Uber Admits To Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes As Safety Concerns Mount (theguardian.com)

Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:21 · Score: 0, Funny

Barreling through bike lanes is a feature, not a bug.

Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:35 · Score: 0

Barreling through bike lanes is a feature, not a bug.
The brainless subspecies of the donut-snarfing three-chinned jackass Lardibutt Fatti anencephelopottamus has been identified.
Somebody tell NatGeo! Tell them to bring the wide-angle lens!
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.
I'd say the same thing about Uber.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:43 · Score: 0, Funny

Thanks for reminding us of what an obnoxious scourge cyclists are.
Your Uber is arriving soon.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:55 · Score: 0

Agreed
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:58 · Score: 1

Thanks for reminding us of what an obnoxious scourge cyclists are.
Your Uber is arriving soon.
You know you can buy HD cameras now for about $20 each? That record several hours worth of video?
My bicycle has one front and rear, just for jackasses like you.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Make useful bike infrastructure and I'd gladly get out of the way of all the idiot cagers. But until we have that I can't
And no, sidewalks don't count, they're often illegal to ride on and no where near as ubiquitous as roads. Less than half my commute is covered by them
Re: Depends how you look at it by chentiangemalc · 2016-12-20 06:20 · Score: 1, Flamebait

The cameras will help you a lot once you're on the way to the morgue...
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:26 · Score: 0

I'm looking forward to seeing your HD footage of the bottom of a car on Youtube.
I love GoPro
Critical Mass! Obnoxious bicyclists own the road!
Re:Depends how you look at it by D00MSlayer · 2016-12-20 06:40 · Score: 1

Not all cyclists are assholes. Only some are and they get noticed more than the ones who actually follow the rules.
It's like me saying all AC's are pussy douchebags who hide behind anonymity. It's not true, but there's more asshole AC's than not.
Re:Depends how you look at it by DickBreath · 2016-12-20 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny

It is a way for Uber to increase its customer base. If cyclists are unable to ride due to injury, then some percentage of them will start using Uber. It increases revenue, leading to higher profits, executive bonuses, and greater shareholder value. Any executive would ask: what's not to like?

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Hognoxious · 2016-12-20 06:54 · Score: 1

They they have Deliveroo where you are? They're all complete cunts, the lot of 'em.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:19 · Score: 0

Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.
Right?!? Stupid cyclists making your Cheeto loving, mom's basement living, Mountain Dew slurping ways seem like a bad thing. Shame on them!
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:29 · Score: 0

I might be dead, but at least my next-of-kin will have the evidence they need to sue your ass.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:30 · Score: 0

Sidewalks are also unsafe for cyclists. You'll get hit by vehicles in driveways.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Not all cyclists are assholes. Only some are and they get noticed more than the ones who actually follow the rules.
It's like me saying all AC's are pussy douchebags who hide behind anonymity. It's not true, but there's more asshole AC's than not.
Yea, well the cyclists that do obey get a bad reputation from the other 99%. Even pedestrians obey traffic laws better than cyclists....
Running red lights and ignoring stop signs, and going the wrong way down the street, and generally dangerously obnoxious behavior is the norm for them.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:02 · Score: 0

Not all cyclists are assholes. Only some are and they get noticed more than the ones who actually follow the rules.
It's like me saying all AC's are pussy douchebags who hide behind anonymity. It's not true, but there's more asshole AC's than not.
Yea, well the cyclists that do obey get a bad reputation from the other 99%. Even pedestrians obey traffic laws better than cyclists....
Running red lights and ignoring stop signs, and going the wrong way down the street, and generally dangerously obnoxious behavior is the norm for them.
So, in a thread about two-ton CARS ignoring traffic laws, your small parochial mind gloms onto a few instances of much-less-dangerous bicycles doing the same?
Call me when a terrorist rides a bike through a crowd of people trying to crush them to death.
Moron.
I'd say you need to think but that's probably aiming too high.
Re:Depends how you look at it by lgw · 2016-12-20 08:05 · Score: 1

Not all cyclists are assholes
Very true. It's just that 99% of cyclists give the other 1% a bad name. It's rare to see a cyclist in Seattle that isn't breaking the rules of the road as you watch - it must take real effort to break traffic laws so continuously.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:10 · Score: 0

Thanks for reminding us of what an obnoxious scourge cyclists are.
Your Uber is arriving soon.
You know you can buy HD cameras now for about $20 each? That record several hours worth of video?
My bicycle has one front and rear, just for jackasses like you.
You assume people like us don't know that and aren't prepared to destroy the SDCards as well. You don't belong on the road. Deal with it.
Right.
You're really trying to intimidate someone who played college football against guys who wound up in the NFL? And can still squat 600+ lbs?
You come after me while I'm filming you, I'll kick you hard enough either my cleats are likely to gut you like a velociraptors claws or I blow your knee entirely out and you writhe on the ground in pain. And If I connect with your head, I damn will might kill you outright.
So go ahead, tough boy, get out of your car and try to show off.
Or, maybe one of the SF guys with the CCW permit who I ride with pulls out his weapon and ventilates you.
Internet tough guy. Woo hoo.
BWAAAA HAAA HAAA
I'm laughing at you. Literally.
Because that's what I'll do as I film you - DARE you to get out of your car as I laugh at you.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:34 · Score: 0

Not all cyclists are assholes
Very true. It's just that 99% of cyclists give the other 1% a bad name. It's rare to see a cyclist in Seattle that isn't breaking the rules of the road as you watch - it must take real effort to break traffic laws so continuously.
You mean like drivers on the interstate all going 15 mph over the speed limit?
Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e?
Wow, you CAN'T?!?! Why am I not surprised!
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:42 · Score: 0

Careful now fellas, we have us here a real, genuine internet tough guy.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:43 · Score: 0

Thanks for reminding us of what an obnoxious scourge cyclists are.
Your Uber is arriving soon.
You know you can buy HD cameras now for about $20 each? That record several hours worth of video?
My bicycle has one front and rear, just for jackasses like you.
You assume people like us don't know that and aren't prepared to destroy the SDCards as well. You don't belong on the road. Deal with it.
Right.
You're really trying to intimidate someone who played college football against guys who wound up in the NFL? And can still squat 600+ lbs?
You come after me while I'm filming you, I'll kick you hard enough either my cleats are likely to gut you like a velociraptors claws or I blow your knee entirely out and you writhe on the ground in pain. And If I connect with your head, I damn will might kill you outright.
So go ahead, tough boy, get out of your car and try to show off.
Or, maybe one of the SF guys with the CCW permit who I ride with pulls out his weapon and ventilates you.
Internet tough guy. Woo hoo.
BWAAAA HAAA HAAA
I'm laughing at you. Literally.
Because that's what I'll do as I film you - DARE you to get out of your car as I laugh at you.
Oh.. So you're a jock.. Got it.. One of those, you think everyone that would engage you would even need to be bigger/stronger. There are plenty of very interesting and painful ways to drop a human in their tracks..... None of which require a larger muscular body. Many of which can be done before your limp dick can pull your CCW garbage. But, that's fine.... You'll run in to the wrong person one day and be properly educated.
Re:Depends how you look at it by PCM2 · 2016-12-20 09:01 · Score: 1

As a sometime-cyclist myself, I have some sympathy for cyclists who think about what they're doing on the roads. There are some legitimate reasons why a cyclist might need to break traffic laws to ensure their own safety. But it's when you see a cyclist rear-end a vehicle that has been stationary at a stoplight for at least two minutes that you have to go, "Come. The. Fuck. On."

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:25 · Score: 0

At the same time, who gives a fuck. It's nearly always the cyclist that loses.
Long time cyclist (and driver, and motorcyclist) - sometimes the best move is illegal. Rolling stops, lane changes, sidewalks, etc. But you need to be paying the fuck attention and never getting in the way of someone else. Again, because the cyclist loses.
Re:Depends how you look at it by lgw · 2016-12-20 11:25 · Score: 1

What I find most aggravating are the red light runners. You don't have to cycle for long to realize that cars don't look for cycles when turning left, so inviting that collision is the height of folly.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:18 · Score: 0

Maybe if cyclists slowed down, you know, to suit the conditions rather than having not way of stopping in time? Maybe if cyclists stopped breaking all the road rules when it suits them, one moment your on the road, now youre on the sidewalk pretending to be a pedestrian. What are you? Which is it? Stop being a menace to society because you think the rules dont apply to you.
Re:Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:41 · Score: 0

You mean like fictional drivers on the interstate all going 15 mph over the speed limit?
Fixed that for you.
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 14:48 · Score: 0

Not only that, but they didn't really do anything wrong. Most drivers hook turn across bicycle lanes. The self driving cars seem to have much better awareness and so do it at higher speed which surprises cyclists but doesn't actually impede them.
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 19:41 · Score: 0

Ok so you didn't make NFL and is shit angry you screwed up your life and want to bust some balls.
Nice...
Re: Depends how you look at it by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 19:46 · Score: 0

I don't know really, when I drive all the cyclists become ass holes, but when I cycle all the Drivers become ass holes. Motobikers are always ass holes.
Maybe it's actually because everyone is an asshole? Except me of course because I'm a pussy so I can't be an asshole.
Re:Depends how you look at it by mjwx · 2016-12-21 01:45 · Score: 1

Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.
I'd say the same thing about Uber.
Yes. I'm not sure who to support on this one.

