The pedestrian certainly would bear some of the blame for not crossing in a crosswalk and not wearing more reflective clothing, etc. But that certainly doesn't completely absolve the operator or uber.


^^This


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Sidewalk said:


> Statistically, over 100 pedestrians have been killed since this happened. How many of them have made national news?


Statistically, how many of them were hit by cars driven by machines?


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

I think Uber cannot be charged because Arizona basically has a free for all on autonomous car testing. Whereas most other states regulate it or want to regulate it, Arizona does not, preferring to become test-central for autonomous cars. The Gov can only say that Uber "did not meet expectations", see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...elf-driving-vehicle-testing-after-fatal-crash


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

mtbxplorer said:


> I think Uber cannot be charged because Arizona basically has a free for all on autonomous car testing. Whereas most other states regulate it or want to regulate it, Arizona does not, preferring to become test-central for autonomous cars. The Gov can only say that Uber "did not meet expectations", see https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...elf-driving-vehicle-testing-after-fatal-crash


State and local governments are looking at this like a cash cow to be exploited. None of them seem to care about the safety issues. It's kind of disgusting.

These companies have so much money to put into this. Why couldn't they set up their own testing facilities to mimick real life traffic? It seems like that wouldn't even be all that expensive. Find some shut down military base or old facility with a bunch of roads and intersections, lease it, hire a bunch of drivers, and have at it until you perfect the thing.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

kpdemello said:


> These companies have so much money to put into this. Why couldn't they set up their own testing facilities to mimick real life traffic? It seems like that wouldn't even be all that expensive. Find some shut down military base...


They've already done that. They are now testing on animals.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> They've already done that. They are now testing on animals.


Should have used a monkey on a bicycle in their testing rather than a human-animal. But then I suppose they'd have PETA to contend with so what can you do.


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

so UBER typically runs 7 sensors 
and in the latest incident they were configured as single sensor. 

isn't this regulated ? at any rate cost cutting move by UBER results in fatality


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Sidewalk said:


> Statistically, over 100 pedestrians have been killed since this happened.
> 
> How many of them have made national news?
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/5900...are-at-a-33-year-high-and-how-to-prevent-them


Good info. To help me put it in perspective, I will need to know the number of miles traveled by autonomus vehicles vs non-autonomus during that period of time.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

JACKL said:


> Good info. To help me put it in perspective, I will need to know the number of miles traveled by autonomus vehicles vs non-autonomus during that period of time.


Yikes! Good point.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

kpdemello said:


> Should have used a monkey on a bicycle..


That would've been too cruel!



127.0.0.1 said:


> so UBER typically runs 7 sensors and in the latest incident they were configured as single sensor.


Outrageous. My bet is the sensors were causing problems so they switched them off. Whatever the reason, there is no way they should be allowed to effectively test their dodgy kit on real people.


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

I thought this quickly thrown together graph would best illustrate my feelings on where we stand with the current technology


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

^^lol.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Wow, that was quick. Autonomous ambulance chasers, perhaps?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...self-driving-vehicles/?utm_term=.107e1f906324


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

Hush money settlement. Uber does NOT want this story in the press, and that is the best way to do it. Anyway I hoped they learned their lesson and will figure out what changes are needed to make sure these test cars are safe.

Regarding autonomus ambulance chasers - we just might see that as an extension of this technology. The autonomus chaser will hone in on ambulances, and deliver the lawyer to the hospital along with the patient. The lawyer can take other client's calls during this time, increasing billable hours. And be waiting at the patient's bedside when they are admitted.


----------



## rlee (Aug 22, 2015)

formula4speed said:


> I thought this quickly thrown together graph would best illustrate my feelings on where we stand with the current technology
> View attachment 1190119


I like and agree with this graph.
It proves that we don't need self driving cars but we need cell phone jammers inside cars. Imagine if all you could do in your car is adjust the heater and drive. No phone calls, gps maps, or streaming stereo. Hell people would stop driving. I mean how could you go to the mall without posting on FB about your drive?