Can we let Uber have the autonomous cars... then jail the execs for mowing down all the cyclists. Sounds like a win-win.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Depends how you look at it by mjwx · 2016-12-21 01:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Make useful bike infrastructure and I'd gladly get out of the way of all the idiot cagers. But until we have that I can't
The problem is, you organ donors and mobile speed humps refuse to... even when many millions of dollars are spent on cycle paths... The best excuses I've heard are that they might hit a 30 CM diameter light pole that is off the path (but somehow can avoid 2 metre wide moving cars) and that there may be leaves and detritus on the path which makes it too slippery to ride on (as compared to roads which have the same detritus mixed with motor oil and other lubricants).

Still yet to hear a good reason why road going cyclists shouldn't be licensed and registered. A bicycle is a vehicle like any other on the road but they dont seem to obey red lights, lane markings, minimum speed limits, no left/right turn signs or other turning vehicles. I wonder if that's related to cyclists being so hostile to licensing and registration like other road users.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Depends how you look at it by gsslay · 2016-12-21 05:14 · Score: 1

You can tell he's a real internet tough guy because his words are 200% tougher than other, fake, internet tough guys.

See how tough they are. See how they punch through your browser like it was made of tissue. Recoil in fear from the words armoured in muscular boldness and caps. These are the words of a man who people take notice of, who gets his way. Respect him or suffer another merciless pummelling of tough guy words.

"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:22 · Score: 1

Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.

Re:"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:33 · Score: 0

Because shareholders just love when companies are sued into the ground because their autonomous vehicle ran a red light and killed a school bus full of children.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by arth1 · 2016-12-20 05:54 · Score: 2

Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.
Uber is a private company.
It's also one that bleeds the investors' money rather fast.
Re: "An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:01 · Score: 1

This is what all those lovely bike lanes were great for, before the robot invasion.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:37 · Score: 0

Uber has a corporate board, and they are building value (by forcing governments to reconsider regulations and negotiate, grabbing land, funding research, etc.) as they bleed cash.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:45 · Score: 0

And Now they want to Bleed Cyclist too?
Re:"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:48 · Score: 0

If you go to work for a startup, you'll find that the corporate board is usually much more active in the key operating decisions of the company, compared to publicly traded companies.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by ShanghaiBill · 2016-12-20 07:10 · Score: 2

Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.
Uber is a private company.
That makes shareholder value more important, not less. In a public company, the board members represent the shareholders. In a private company, the board members ARE the shareholders.

It's also one that bleeds the investors' money rather fast.
That is what investor money is for. You spend it to grow faster than you could if you were only reinvesting profit. As long as Uber is growing and expanding into new markets, the investors are getting what they expect. Cashflow will come later.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by hey! · 2016-12-20 12:20 · Score: 1

Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.
Presumably they've done the actuarial calculations on the cost of payouts to cyclists, pedestrians and driver killed, injured or maimed by their technology and decided they can afford it.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re: "An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 14:50 · Score: 0

We've learned nothing from the dot com crash.
Re:"An important issue of principle" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 15:37 · Score: 0

But the difference is that in a private company, the shareholders (the board members) can - and probably will - agree to sustain a certain level of loss in search of a greater goal.
Actual shareholders in a public company are usually not that understanding (or they're just plain stupid), which makes it harder to show anything other than 110% success.

Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is the only punishment of the driver a fine? I would think you don't get to drive a car for a year or two if you are caught "driving" one of these.

Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

The city should impound the vehicles.
Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:38 · Score: 0

I concur. Next time one of those puts so much as a sliver of rubber on a public road, out come the party lights and the impound truck.
"Defying government authority as a matter of principle"??!! (RTFA!)
Yeah. Defy that, why don't you.
AC
o/~ I fought the law, and the law won...
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-20 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Government statements, or governmental body statements are usually not actually law.
Law is set down in legislation and published rules.
This does not usually have the codicil 'or whatever we decide on the day'.
Governmental agencies often make statements that reflect what they would like the law to mean.
This is often clearly and unambiguously accurate.
Sometimes however, it's taking the published law, and torturing it to say things it really doesn't, with the knowledge it doesn't really say that, but the hope people will comply because it's an agency saying it.
It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says, and consider if all the costs of publically disagreeing with what is said about the law by the government is reasonable.
It may be, for example, that they are confident enough about the legal driver being the person sitting in the 'backup' driver seat, and the insurance covering all risks.
Re:Driver's license by arth1 · 2016-12-20 05:56 · Score: 1

It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says
Law is far too important to leave in the hands of lawyers.
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-20 06:07 · Score: 1

Or bureaucrats who make statements thinly backed by what they would like the law to be.
Re:Driver's license by Calydor · 2016-12-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Law is also far too important to leave in the hands of corporations.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:34 · Score: 0

I would like to have a society that isn't dominated by the government or corporations. Don't see how it's possible, though.
Re:Driver's license by slew · 2016-12-20 06:59 · Score: 2

Government statements, or governmental body statements are usually not actually law.
Law is set down in legislation and published rules.
This does not usually have the codicil 'or whatever we decide on the day'.
Governmental agencies often make statements that reflect what they would like the law to mean.
This is often clearly and unambiguously accurate.
Sometimes however, it's taking the published law, and torturing it to say things it really doesn't, with the knowledge it doesn't really say that, but the hope people will comply because it's an agency saying it.
It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says, and consider if all the costs of publicaly disagreeing with what is said about the law by the government is reasonable.
It may be, for example, that they are confident enough about the legal driver being the person sitting in the 'backup' driver seat, and the insurance covering all risks.
Insurance doesn't cover all the risks. I don't know what kind of insurance Uber is providing to the 'backup' driver. But if someone dies (either the passenger or a someone outside the car) there's really no insurance or indemnity that can stop a district attorney from charging the 'backup' driver with reckless endangerment, or from someone from suing the 'backup' driver for a civil action like wrongful death. Even a $5-million insurance policy (currently required by the DMV for autonomous vehicle operation) is going to do jackshit against that kind of legal "risk" of willfully disobeying (not just public disagreement). Such willful disobedience will certainly work against the 'backup' driver in such court cases (can't just say my boss made me do it). Then OSHA or some other agency can come in and simply put Uber out of business for failing to protect their workers (aka 'backup' drivers). At least if they acquiesced to the DMV, they could at least mute some of those legal consequences. Remember, from your driver's ed classes, "driving is a privilege, not a right".
I genuinely feel sorry for the guinea-pigs/pawns (aka 'backup' drivers) that Uber is using in this stare-down with authorities. Unless they are actually directors and vice presidents or other principle employees of Uber, they are being taken advantage of far more than any of their current actual drivers.
Re:Driver's license by edtice1559 · 2016-12-20 07:07 · Score: 2

There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.
Re:Driver's license by bev_tech_rob · 2016-12-20 07:16 · Score: 1

I would like to have a society that isn't dominated by the government or corporations. Don't see how it's possible, though.
Then you have anarchy and law of the gun. No thanks...

--
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Re: Driver's license by BellyJelly · 2016-12-20 07:38 · Score: 1

You can't take insurance against being caught committing a crime. If what Uber is doing is illegal and there is an accident, insurance won't cover it and (in effect) Uber's shareholders will pay.
Re:Driver's license by lgw · 2016-12-20 08:08 · Score: 2

No, then you have how humans lived for most of the history of the species: rule by social norms and peer enforcement. Not at all what I would welcome, but I think all those horrible normal people would be just fine.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-20 11:56 · Score: 1

If that interpretation is a reasonable one, yes.
Re:Driver's license by hey! · 2016-12-20 12:24 · Score: 1

And arrest the engineers and managers of the company and charge them under the RICO statute.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:02 · Score: 0

And as such, every incident of them breaking traffic law should be assessed as if a competent driver were involved.
Or would you prefer to have to ask whether a company is liable for an actual real death caused by their property after they were warned about the risks?
Re: Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:06 · Score: 0

The last time people lived "normally" without laws, the earth's population was much less than 1% of what it is now. It is fantasy to think it could work with 6 billion people.
Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 14:03 · Score: 0

Which it is in this case...
Re:Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 14:15 · Score: 0

Law is just the Gub'mnt gun-barrel ... or as the wiseman say ... beware of German with Mauser-98, Italian with switchblade knife and ... Jew with a law-book. See pad're? Gunbarrel !
Re:Driver's license by cas2000 · 2016-12-20 14:23 · Score: 1

This so-called "backup driver" is merely a passenger.
As for the identities of the the legal drivers of their self-driving cars, that can only be Uber's CEO & senior management team, and all members of the board. They're the ones who made the decision, they bear the responsibility.
How long will their scofflaw attitude last when it's them personally at risk of being charged with vehicular homicide rather than some underpaid peon?
Re:Driver's license by cas2000 · 2016-12-20 14:32 · Score: 2

practically speaking, you have a choice between corporations or governments.
at the moment, due to decades of anti-government propaganda by corporations, you americans have abdicated control of your government to corporations so there's little distinction between them.
that's not inherent, though. although you have NO chance of ever influencing or controlling corporations (except through government regulation - which is why you've been bombarded with decades of corporate propaganda railing against the evils of regulation), you DO have some small chance of taking back your government and making it work for the people rather than for the corporations - artificial life forms which both run on and corrupt the legal system that enables them to exist....remember, corporations only exist as legal entities because governments say they do, and they only provide shielding from liability for shareholders because governments say they do.
vote wisely. vote socialist.
and when you succeed, remember that constant vigilance is required to ensure that governments isn't taken over by corporations again.
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-20 15:06 · Score: 1

It should be assessed according to the law. That may be that it is all on the human in the vehicle, it may not.
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-20 15:08 · Score: 1

Pretty much exactly the same arguments could be made for cruise control.
Re: Driver's license by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 20:12 · Score: 0

And in that period about 20% or more of lives ended in murder or warfare. It doesn't sound ideal.
Re:Driver's license by edtice1559 · 2016-12-20 20:20 · Score: 1

And since self-driving cars were only a figment of the imagination at the time that our laws were passed, it's a pretty reasonable interpretation that they weren't explicitly allowed. Yes it's also a reasonable interpretation that they should be allowed since they aren't explicitly disallowed. But the regulatory agency has chosen the former and it would be quite the convoluted argument to say that such an interpretation is unreasonable.
Re:Driver's license by cas2000 · 2016-12-21 00:46 · Score: 1

> Pretty much exactly the same arguments could be made for cruise control.
no, they can't. cruise control is just automated control of the accelerator and gears for long-distance highway driving - it exists to avoid repetitive strain on ankles and tendons, and requires the driver to be in full control of the vehicle at all times...even a light tap on the accelerator or brake disables it. it doesn't pretend to navigate or have any kind of situational awareness, there's not even any hint of claim to being 'self-driving'.
Re:Driver's license by queazocotal · 2016-12-21 00:53 · Score: 1

And the automation is designed the same. Any control input by the driver turns off the automation.
Re: Driver's license by guruevi · 2016-12-21 03:12 · Score: 1

The thing is that it isn't illegal, yet I highly doubt that it's a covered peril by your insurance. There is literally no wording in the law and probably not in your insurance policy either that you are not allowed to put a motor on your steering wheel and pedals and make a computer control them. That does mean it IS legal (by definition, in the US at least, laws can only restrict you from doing things, you're free to do anything else that's not directly infringing on other people's rights) to have a computer drive your car unless there is a law that says otherwise, your insurance however probably covers you as the driver as a peril and the occasional user of your car, a computer is neither so you'd either have to cover it with your insurance like you do your significant other, children or friends that regularly use your car.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re: Driver's license by slew · 2016-12-21 06:08 · Score: 1

The thing is that it isn't illegal, yet I highly doubt that it's a covered peril by your insurance. There is literally no wording in the law and probably not in your insurance policy either that you are not allowed to put a motor on your steering wheel and pedals and make a computer control them. That does mean it IS legal (by definition, in the US at least, laws can only restrict you from doing things, you're free to do anything else that's not directly infringing on other people's rights) to have a computer drive your car unless there is a law that says otherwise, your insurance however probably covers you as the driver as a peril and the occasional user of your car, a computer is neither so you'd either have to cover it with your insurance like you do your significant other, children or friends that regularly use your car.
Insurance or not, reckless endangerment is illegal. You cannot legally let your trained dog drive the car even though there is literally no wording in the law that says this. Also, at this point in time, it might be difficult to prove a trained dog wouldn't be as good a driver as current self-driving computers.
If your car computer suddenly decided to take over driving for you maybe you have a case, but if you put the keys in the car and "told" the car computer to drive for you and it couldn't do so until you told it, legally, it doesn't seem to be much different than you telling your dog to do the driving for you, even if you are not behind the wheel controlling the car. No actual damage has to occur for reckless endangerment as people who let their 8-yo kids walk to the park unescorted will tell you. In the event that something actually happens, you perhaps could get into criminal negligence territory.
Re: Driver's license by slew · 2016-12-21 06:18 · Score: 1

The thing is that it isn't illegal, yet I highly doubt that it's a covered peril by your insurance. There is literally no wording in the law and probably not in your insurance policy either that you are not allowed to put a motor on your steering wheel and pedals and make a computer control them. That does mean it IS legal (by definition, in the US at least**, laws can only restrict you from doing things, you're free to do anything else that's not directly infringing on other people's rights) to have a computer drive your car unless there is a law that says otherwise, your insurance however probably covers you as the driver as a peril and the occasional user of your car, a computer is neither so you'd either have to cover it with your insurance like you do your significant other, children or friends that regularly use your car.
Insurance or not, reckless endangerment is illegal. You cannot legally let your trained dog drive the car even though there is literally no wording in the law that says this. Also, at this point in time, it might be difficult to prove a trained dog wouldn't be as good a driver as current self-driving computers.
If your car computer suddenly decided to take over driving for you maybe you have a case, but if you put the keys in the car and "told" the car computer to drive for you and it couldn't do so until you told it, legally, it doesn't seem to be much different than you telling your dog to do the driving for you, even if you are not behind the wheel controlling the car. No actual damage has to occur for reckless endangerment as people who let their 8-yo kids walk to the park unescorted will tell you. In the event that something actually happens, you perhaps could get into criminal negligence territory.
** and legally, driving is a privilege in the US, not a right. Basically since States built, maintained, and enforced road laws, States are able to determine who should be allowed on their roads, not the federal government. If you have your own private road on private property, you can make your own licencing rules.
Re:Driver's license by Agripa · 2016-12-21 16:31 · Score: 1

There is a principle, however, of judicial deference to implementing agencies. That is to say that the courts, within reason, when interpreting a law, will give tend assume that the agencies responsible for implementing a law are the most qualified to interpret it. Going to court and arguing that a regulatory body has misinterpreted the law it's responsible for implementing is a pretty rough ride.
And the government agency only risks the citizen's money while the defendant risks persecution and a criminal conviction.

Doesn't surprise me... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny

So Uber's driver-less cars drive like a soccer mom trying to get her spawn to school?

Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:37 · Score: 0

I'm no fan of Uber and their tactics, but at least they come out and admit this problem. If it were Elon Musk he'd tell us that its the most advanced system in the world and that the customer should protect the cyclists from impending death.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Altus · 2016-12-20 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

yeah but just the other day Uber was telling us that these vehicles are not autonomous but more like an advanced driver assist system which is why they say they don't need a permit to operate in california... but here they are telling us that the vehicle itself is cutting through bike lanes. Which is it?
I mean Musk would tell us that the auto pilot is magic when it is driving you into a truck, but this is just as big of a pile of bullshit

--
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-12-20 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm not sure about the wording. "Admission" sounds like guilt, which is a complex concept. Fault isn't guilt.
Uber doesn't seem to have engaged in a cover-up or avoided the issue, so they don't seem to be "admitting" anything. I can't imagine the issue wasn't noticed by others prior to this, so "disclosed" doesn't seem the right word. Perhaps "acknowledged" or "confirmed" would be more politically-neutral, with the latter being a more-favorable action word ("Uber has confirmed its engineers are working to correct a flaw...") while the former is a less-favorable statement ("Uber has acknowledged a flaw exists. They know. Stop calling them about it.").

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by GuB-42 · 2016-12-20 06:11 · Score: 1

When an autonomous car was caught running a red light, Uber was very quick to blame the driver.
And they didn't really "came out". They only admitted a few issues when evidence was piling up against them and were told by the DMV that public roads are not their playground.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by ColdWetDog · 2016-12-20 06:27 · Score: 1

Wait a sec, Uber could be correct ... Hear me out. If indeed the Uber system is an 'advanced driver assist' it exists to essentially help the driver navigate the streets, then you would expect the system to mimic driver behavior.
Like running over bicyclists.
Any truly autonomous system would not run over bicyclists and pedestrians as a matter of course. The legal oversight staffs would be adverse to this behavior.
Uber was right after all.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by StikyPad · 2016-12-20 06:35 · Score: 1

Are you a lawyer or a pedant? (But I repeat myself.) You can admit things without admitting guilt. The opposite of admit is deny, which they are not doing. There's nothing wrong with the headline.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by I4ko · 2016-12-20 06:50 · Score: 2

Next time I come with construction foam applied in the exhaust of such unter cars.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-12-20 07:18 · Score: 1

It's a persuasion thing. I never learned to lie, so I learned to say things with specific words, inflections, ordering of ideas, and other manner of technically-saying-the-same-thing to imply other things not being said, or to prevent people from asking uncomfortable questions by making sure the thought never crosses their minds.
It's a matter of identifying the emotion people associate with a certain statement. A word may not mean "evil person," but may bring an impression of nefariousness to the person's mind. I've seen more ham-fisted examples where people describe a situation and then point out that the reader identified a particular character as a mid-40s white woman, identified some of the other characters as black, and came up with an unstated history where the black kids were into drugs and rape and shit, even though nobody did anything bad--it's just how they talk, how they smile, and the emotion you interpret between them, where they are at the time, etc.. You can get a lot more subtle than saying "he held up his ghetto-blaster" instead of "he raised his portable radio".