----------



## Sidewalk (May 18, 2015)

JACKL said:


> Good info. To help me put it in perspective, I will need to know the number of miles traveled by autonomus vehicles vs non-autonomus during that period of time.


Incomplete data for sure. However, we are arguing over a data point of N=1 right now.

Waymo reports then had 4 million miles as of last November, with 1 million racked up in the previous 6 months. So that means they should have 5 by now. Of course, that is Waymo only.

Wow, saved me some effort. I ran across this article while trying to find numbers (I should be working):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...bc50284fce8_story.html?utm_term=.a2be35cf3a76

On that note, I'll leave you with this. A relative of mine won't give up his license. He is diabetic, overweight, little sensation in his extremities, and could easily be declared legally blind. Would you still prefer him, or a self driving car on the road with you? He sent a text from his iPhone recently, it was totally unintelligible.



rlee said:


> Hell people would stop driving.


God, my utopia!

I live in "HorsetownUSA" (Google it if you don't believe me) and people ride all over town completely oblivious to what is going on since they are staring at their phones...on their horse! Contrary to popular belief, horses are as dumb as rocks and don't do a good job staying out of trouble.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

JACKL said:


> Hush money settlement. Uber does NOT want this story in the press, and that is the best way to do it.


Yeah, but couldn't this come back to bite them as they've effectively just conceded liability?



Sidewalk said:


> A relative of mine won't give up his license. He is diabetic, overweight, little sensation in his extremities, and could easily be declared legally blind. Would you still prefer him, or a self driving car on the road with you?


It's not either or. If neither are safe, neither should be on the road.


----------



## kpdemello (May 3, 2010)

Mr Pig said:


> Yeah, but couldn't this come back to bite them as they've effectively just conceded liability?


In every settlement agreement like this there is a clause that says something like, "both parties acknowledge that the company is not admitting fault, and in fact denies any liability"

There's also usually a confidentiality clause.

In every settlement the payment is in return for the plaintiff dropping the case, not to make him whole or anything like that.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

kpdemello said:


> In every settlement agreement like this there is a clause that says something like, "both parties acknowledge that the company is not admitting fault, and in fact denies any liability"
> 
> There's also usually a confidentiality clause.
> 
> In every settlement the payment is in return for the plaintiff dropping the case, not to make him whole or anything like that.


Yeah, feckers! Basically, if you have enough money and know good lawyers you can legally kill people.


----------



## clarence (Mar 31, 2008)

The next conversation we'll be having about self driving cars is the data they're recording. You know these cameras are logging license plates and other data on the cars they encounter. And that's good. Drivers drive best when a cop is behind them. If a google AI can detect patterns on bad human drivers and that could be used in court cases or to jack their insurance premiums we would all be much safer. 
There are bad drivers and then there are sociopaths.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

clarence said:


> You know these cameras are logging license plates and other data on the cars they encounter. And that's good.


No, that's terrifying.


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

clarence said:


> The next conversation we'll be having about self driving cars is the data they're recording. You know these cameras are logging license plates and other data on the cars they encounter. And that's good. Drivers drive best when a cop is behind them. If a google AI can detect patterns on bad human drivers and that could be used in court cases or to jack their insurance premiums we would all be much safer.
> There are bad drivers and then there are sociopaths.


Oh, that would be great. "You passed a self driving google care on the freeway at 80 yesterday, here's your ticket."


----------



## formula4speed (Mar 25, 2013)

sfgiantsfan said:


> Oh, that would be great. "You passed a self driving google care on the freeway at 80 yesterday, here's your ticket."


On one hand that's 1984 style scary. On the other hand every time I see someone driving 30mph faster than everyone else on the road and weaving through traffic I really wish there were consequences.

Also, you are already being recorded constantly with security cameras when you are out and about, we don't need self driving cars for that.