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Hognoxious · 2016-12-20 07:36 · Score: 3, Funny

I never learned to lie

I don't believe you.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by HornWumpus · 2016-12-20 08:12 · Score: 1

A quick browse through his posting history shows a ton of 'lying with statistics' on the UBI story.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by lgw · 2016-12-20 08:17 · Score: 1

When I was studying logic in college, I heard a story of an older logic professor who was famous for his honesty. One day a student asked him outright if he had ever told a lie. He thought for a long time, and then answered "yes".

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-12-20 09:52 · Score: 1

"I don't like this ideal and there are numbers I don't care to understand" doesn't equate to "you're wrong or lying".

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 10:11 · Score: 0

I never learned to lie
I don't believe you.
Why not? I never learned to lie either - it's a skill that came naturally to me.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Hognoxious · 2016-12-20 10:37 · Score: 1

I don't like this ideal

Why would someone not like an ideal? Is it not, by definition, perfect?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Blaskowicz · 2016-12-20 14:32 · Score: 1

I will point out that "admit" is a short word that is easier to fit in a headline. There are stupider choices of words and phrases, and there's even a term, "headlinese" to describe such shortening or corrupting of language. E.g. a follow up headline might read "Uber cans self-driving feature..." or "Uber nixes self-driving feature...", if that were to happen. That'd be poor but concise writing.
I can hear some likely effects of this on radio or TV, in French and from journalists and politicians, where grammatically important tiny words or locutions in the likes of "of", "of the", "about" or "about the" are omitted. In English that's OK, you can say "a car problem" without a glue word or two between the nouns, the feature is built-in to the language. In French that sounds like baby talk (to me) that wasn't allowed a decade ago.
I do believe "admits" is fairly benign or neutral, or that it's not out of place as the news is negative no matter what.
"acknowledges" would work well.
"recognizes" : this would be a fine neutral word if it wasn't only for extremely formal stuff like state sovereignty, legal rights and stuff. Too bad lol. In French you can use "reconnaît" for both that and Uber's car problem.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 14:42 · Score: 0

He lies all the time and I usually call him out on it. You do too, btw, you just don't seem to care. When I call you out for it, you just double down on your original premise, Fox just tries to deflect or obfuscate the entire conversation.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-12-21 03:13 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as perfection. It is ideal for me to be much, much richer than everyone else, even if they're all poor; it's ideal across the economy for something more-moderate to happen, and such an optimization would make me richer than I am now without making me as rich as I could be; and it's ideal from the perspective of the poor to just win the lottery and never have to work or beg again.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by dave420 · 2016-12-21 03:15 · Score: 1

Convenience of argument. It's a lot easier to dismiss criticism if you assume the critic is flatly against the entire idea regardless of how well implemented it is.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... by tehcyder · 2016-12-21 03:27 · Score: 1

I don't like this ideal
Why would someone not like an ideal? Is it not, by definition, perfect?
For some people their ideal would be a world where everybody was perfectly equal and equally happy.
For others, this would be their worst nightmare.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-12-20 05:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

We're "sorry" that our "independently" owned and operated "self-driving" car went into the "bike" lane and "killed" your wife last night. Here is our "generous" offer: $250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."

Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 05:27 · Score: 1

Here is our "generous" offer: $250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."
Sounds like a grocery store offer. When my mother slipped and fell in an grocery store, the manager offered her $500 on the spot. She went to small claims court and won $2,000 instead.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by MightyYar · 2016-12-20 05:27 · Score: 2

$250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."
I guess it's a better offer than the divorce.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 05:59 · Score: 1

Why am I not surprised that both you and your mother are leeches off the system?
The $500 that the grocery store manager offered didn't cover her doctor bill. Using the small claims court to recover the cost of treatment is entirely legal.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:01 · Score: 0

Just stop posting. You are a stupid, ignorant cunt.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by rijrunner · 2016-12-20 06:01 · Score: 1

A lot of states have tort limits for personal injuries, so this will vary by state. It is unlikely to ever be more than 75% of any states' tort limit. If you sue and win, the attorney fees would actually make you win less than settling.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by 110010001000 · 2016-12-20 06:01 · Score: 2

True! I hope she is OK.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 06:08 · Score: 1

True! I hope she is OK.
That was back in the 1980's.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by I4ko · 2016-12-20 06:53 · Score: 1

You are supposed to have health insurance or live an country with a working health care system. If you slip and fall on a sidewalk who do you sue? All the people in the city as it is a public property. That is insane. If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:00 · Score: 0

Most cities require property owners to clear the sidewalks in front of their houses. You could be sued if someone slips and falls on the sidewalk in front of your house because, even though it's not your property, it is your legal responsibility.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 07:00 · Score: 1

You are supposed to have health insurance or live an country with a working health care system.
This was the 1980's. My family had health insurance but it didn't covered chiropractic care. That was 100% out of pocket. Hence, my mother declined the $500 offer and sued in small claims court for $2,000.

If you slip and fall on a sidewalk who do you sue? All the people in the city as it is a public property.
This happened inside a grocery store.

That is insane.
So is your comment.

If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance.
The bagging boy did a terrible job of cleaning up the broken mayo jar.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by ArchieBunker · 2016-12-20 07:04 · Score: 1

Have the laws changed if you don't agree with them.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by edtice1559 · 2016-12-20 07:08 · Score: 1

If you have health insurance in the US and suffer a wound, your health insurance provider will attempt to recover from the premises owner. If you don't have health insurance or your insurance is insufficient, you have to do it yourself.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by slew · 2016-12-20 07:13 · Score: 1

A lot of states have tort limits for personal injuries, so this will vary by state. It is unlikely to ever be more than 75% of any states' tort limit. If you sue and win, the attorney fees would actually make you win less than settling.
IANAL, but my understanding in nearly all cases the tort-caps only affect non-economic damages (e.g., pain suffering). If you have actual economic damages (e.g., doctor's bills, lost wages, loss of future employability etc), you can nearly always sue for 100% of established economic damages.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by vel-ex-tech · 2016-12-20 07:42 · Score: 1

Ah, that explains why treatment was only $2,000.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by DarkOx · 2016-12-20 07:54 · Score: 1

In an outdoor area, I'd be incline to mostly agree. One should exercise caution being aware they are not in a well controlled environment. Inside a store or something I'd expect the proprietor to have caution wet floor signs up or something to let me know that my ordinary expectation of safe walking conditions in an indoor space are incorrect.
In lots of cities 'YOU' are responsible for the sidewalks along your property. Check your local laws. If its your job to keep those walks clear and you fail to keep them free of grease, debris, ice, and snow you might be at fault.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Gilgaron · 2016-12-20 08:06 · Score: 1

The property owner. That is among the reasons why, around here anyway, fancy neighborhoods where people have lots of assets frequently do not have sidewalks.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by lgw · 2016-12-20 08:13 · Score: 1

110010001000 vs creimer! Who will win? I'm rooting for ... casualties!