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

formula4speed said:


> On one hand that's 1984 style scary. On the other hand every time I see someone driving 30mph faster than everyone else on the road and weaving through traffic I really wish there were consequences.


It's worth it if it keeps people from passing by us in a disturbing manner. It is my hope that we will all be riding in autonomus vehicles soon. This will keep us safer. It could also help the police do their jobs more efficiently. If they need to speak to you, they can have the car lock the doors and drive you to the station.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Is my car going to tell my wife where I really was?


----------



## JACKL (Sep 18, 2011)

chazpat said:


> Is my car going to tell my wife where I really was?


be cool...she's standing right behind you...


----------



## sfgiantsfan (Dec 20, 2010)

JACKL said:


> It's worth it if it keeps people from passing by us in a disturbing manner. It is my hope that we will all be riding in autonomus vehicles soon. This will keep us safer. It could also help the police do their jobs more efficiently. If they need to speak to you, they can have the car lock the doors and drive you to the station.


It's not worth it when I am on the road at 0500 heading for a ride a couple hours away or on my way to tahoe. I cruise between 80-90 for as long as I can and it is safe as hell.


----------



## Tom93R1 (Jan 26, 2005)

I'm late to the show here, but regarding that Uber that hit the pedestrian... That area is actually very well lit, I live in Tempe and have been down the road where this happened many times. The dynamic range of a go-pro or whatever the dash cam was is pretty crappy so only shows the headlight patch, a person paying attention could have easily seen the pedestrian crossing for quite a while. There are 2 lanes where the collision occurred, the Uber was in the right lane and pedestrian had to cross the left lane so lots of time to avoid the collision if driver was doing their job. IMO Uber hires drivers because they know there are still bugs that need to be worked out. I'm sure the employee contract says employee is supposed to pay attention and take over in emergency situation. Uber is responsible for having a crappy employee, who is also responsible for being a crappy employee.

My feeling on the self driving cars is that until they are fully automated level 4/5 autonomous they shouldn't even be out in public. Anything less is just asking for the drivers to get too comfortable, not pay attention, and repeat this exact same scenario again and again. People can't even handle driving attentively when they are in charge of steering, gas, and brake.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

Tom93R1 said:


> My feeling on the self driving cars is that until they are fully automated level 4/5 autonomous they shouldn't even be out in public.


It seems so obvious it feels ridiculous to even be talking about it. How can you test a technology that can kill people on real people?


----------



## Surly in OZ (Aug 2, 2011)

Forget Deer, try Kangaroos 

OZ.


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

Surly, sorry having hit an 8 point, 295 pound (when dressed) White Tail at 70 mph at night, I find that a bit hard to forget. Does it matter if a 800 pound rock or a 1000 pound rock falls on you from a height? I was lucky the hood latches gave way and the hood flipped up laying over the windshield and stopping him from landing in my lap. If still conscious, they tear you apart with their flailing hooves. The venison was nice if pricey at close to $10 a pound in todays' money. Roos are much less predictable from the video I have seen, but at night, you don't see deer at all until it's right in front of you. Hitting big animals at speed is not recommended but it is highly memorable!


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

We are seeing more and more deer where I live. Saw seven last week less than a mile from the house. It's a worry. They do shoot them to try and keep the numbers down but they are still increasing.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Mr Pig said:


> We are seeing more and more deer where I live. Saw seven last week less than a mile from the house. It's a worry. They do shoot them to try and keep the numbers down but they are still increasing.


You need lions and wolves 

Deer are plentiful here (not enough lions) and a real danger, one landed on my windshield after making a valiant effort to jump over my van while I was driving 60mph. I constantly scan the ditches now and drive slower at night. Night time detection systems like this could be a big help IMO-


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

J.B. Weld said:


> Night time detection systems like this could be a big help


That looks pretty good!