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by I4ko · 2016-12-20 08:38 · Score: 1

The bagging boy did a terrible job of cleaning up the broken mayo jar.
Well, that changes things, and you didn't include it in your original comment.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 08:46 · Score: 1

Well, that changes things, and you didn't include it in your original comment.
Because the nature of a slip and fall inside a GROCERY STORE should have been obvious. Of course, glass jars are uncommon and breakage is less of an issue these days.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by I4ko · 2016-12-20 08:51 · Score: 1

I would mostly agree, but I grew up in the 80s and back then you were expected to exercise common sense and be on alert even if indoors if not in your own home.
Get injured in a friend's place - the government run and free (back then) healthcare (actual care) system would take care of you. You would have an ambulance with an actual doctor a field nurse and a driver (not just measly emts) at your location in between 3 to 7 minutes from a phone call. It took a little more time for firefighters. Nothing was inherently safe or unsafe.
Just last week my company had a Christmas party at a restaurant offsite. Let's say that the food and the drinks didn't quite agree with a colleague who barfed repeatedly on his way to the restroom, a distance of no more than 18 feet. I did walk 4 to 5 seconds after him to check on him, stepping in his barf with no indication of loss of traction whatsoever. Another colleague who did see the guy barfing apparently decided to go to the ladies room at the same time. She walked 3 feet behind me, somehow managed to slip, fall and hit her head. Now she is threatening to sue the restaurant. This is insane. She knew very well where she was going as she saw the original colleague barfing, she apparently did not adjust her stride or the way she steps and made no effort whatsoever to go around the 6" wide barf in a passage that is at least 5 feet wide and there was no other person beside me 3 feet in front of her and not impeding her movement. What do you call that?
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Brigadier · 2016-12-20 10:34 · Score: 1

(speaking as an attorny IANAA) The best part is the Store Manager effectively admitted guilt by presenting the offer. A good attorney would probably have gotten a lot more. By the way it's the attorney's who are the leaches as they are the ones who really profit.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:07 · Score: 0

That is a novel moral ideal. Good luck with that.
I hope you never accidentally hurt someone & find out exactly how wrong you are in practice & how perverted your system has become while you were telling people they were personally at fault for systemic issues that affected them.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by cas2000 · 2016-12-20 14:45 · Score: 1

this is a point that very few americans ever get. they love to whinge about allegedly "absurd" court cases where people sue for what they consider to be trivial injuries.
what they never realise - or acknowledge - is that such cases are absolutely necessary with a private, grossly over-priced health system.
people don't need to sue to have their medical costs covered if they have a public health system, if an injury doesn't put them at risk of bankruptcy and homelessness.
if you ever wondered why the level of litigation is so much higher in the US than in the rest of the western world, now you know.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 16:46 · Score: 0

She should have been paying more attention to where she was going, and see that there was mayo on the floor.
Both parties have fault in this situation (and indeed most every situation).
it's one of the reasons that the US needs to teach personal responsibility, and situational awareness.
People like your mother should be jailed up for using the legal system so friviously, rather than pushing to get law changed to provide universal health care, so that no-one in the future would need to feel financial burden for accidents.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 17:13 · Score: 1

She should have been paying more attention to where she was going, and see that there was mayo on the floor.
The mayo was a thin white paste on white tiles that wasn't properly cleaned up from the floor after a glass jar broke open.

Both parties have fault in this situation (and indeed most every situation).
Not according to the judge.

People like your mother should be jailed up for using the legal system so friviously, rather than pushing to get law changed to provide universal health care, so that no-one in the future would need to feel financial burden for accidents.
As I pointed out to someone else, this took place in the 1980's. My mother had health insurance but it didn't cover chiropratic care. The store manager admitted liability by offering $500 and refused to pay more to cover the $2,000 in out of pocket expenses. She took the grocery store to small claims court, presented her case and the judge ruled in her favor. Keep in mind that this was $2,000. That's pocket change in comparison to many award settlements today.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 19:11 · Score: 0

Proof once again that Mayonnaise is potentially lethal.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by tlhIngan · 2016-12-20 21:21 · Score: 1

You are supposed to have health insurance or live an country with a working health care system. If you slip and fall on a sidewalk who do you sue? All the people in the city as it is a public property. That is insane. If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance.
If the sidewalk is in front of a house, the home owner. Yes, the home owner is responsible for that stretch of sidewalk even if it is not on their property.
In fact, many places have laws stating the sidewalk must be cleared of snow, etc by 10am, or risk fines. People generally do it not because of the civil fine (which is on the order of $1000 or so), but because if someone slips and falls and needs treatment, then you're liable. And given lawyers, they may amp up the damages.
Same goes for a sidewalk in front of a business. (There is also a corollary - a business was forced to create a sidewalk per code, so there is a strip of concrete on the other side of a highway not attached to anything. It is a fully specified sidewalk, just not connected to anything). City hall and government owned properties too. Sometimes the best sidewalks are the ones near banks - cleared to bare concrete, and re-whitened with a thick layer of salt.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 00:22 · Score: 0

"If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance."
A business open to the public has a duty to prevent dangerous situations. If there was something spilled on the floor that someone slipped on, say olive oil, and
1. the store knew or should have known the oil was on the floor
2. had an opportunity to clean it up--meaning some time had elapsed, or put up a sign: Danger Wet Floor, often seen in bathrooms
3. failed to deal with an unsafe situation, ...then the business is liable.
But, If the olive spilled before the store had a chance to find out about it or deal with it, then they aren't.
But...it can also be nice policy for the business establishment not to asshat about it either.
Many years ago I slipped on a ramp entrance to a restaurant. It had been painted with a paint that made it very slippery when wet. New paint. I stood up, brushed myself off, slightly stunned, and went on with my life. The owner was all over me apologizing. A week or so later I went back and, I forget the details, but the paint was changed or non-slip adhesive strips were now on the ramp.
Recommended movie: Hot Coffee (2011)
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by mjwx · 2016-12-21 01:54 · Score: 1

We're "sorry" that our "independently" owned and operated "self-driving" car went into the "bike" lane and "killed" your wife last night. Here is our "generous" offer: $250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."
I'd sign and take the 250K.

Then sue them for another 20,00,000 because no-fault agreements are unenforceable in my country.

Only the police can determine fault when bodily harm is involved.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by guruevi · 2016-12-21 03:21 · Score: 1

Depending on the city and the circumstance, if it's not your fault that you fell (eg. your shoes were untied and you fell is your own fault) and it's reasonable to assume you didn't notice or couldn't avoid the danger, either the city could be responsible (just like they're responsible for potholes) or whoever is responsible for the maintenance for that portion of street (in some cases an HOA or an institution that owns the property adjacent to the sidewalk may have agreed to maintain the sidewalk and thus could be made responsible).

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by tehcyder · 2016-12-21 03:44 · Score: 1

Interestingly, in the UK it is the exact opposite.
Local councils have the responsibility for keeping pavements (sidewalks) clear and you can theoretically be sued if you clear the bit outside your house and end up causing someone an injury (e.g. by pouring hot water over snow/slush and creating a sort of black ice).

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by tehcyder · 2016-12-21 03:45 · Score: 1

True! I hope she is OK.
You're not really trying very hard with this troll are you?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 12:20 · Score: 0

Chiropractors are voodoo bullshit so I fucking well hope they were not covered.
Re:Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes by hucker75 · 2016-12-21 13:05 · Score: 0

Bikes are a fucking menace and should be banned from the road. Get on the fucking pavement where you belong and stop holding up faster vehicles!

wow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:27 · Score: 3, Funny

Uber, because we just weren't happy that everyone thought we didn't care about our "employees"... so we had to prove we don't care about anybodys' safety!!!

burn in hell, Uber... burn in Hell

Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:36 · Score: 0

Wait until you see their new logo. It is based on an ancient Buddhist symbol.

It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

It only took a self driving car to point out the bike lanes that should have been designed differently to be safer for cyclists to begin with.

Re:It only took a self drving car. by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-12-20 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

>> It only took a self driving car to point out the bike lanes that should have been designed differently to be safer for cyclists to begin with.

^^^ This. Bike lines on any street with speed limits > 35mph? Fail. (Get the cyclists on a parallel path.) Bike lines that double as parking on city streets? Fail. (Get the cyclists onto the less-busy streets.) Bike lanes in roundabouts? Fail. (Let the cyclists use the off-circle sidewalks - there is no such thing as a "low impact" crash if you aren't wearing a car.)

I could go on, but someone please mod this AC up.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bike lanes on any street with 35mph speed limits? Physically separate the lane.
Bike lanes double as parking? Remove the parking.
Bike lanes in roundabouts? Fine - works all over the world.
I could go on. Your solutions are not solutions, they're shifting the problem.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by ArchieBunker · 2016-12-20 07:07 · Score: 1

Bikes shouldn't be on the street, period. You couldn't pay me enough money to ride a bike in traffic. The laws of physics say you're gonna lose badly.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Re:It only took a self drving car. by capedgirardeau · 2016-12-20 07:19 · Score: 1

I totally agree. Where I live in Switzerland, there are no shoulders and bikes ride in the road and are not allowed on sidewalks.
This seems like a category error to me.
"Hey, cars have wheels, bikes have wheels, therefore bikes and cars should use the same space"
Instead the categorization in my mind could be:
"Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, almost the same size, and much closer in speed, maybe they should share infrastructure instead."
Unintended collision of bikes and pedestrians are much much less likely to result in death than of bikes and cars (and trucks).
If the problem is that sidewalk infrastructure is not good for bikes, fix the infrastructure, it will benefit people in wheelchairs, ECVs and people pushing strollers.

--
Wax on, wax off baby!
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:23 · Score: 0

When I was in Texas last the bike lanes were separate from the car lanes. They were off in the greenbelt section with the sidewalk. New development, but they are not putting the bike lanes with the cars like we do in CA.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Luthair · 2016-12-20 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Its more of a cultural problem, go to Copenhagen and you can see it actually works well.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by DarkOx · 2016-12-20 08:06 · Score: 1

"Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, almost the same size, and much closer in speed, maybe they should share infrastructure instead."
Tell that to a pedestrian that gets hit by a cyclist doing in excess of 20mph!

Unintended collision of bikes and pedestrians are much much less likely to result in death than of bikes and cars (and trucks).
Citation please!
I am actually curious, because I think its a bit more complex than a simple situation of F=MA assuming perfectly spherical uniformly elastic bikes, cars, and bodies. I know lots of people that have walked away from 20mph hits by autos, and several who were injured very badly being hit by someone on a bike. Anecdotally, there is appears to be a tendency to roll mostly harmlessly up onto the hood of the car, vs absorbing much of the impact when being hit by a bike.
------
The real problem though is at least in the states a large number of cyclists don't follow the rules. They lane split, they pass temporarily stopped or traffic on the shoulder and than merge back in from the right when the shoulder ends, the run lights, the run stop signs, etc. Finally the vehicle characteristics are radically different consider how long the stopping distance is for bicycle at 22mph vs a typical car probably 30feet longer or more! They are very unpredictable compared with other motorists and that makes them a hazard. They most definitely need their own space or should not be allowed.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:It only took a self drving car. by bheerssen · 2016-12-20 08:17 · Score: 1

In Houston, we have several excellent off-street bike paths, but many more miles of on-street bike lanes. Those are mostly terrible. In most cases, bicycles in Texas may use any street that a car may use, excepting highways. Personally, I've ridden the streets in Houston for many years without serious incident and prefer them to the so-called bike lanes which, as I noted, are mostly terrible.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:26 · Score: 0

Try China were there are over half a billion of them. Seems to work well enough, assuming you can find the bloody thing when you return.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Hognoxious · 2016-12-20 08:54 · Score: 2

Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, and much closer in speed
If the pedestrian is a toddler, your first claim is wrong. If the rider is an idiot, the second claim is wrong.
Had a near miss this when some asshat came flying round a blind corner. Missed my kid by inches, and only because I pulled him out of the way; made no attempt to slow down or swerve. And the fucking asshat yelled at me. It's a sidewalk, not a sideride.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:It only took a self drving car. by kenai_alpenglow · 2016-12-20 10:39 · Score: 1

Keesler AFB, can't tell you the date, but early 90's era. Bike path with cyclist hitting pedestrian. Pedestrian had minor injuries, cyclist got messed up real bad, ended up in hospital. Story in the base paper didn't give details (did the cyclist serve & hit something?), but remember the story, mainly because the cyclist came off so much worse.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Imrik · 2016-12-20 11:35 · Score: 1

Why should the bike lane be adjacent to the main thoroughfares instead of one block over?
Bike lanes shouldn't double as parking, but removing the parking is hardly a solution for cities that already have a parking problem.
Re: It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:37 · Score: 0

Lol at how mad you'll be if I bike in my lane and stop behind the car behind me at a light. Then of course wait for car in front of me to move before I start moving. Which takes me a while to get up to speed. And then I'll just stay in the lane as you suggested.
Real fuckING smart. Maybe I'll just maintain speed and rolling stop and get the fuck out of your way .
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Imrik · 2016-12-20 11:40 · Score: 1

Similar mass, sure, but similar speed? Most bikes in urban areas are going much closer to the average driving speed than the average walking speed.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:30 · Score: 1

San Francisco is a terrible environment for transportation. It's enormously hilly, except where it's extremely low-lying and built on landfill. The roads are in terrible condition and fixing them perturbs commerce sufficiently that it never happens until vehicles are almost literally being lost in potholes. What's sad is that if you could just take almost all of the cars out of the city, it could be something of a paradise. And the way to do that is with an elevated PRT system like Skytran, although I don't know that is the ideal one. It seems like the track could be cheaper.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It only took a self drving car. by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:32 · Score: 1

If the pedestrian is a toddler, your first claim is wrong. If the rider is an idiot, the second claim is wrong.
Ah, the joys of having massive... mass. When a cyclist comes barreling up the sidewalk at me, I make them go around me. Same for skaters. I am a tree. Hit me at your peril. (I would be active if a cyclist were about to hit me, I don't want to be hit by the neck of the thing. So I may jump straight for their face.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Zaelath · 2016-12-20 12:54 · Score: 1

Cities don't have parking problems, they have public transport problems.
I don't even think cyclists should share roads with cars at all, but I think the solution in cities is banning cars from the CBD, so I'm sure both 'sides' hate me ;)
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:05 · Score: 0

The distinguishing factor is stopping distance. A pedestrian can come to a stop in a few feet at most, even if running. Bikes and cars both have stopping distances easily an order of magnitude greater. Likewise turning radius: pedestrians can turn pretty much on a dime. Bikes and cars can't.
You don't allow any unmaneuverable vehicle on the sidewalk where they can easily collide with a pedestrian who decides to suddenly stop and read a storefront sign, or use their phone, or discipline their kid.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by cuncator · 2016-12-20 14:24 · Score: 1

Bike lanes in roundabouts? Fine - works all over the world.
Not here, the local municipality decided to just leave them out. The bike lanes disappear before the traffic circles and reappear on the other side. The DOT also seems to delight in installing "traffic calming" devices which narrow the road, throw in random sharp turns and eliminate the bike lane as well.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 18:34 · Score: 0

It only took a self driving car to point out the bike lanes that should have been designed differently to be safer for cyclists to begin with.
Now if we could only convince bicyclists to actually stay in their lanes, instead of riding next to their buddy who is in the lane.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 21:02 · Score: 0

Bikes shouldn't be on the street, period.
It's not the bikes that causes the damage.
Remove the cars from the street instead.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by dunkelfalke · 2016-12-20 21:56 · Score: 1

Don't forget that the cyclist can be fat as well (I used to be like that - fat and nevertheless an avid cyclist, 50 km every working day) and have a speed of 20-30 km/h. It will hurt you more.
Still, cyclists don't belong onto sidewalks, it seriously sucks to ride with unpredictable pedestrians all around.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re: It only took a self drving car. by DarkOx · 2016-12-21 00:28 · Score: 1

I'll be way less annoyed at having to wait for you to get moving than I will at slamming my breaks to avoid t-boning you at what is for me a green light. I have been in that exact situation many times.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:It only took a self drving car. by mjwx · 2016-12-21 02:00 · Score: 1, Troll

Bike lanes on 35MPH streets. Get Cyclists off streets with speed limits they cant possibly match.

Bike lanes that double as parking. Get Cyclists off the streets they're complaining about.

Bike lanes on roundabouts... Get Cyclists to use the pedestrian crossings... Like cyclists with half a brain do in countries with a lot of roundabouts.

I could go on. Your solutions are not solutions, rather a wishlist from cyclists to make everything harder for everyone else.

I know you and the other lycra warriors are frothing at the mouth and ready to paint me with all kinds of slander... but I've been to your Mecca, it works for two reasons.
1. In Amsterdam, everything is a s separate as you can make it. Roads are for cars, Cycle paths are for cyclists, foot paths are for pedestrians and they try to make the three meet as little as possible.
2. In Amsterdam, cyclists aren't self-righteous arseholes who are too busy trying to enforce their rights on others than considering if they're doing right by others.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by mjwx · 2016-12-21 02:09 · Score: 0

Its more of a cultural problem, go to Copenhagen and you can see it actually works well.
Haven't been to Copenhagen... but I'll put money on the fact it's like Amsterdam where they try to separate the car and bike as much as possible.

There's a road for cars, a cycle path for cyclists and a footpath for pedestrians. Cyclists cross the road at traffic lights the same as pedestrians and this works because cyclists realise that they cant go as fast as cars.

I know the lycra warriors don't believe me, so go look at Wibautstraat in Amsterdam on Google maps and street view, the red paths on either side of the street are for cyclists. The large black thing is for cars.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Cederic · 2016-12-21 02:35 · Score: 2

Why should the bike lane be adjacent to the main thoroughfares instead of one block over?
Maybe the cyclists want to be on this block.
Maybe there just isn't another block over.
Maybe the city was founded in a time when things grew organically and isn't organised on a block basis.
Re: It only took a self drving car. by Cederic · 2016-12-21 02:39 · Score: 1

All the grief about cyclists dying in London, and especially to HGVs, and it's almost always cunts like you that are cycling dangerously and getting yourselves into trouble.
Mad at you for being sensible, obeying traffic laws and making it clear and obvious that you're there? No.
Mad at you for blaming me when you get knocked off your bike because you rode right up my blind spot on the inside and I had no way to tell you were there before executing my perfectly legal, expected and reasonable manoeuvre? Yes, you've damaged my fucking car you inconsiderate shitstain.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 12:02 · Score: 0

Repeat after me, ignoramus: "Roads are paid for from general taxation". There, maybe you've learned something today!
I've already paid for them, thanks. "Road Tax" doesn't exist where I live - there's vehicle emissions duty. In the US there's registration duties. Not road tax. In fact, I'm betting YOU haven't paid "road tax" in your entire life. So yes, I've just as much right as you have to be on the roads I pay for.
Re:It only took a self drving car. by Luthair · 2016-12-21 13:30 · Score: 1

I don't live in Copenhagen but what I saw were lanes in the street with no barriers. They also gave cyclists an advanced green.

Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 05:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

I thought these sensors were all-seeing all-knowing? Why can't they simply detect a cyclist and avoid it as they would avoid a car? How long before these run over someone's pet?

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.

Re:Sensors? by bfpierce · 2016-12-20 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

"How long before these run over someone's pet?"
That happens all the time with regular drivers, so it's not really the point is it?
If you can prove that these lead to accidents less frequently than a human driver that's an improvement. The goal is not, nor will it ever be, 0 accidents.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 05:35 · Score: 1

Regular drivers notice and avoid small animals. Therefore, self driving cars should be *better* at noticing and avoiding small animals, because people say they are better than human drivers.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:40 · Score: 0

I counter that the goal is "less accidents" with a limit of zero accidents, but that we don't need that goal to be met in order to move forward.
Re:Sensors? by bfpierce · 2016-12-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Again, there will never be 0 accidents. That's not what 'better' means in this context.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:57 · Score: 0

In the words of Homer Simpson, "Doh!!!".
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 05:57 · Score: 1

I didn't say 0 accidents. I said 'better', meaning less accidents.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 06:00 · Score: 1

But the vehicle should have to have the capability to sense small animals to move forward. Otherwise it is glaringly lacking in a capacity that humans are not.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:02 · Score: 0

Right. "Better" clearly just means "fewer accidents." Because we can't eliminate accidents completely does not mean that reducing accidents is a completely lost cause (whether we're talking about pets or people).
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:23 · Score: 0

Do we know anything about whether or not these vehicles are already capable of doing that? I haven't heard any stories about a small animal being run over by one.
Re:Sensors? by mujadaddy · 2016-12-20 06:28 · Score: 1

"Fewer" - Stannis

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:35 · Score: 0

This is from some crazy anti-car guy. The problem is how they're making turns, not that they're actually running over anyone (yet).
Honestly I didn't realize you had to pull into the bike lane to make turns before reading this, over here, the bike lane inverts and there's a lane to the right of it that you turn from.
Re:Sensors? by alexandre.oberlin · 2016-12-20 06:40 · Score: 1

There are good and bad human drivers, and their accident rates may easily vary from 1 to 10 and more. Here in France the insurance rate penalties due to bad records are limited to the 1-5 range, and it would be much more if legislation allowed. So an automatic vehicle might be a good plan for a bad driver, and a bad plan for a good driver.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 06:44 · Score: 1

They can't sense cyclists, so I assume so.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by No+Longer+an+AC · 2016-12-20 06:46 · Score: 1

How long before these run over someone's pet?
What is your pet doing roaming the streets?
Okay, sometimes you can't help it. One of our family dogs when I was a kid loved to dig under the fence and escape despite our efforts to stop him. As it turned out all he really wanted was a ride in the car and if my father picked him up a mile away from our house, he got to hang his head out the window for a few minutes.
That was an explanation anyway, borne out that after a while my dad would just honk the horn a few times in the driveway and the dog would come home and he'd be rewarded with a brief ride around the neighborhood.
Genius on the dog's part. So manipulative, but he could have been run over.
I adopted a cat a couple months ago and at the shelter there was another cat that had a sign on its cage which said "Door Dasher". Yeah, I don't think I'll adopt that one. Sorry.
Keep your cat indoors and your dogs in your yard or on a leash. They'll live longer.
Re:Sensors? by jbengt · 2016-12-20 07:04 · Score: 1

Keep your cat indoors . . .

But if I keep my cat indoors, who'll catch the mice?
Not my dogs - they don't do stealth. The dogs will just run after the mice and bark as the mice scurry away safely into their hiding place.
Re:Sensors? by rahvin112 · 2016-12-20 07:05 · Score: 1

If they run over cyclists you can be damn sure they'll run over pedestrians too.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:06 · Score: 0

We don't know that either. We know it's not operating around bike lanes safely, but I haven't seen anything saying they can't sense a cyclist at all.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:12 · Score: 0

Regular drivers notice and avoid small animals
If only that were true. Some drivers notice and intentionally run over small animals.
In some cases, driving on certain highways during certain times of the year, you cannot avoid running over numerous small animals.
Re:Sensors? by s.petry · 2016-12-20 07:47 · Score: 1

There are a tremendous amount of accidents caused by people trying to avoid pets. This leads to the indirect question of ethics most people have with self driving anything. Do you avoid the dog and hit the pedestrian, or avoid the pedestrian and hit the dog? I think we all know the conclusion that would be programmed in, but what happens when someone hacks the system and changes the code?

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 08:00 · Score: 1

If the car would automatically do collision avoidance with a cyclist, why is it concerning that it drives in bicycle lanes? In the city I live in, the bicycle lanes are a suggestion basically to remind the driver to be extra careful for cyclists in that place and it works fine. All the driver has to do is watch for them. For an autonomous car to be successful it will need to watch for small children standing in the road not just cyclists. So again, I don't see the problem unless it can't see cyclists. If this is the case, it really worries me what else they aren't seeing right now.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 08:10 · Score: 1

It comes down to how injured the pedestrian would be. A pedestrian with a scratch and an alive dog would be better than an untouched pedestrian and a dead dog. People tell me that AI is ready to be on the roads and already safer than a human so this must all be worked out.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by HornWumpus · 2016-12-20 08:17 · Score: 1

You hit the one that weighs less. Duh.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Sensors? by Freedom+Bug · 2016-12-20 08:24 · Score: 1

"The goal is not, nor will it ever be, 0 accidents."
Perhaps, but the goal definitely should be 0 fatalities. http://www.visionzeroinitiativ...
Re:Sensors? by s.petry · 2016-12-20 08:26 · Score: 1

People tell me that AI is ready to be on the roads and already safer than a human so this must all be worked out.
People lie all the time. Unfortunately none of this has been resolved to my knowledge, which is the reason numerous people are pushing back against the technology being pushed onto consumers. Another common lie is that you have to be a Luddite if you disagree with people pushing the tech. Money over Ethics, unfortunately.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Sensors? by bfpierce · 2016-12-20 08:28 · Score: 1

It's a pretty picture, but not realistic.
If you can have accidents then you can have fatalities.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:48 · Score: 0

There are a tremendous amount of accidents caused by people trying to avoid pets.
Citation, please?
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:56 · Score: 0

You should be worried. This whole rush towards getting autonomous vehicles on the streets is not based on solid engineering principles. The number of special situations that a driver has to be prepared for is limitless, for every special case that you can present and that some clever programmer can "build in" to the system - "Introducing our new Small Animal Protection feature!" - there are other conditions that will compete for the same limited processing power of the car. Will the car be able to obey the hand gestures of a traffic cop? If the car gets a flat going 60 mph, will it be able to pull to the side of the road safely? How will it respond to another car that is on fire on the side of the road? These cases will require a near human intelligence in the car, and if every car has the same brain then they will all make the same mistakes in the same situations, which will be a disaster. Imagine a scenario out of Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 where the train flies off the tracks, but the visitors still line up for the ride.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:35 · Score: 0

Fuck it. I run both of 'em over.
CAPTCHA: psychopath
Re:Sensors? by speedplane · 2016-12-20 11:11 · Score: 1

If you can prove that these lead to accidents less frequently than a human driver that's an improvement.
But where is the proof? Why haven't Uber and Tesla publicly released accident statistics? Me-thinks it's cause they have no proof.

--
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
Re:Sensors? by Imrik · 2016-12-20 11:44 · Score: 1

It's concerning because it's mostly only being real world tested with regards to the lanes. Testing real world detection and avoidance of the cyclist requires a person potentially getting hit.
Re:Sensors? by Imrik · 2016-12-20 11:46 · Score: 1

They claim to be highly successful but they haven't actually succeeded so I doubt everything else they say.
Re:Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 11:47 · Score: 1

Well yeah you have no argument from me that there should have been some sort of town set up with simulations to run so they can test this stuff. But apparently the concerned public doesn't get a say any more.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:37 · Score: 1

I think we all know the conclusion that would be programmed in, but what happens when someone hacks the system and changes the code?
Same as when anyone dicks with any critical safety system, they have to go to court and prove it's not their fault or they become liable.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 12:41 · Score: 0

Regular drivers notice and avoid small animals. Therefore, self driving cars should be *better* at noticing and avoiding small animals, because people say they are better than human drivers.
Actually swerving for a small animal might be against the law. You are not supposed to take any sudden action to avoid small animals, human safety comes first. So you might violate the law, but the automatic car will not.
Re:Sensors? by Trogre · 2016-12-20 12:49 · Score: 1

No, but the goal is certainly zero easily avoidable accidents.
If your self-driving car runs over a group of ducklings crossing in front of my house because its AI didn't evaluate stopping as a priority, then that car is unlikely to reach its destination.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Sensors? by Trogre · 2016-12-20 12:52 · Score: 1