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

New Cyclist Safety Technology Tested For First Time In Europe
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyam...tested-for-first-time-in-europe/#5069b09878cd


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

Pretty much the self driving technology would have stopped the accident but it was too buggy so they turned it off. AND they turned off the emergency braking feature of the Volvo. The driver should have been paying attention because it was her job but didn't. Oh, and the "cyclist" was high and on meth.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/feds-uber-self-driving-suv-132704038.html

This should be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

I have to agree with both the second paragraph and the last sentence:
_So yes, computers may prove to be safer at the controls. It's not a high bar.

Autonomous vehicles driving with other A.V.s seems far along, but when there is someone on a bike it gets tricky.
_

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/...action=click&module=Discovery&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

This is an interesting article on the topic:

"It's impossible for even a highly motivated human to maintain effective visual attention toward a source of information, on which very little happens, for more than about half an hour," Bainbridge wrote in her essay.

Ya think? Heck, we see issues with drivers that are suppossedly fully attentive to driving!

"Imagine sitting in a self-driving car, hearing an alarm and looking up from your book to see a truck ahead shedding its load onto your path. In an instant, you'll have to process all the information around you: the motorbike in the left lane, the van braking hard ahead, the car in the blind spot on your right. You'd be most unfamiliar with the road at precisely the moment you need to know it best."

I'd bet that 90+% would not proceed past the "Oh Sh!t" moment!

"The worst case is a car that will need driver intervention once every 200,000 miles," Gill Pratt, head of Toyota's research institute, told technology magazine IEEE Spectrum in 2017. Pratt says someone who buys a new car every 100,000 miles might never need to take over control from the car. "But every once in a while, maybe once for every two cars that I own, there would be that one time where it suddenly goes 'beep beep beep, now it's your turn!' " Pratt told the magazine. "And the person, typically having not seen this for years and years, would . . . not be prepared when that happened."

We see this with some senior drivers driving less than 3000 miles a year. Lack of practice means skills whither.

"I honestly believe we are still scratching the surface of applying the technologies of deep learning and neural networks," said Mr. Lulla of IBM. "As computing increases, we will see this scale to true potential. The big issue is to perfect autonomous driving with human driving. Autonomous vehicles driving with other A.V.s seems far along, but when there is someone on a bike it gets tricky."

It may even trickier for that cyclist!

The Road to Self-driving Cars Is Full of Speed Bumps | DiscoverMagazine.com


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...-cyclists-warns-nature-magazine/#2bb8e8066133


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Finally had a chance to read that.

The instructive paragraph is at the very end. Yes the self-driving car might hit the cyclist to save a group of pedestrians, but the typical driver would find a way to hit them both.

As for the automotive CEOs and researchers claiming that cyclists are "unpredictable"... well, funny that, but I find cyclists just as predictable as other road users. 

It sounds more like they're not willing to invest the time and money to program another type of road user into the system, and are gonna make excuses instead.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Local article on automated cars: https://vtdigger.org/2018/12/04/qa-joe-segale-quietly-paving-way-autonomous-vehicles-vermont/ Interestingly, it points out that it could result in more cars on the road, since folks that may not drive now (some elderly, disabled, etc.) will be on the road, and also since there will be zero-occupancy vehicles after a car drops someone off at their destination.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

mtbxplorer said:


> Local article on automated cars: https://vtdigger.org/2018/12/04/qa-joe-segale-quietly-paving-way-autonomous-vehicles-vermont/ Interestingly, it points out that it could result in more cars on the road, since folks that may not drive now (some elderly, disabled, etc.) will be on the road, and also since there will be zero-occupancy vehicles after a car drops someone off at their destination.


Kind of like how Uber and Lyft were supposed to help with congestion in cities but has actually increased it as people who would have walked now use their services.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/25/uber-lyft-drivers-are-making-city-traffic-worse-studies-find/


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

No doubt autonomous cars will ultimately make driving safer for the people in those cars, and NO doubt that self-driving cars will become increasingly prevalent, ultimately commonplace. I’m also pretty confident that it will make it more dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Using Government Math, saving the lives of thousands of drivers is worth increasing the number of the relatively few bicyclists and pedestrians that will be killed.

If I can protect myself by attaching some kind of transponder to make myself more visible and therefore safer from those robots...I’d do that in a heartbeat just as I usually put on a helmet before I get on that bike.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

mtbxplorer said:


> zero-occupancy vehicles


I feel like there's a joke in there somewhere.

So since this thread started, I actually bought a 2018 Volvo with all the aforementioned collision detection stuff (not for that reason, it was what they had left on the lot). I like the car, but I gotta say, at a fundamental level, the driver assist kind of sucks.

I know Volvo was getting all defensive and making a point of saying the Uber had disabled all their sensors in regards to this crash... but after four months driving this car, I'm not convinced their sensors/crash prevention would have worked either.

It randomly panics about vehicles that were definitely not headed into my path, loses the lane markings unless they've been repainted in the last year, sees lane departures when there are none, and the radar clogs and shuts down as soon as it starts snowing... which was like, the one thing I thought radar would be useful for.

So we might not have to worry about self-driving cars after all, because they might all be in the ditch.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

^^Yup. We just updated two 10 & 11 year old vehicles to 2017&2018 models. The moment features like lane detection would become useful, like in foggy situations, they shut off. The forward collision warning system is passive on one car and active on the other. A lot of times when pulling around a car that is turning it will give a warning. I'm worried about the time when it actually decides to brake and causes an accident.


----------



## Cuyuna (May 14, 2017)

bedwards1000 said:


> ^^Yup. We just updated two 10 & 11 year old vehicles to 2017&2018 models. The moment features like lane detection would become useful, like in foggy situations, they shut off. The forward collision warning system is passive on one car and active on the other. A lot of times when pulling around a car that is turning it will give a warning. I'm worried about the time when it actually decides to brake and causes an accident.


It's hard to imagine that autonomous vehicles, even lane departure systems, would be of use here in Minnesota on snow-covered roads.


----------



## bedwards1000 (May 31, 2011)

Right, that too. It seems like some people think that self driving cars are just around the corner. Haven't these people asked "Alexa", "Siri" or OK Google a question and not got and answer they wanted? That is a 1 dimensional search through some of the most powerful tech companies in the world. "Sorry I don't know that one" isn't an acceptable answer traveling around a canyon road with no guard rail. 

Adding them as tools to enhance drivers abilities or awareness is great as long as it is done in a way that doesn't make drivers dependent on them.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Even as I mocked the system on my car, I was impressed enough with the radar to soon thereafter buy a Garmin RTL-500 for my bike.

It, too, has a lot of false alarms caused by I-have-no-idea-what. But the one time it beeps about an idiot with no headlights speeding up behind me on a rainy night, it will have more than paid for itself.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

ghettocruiser said:


> But the one time it beeps about an idiot with no headlights speeding up behind me on a rainy night, it will have more than paid for itself.


Very cool, but how is it going to save you? Seems to me like you'll still get hit, you'll just know it's coming!


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

It beeps when the car is about 150 m back. Depending on the speed of the car, that's generally enough time for me to look back, and head for the curb if there are red flags to be seen. And headlights off at night is definitely a red flag.

But you're right... there are plenty of circumstances under which it could be totally useless.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

ghettocruiser said:


> But you're right... there are plenty of circumstances under which it could be totally useless.


I think most of them. I know when a car is coming, I can hear them. What I don't know is whether the driver is going to give me room or just miss me and the radar isn't going to tell me that so it's not giving me anything I don't already know.

There have been a few times I've known the idiot behind was going to pass very close or hit me if I didn't move. I could hear that he was not slowing down and see there was no room. I've seen some crackers!


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm not a headphones user, but I've always had a lot of difficulty hearing cars behind me at enough range to assess what they're doing. By the time I hear them, they're right on top me, basically. Too much wind noise in my ears. Maybe my ears have a weird shape that makes it noisier? 

I tried various mirrors for a while, but they tended to become useless when they were most needed, i.e. at night in the rain, where I'd just get a blur of headlights... And they guys without headlights would be completely lost in the glare.

Tying back to (failed) automotive technology, IMO the biggest safety failure of the last 20 years has been decoupling the headlights from the dashboard lights. 10-20% of all cars I see on the road now have DRLs only at night, and they don't have a clue. 

A few years ago, DRLs at least had a yellowish beam to them that could sort of light up reflectors, maybe. Now, DRLs are just these white LED strips that have no beam at all. 

It's like they're activity trying to kill us all.


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

I got rear bike radar recently too (Garmin Varia that pairs with my Edge 520 bikecomputer). So far I like it a lot, it seems pretty smart, it ignores cars going the other way, and has not missed any coming up behind. I like it for "seeing" when I can change lanes or just hog the lane more because it is wide open behind me. I still check over my shoulder before changing lanes, but I know not to bother looking if it shows cars coming. In winter here your visibility over the shoulder is worse, with your layers, goggles, road consditions, etc., so it is helpful. I see it as a step ahead of the camera which only records whose faault a collision or close pass is, rather than help you perhaps prevent it. If you listen to tunes on your commute it is definitely helpful. I have the vertical one with an integrated bright light.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

I'm assuming this has to be used with a Garmin computer? It's not a stand-alone device?


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ You can buy it with a stand-alone handlebar unit if you don't have or want a Garmin computer. That adds $100. https://www.biketiresdirect.com/product/garmin-varia-radar-2-rtl510-rear-light-bundle


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

*Finally, A Car Manufacturer Gets It Right On How To Correctly Pass Cyclists*

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...-how-to-correctly-pass-cyclists/#76846e576e59


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/...odule=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Technology


----------



## BrianMc (Jan 5, 2010)

I like the e-drive box bike in the working bike thread better. I winder how they'd stack up against each other?


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Wow, road rage knows no bounds....
Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## Rocky Mtn (Jan 19, 2014)

Personally it boggles my mind that we are getting closer to figuring this out. To me, drivers need to make way to many fluid decisions.

How could a computer decide hitting a group of school children or a group of elderly people?

Who would be responsible if the software froze or glitched? What if there is a bug somewhere in the code?

However, if it was ever perfected, itwpuld sure change things a lot. Imagine starting your work day while doing into work.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Rocky Mtn said:


> Personally it boggles my mind that we are getting closer to figuring this out. To me, drivers need to make way to many fluid decisions.
> 
> How could a computer decide hitting a group of school children or a group of elderly people?
> 
> ...


How would you decide hitting a group of school children or a group of elderly people? 

Would you really have time to decide? A computer won't be playing on its cell phone, or drive drunk or tail gate closer than it can react or run red lights. Working together, they could greatly reduce traffic jams as they compute efficiency.

Owning a car could be optional, just like Uber and Lyft, you could just use your cell to have a nearby car pick you up and take you where you need to go; most of our cars spend most of their time just parked. Picking up something from Home Depot? Just request a larger van. Who would be responsible when their is a glitch? Probably the manufacturer but maybe whoever provided the vehicle, just like an airline is responsible when a plane crashes.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

chazpat said:


> A computer won't be playing on its cell phone, or drive drunk or tail gate closer than it can react or run red lights.


And yet this thread exists?


----------



## mtbxplorer (Dec 25, 2009)

Cars Are Death Machines.
Self-Driving Tech Won't Change That.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/opinion said:


> Cars Are Death Machines. Self-Driving Tech Won't Change That.


Okay... how about a *bit* less death. Can we start working on the tech for that?

We need something to happen here, and no one's gonna stop driving like a lunatic because of an op-ed piece.


----------