Or the proof is not in their favour.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Sensors? by wvmarle · 2016-12-20 14:32 · Score: 1

The goal is not, nor will it ever be, 0 accidents.
The goal SHOULD be 0 accidents. Now that may never be possible, we should still be working towards that goal by making roads and vehicles as safe as possible. In the end we could reach aviation-level standards where every accident is thoroughly researched to find out how it happened and how it could have been prevented.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 21:07 · Score: 0

Keep your cat indoors . . .
But if I keep my cat indoors, who'll catch the mice?
The chicken.
Why else would it cross the road?
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 21:28 · Score: 0

It doesn't better how many cats they squish so long as they kill fewer humans they are the superior driver. They could kill 200times the cats but if its half the amount of humans, that's an improvement.
But yes, I would expect self driving to be better at spotting all objects as they don't suffer from information overload in the way that humans do.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 21:52 · Score: 0

Volvo's long-term safety design goal, just for reference, is 0 deaths. Accidents will happen, and are being designed more and more so that everyone survives.
Uber would see a death as an opportunity to surge price around the funeral.
Re:Sensors? by pnutjam · 2016-12-21 03:41 · Score: 1

Not from a tort liability viewpoint. Injured people sue, dead animals don't. Even if an owner steps forward and tries, there are often legal limits (very low ones) on awards for dead animals, especially if they are not on the owners property.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 03:52 · Score: 0

Notice? Yes. Avoid? Depends on the animal and road/traffic conditions. Dogs and skunks I'll avoid. Anything smaller I usually don't care.
Re: Sensors? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-21 03:54 · Score: 1

I hope we don't allow laws to override all human morality towards life.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Sensors? by bfpierce · 2016-12-21 04:13 · Score: 1

They don't need to. Accident statistics can be generated by the governmental regulators or insurance companies.
How the vehicles do in a controlled test is irrelevant, so we won't know until these are actually out in the wild.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 10:43 · Score: 0

Ha. You made my day. Stannis the mannis.
Re:Sensors? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-22 09:51 · Score: 0

It may be a good thing. Many bike lanes if you're following them straight through, will have you getting rammed in by cars turning right.
So as a cyclist you have to anticipate that crossing where cars will turn right and leave the painted bike lane to go in the middle of the adjacent car lane, unless perhaps you're turning right as well.
A cheap solution is to have to bike lane "end" some distance before the crossing (no more white and green paint or what have you). Straight flashy bike lane that goes all the way straight through and gets you rammed is bad. Bike lane painted on sidewalk can be very bad for more of the same reason, unless the issue is accounted for or you're a slow rider and you will pretty much cross like a pedestrian - I'll do that in some places and times, if the situation is complex and overloaded, I even advise to dismount then : you instantly become a legal pedestrian when walking along your bike. Mount and you instantly become a legal vehicle again.

This is where government needs to step in by smooth+wombat · 2016-12-20 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

San Francisco, if it's government had any balls, would start booting all Uber self-driving cabs based on the risk to society.

Then, start fining the Uber cab company $10K per day it's in violation.

Uber's claim it's on principle is crap. They have admitted their cabs are a danger to society but they continue to run them anyway. When, not if, their cab plows into someone or causes an accident I hope the people use Ubers own words against them when they take them to court.

It's the principle of the thing.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:This is where government needs to step in by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 05:36 · Score: 2

San Francisco, if it's government had any balls, would start booting all Uber self-driving cabs based on the risk to society.
San Francisco drivers could do a better job. One time I was in the middle lane of a busy street when the light changed green. The driver in the right lane suddenly decided to make a left hand turn in front of me. I always count to three after the light changes before I start moving while driving in San Francisco.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:49 · Score: 0

When did you learn to count to 3? Did you learn in your awesome government IT job?
Re:This is where government needs to step in by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 06:05 · Score: 1

When did you learn to count to 3?
Kindergarten. And you?

Did you learn in your awesome government IT job?
I use regex to reduce a complex dataset to fewest items possible items that will fit on three pages or less before I work on them. Accuracy is very important.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Waffle+Iron · 2016-12-20 06:37 · Score: 2

San Francisco drivers could do a better job.

From what I've seen, the worst offenders are their police detectives.
In almost every show I've watched, they race through the city in muscle cars or full-size sedans at reckless speeds, going airborne at each hilly intersection. Half the time they miss hitting a trolley by mere inches. It's just crazy.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:46 · Score: 0

The "fewest items possible items"? Genius! I'm glad our government IT is in good hands.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 06:49 · Score: 1

The "fewest items possible items"?

You actually caught that mistake — I'm impressed.

Genius!
Thank you!

I'm glad our government IT is in good hands.
Always a pleasure to serve the public.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by stephanruby · 2016-12-20 08:06 · Score: 1

They have admitted their cabs are a danger to society but they continue to run them anyway.

They have admitted no such thing.
Besides, they're running their self-driving cars during the middle of the night and they have a human driver behind the wheel.
It's not like there are many cyclists around that time.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:37 · Score: 0

$10k per day - crap.
Why are Uber's board not in fucking jail by now? They were told not to do this and they did it anyway. Isn't that contempt of court, or something?
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Dareth · 2016-12-20 09:29 · Score: 1

If he did, he is waiting 4 seconds before he drives.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Re:This is where government needs to step in by swillden · 2016-12-20 09:43 · Score: 1

San Francisco, if it's government had any balls, would start booting all Uber self-driving cabs based on the risk to society.
Then, start fining the Uber cab company $10K per day it's in violation.
What law, regulation or ordinance gives them the authority to do such things?

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:44 · Score: 0

Unfortunately we need Uber to help us deport illegals back to Mexico. Since many illegals now use Uber for driving purposes, we can make it automatically check their citizenship. If it comes out they're illegal, the doors will lock and the vehicle will drive straight to Mexico. If that means a few bicyclists need to die to accomplish this task, so be it!
Re: This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:45 · Score: 0

Ooh ! Regex and a complex dataset! Get this man a cookie immediately.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:24 · Score: 1

From what I've seen, the worst offenders are their police detectives.
In the really real world, or as close as you can get in San Francisco, it's bus drivers. Human taxi drivers are a very close second, however. I literally never see a Taxi in or around SF for more than one or two minutes without seeing the driver make a serious asshole move.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:This is where government needs to step in by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 12:38 · Score: 0

"F*** YOU" is a principle. Just not one that should be applauded or even permitted.
Re: This is where government needs to step in by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-12-20 16:21 · Score: 1

Get this man a cookie immediately.
When I was doing help desk, I helped resolved a long-standing problem that user had. She came with a five-pound bag of M&M's. That was too much for me. I shared the bag with the entire department.
Re:This is where government needs to step in by goose-incarnated · 2016-12-20 21:19 · Score: 1

They have admitted their cabs are a danger to society but they continue to run them anyway.
They have admitted no such thing.
Besides, they're running their self-driving cars during the middle of the night and they have a human driver behind the wheel.
It's not like there are many cyclists around that time.
If they keep testing on public roads, there soon won't be any cyclists.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.

Why is the the highway patrol fixing this? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:32 · Score: 0

Just sit outside their garage and ticket/impound each one as they come out? How hard is this? They are an active danger to society. At what point does the AG go after them for RICO?

Sieze the cars, sell them at auction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:32 · Score: 0

duh!

White people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:32 · Score: 0

"were caught running red lights and committing a range of traffic violations."
They where not pulled over and the car confiscated? Or the driver killed by police?
I bet 10 dollars the drivers where white people

Re:White people by houstonbofh · 2016-12-20 05:37 · Score: 2

No, they were computers which is the point of the story... Sheesh... We went from not reading the article to not reading the summery to not reading the headline... ;)
Re:White people by arth1 · 2016-12-20 06:22 · Score: 1

There's a driver behind the wheel who is supposed to override the computer whenever the computer makes a mistake. If they don't, perhaps they need to lose their driver's license.
Re: White people by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:25 · Score: 0

The article did say the cars had drivers in them.
Re:White people by DickBreath · 2016-12-20 06:53 · Score: 1

So now you're saying that the safety drivers are expected to pay attention?

What job could be worse than being an Uber driver? Being an Uber Safety Driver.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Re:White people by Luthair · 2016-12-20 07:57 · Score: 1

Maybe they were white computers, if they were black computers they'd be shot.

Shocking by acoustix · 2016-12-20 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

A company who has refused to follow state and city laws for years is ignoring more laws.

--
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson

Re:Shocking by houstonbofh · 2016-12-20 05:39 · Score: 2

How do I make myself a company?
Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:11 · Score: 1, Funny

Companies can only be people, people can't be companies, silly!
Re:Shocking by ColdWetDog · 2016-12-20 06:31 · Score: 0

How do I make myself a company?
Grab a billion dollars or so from some VCs and hire some lawyers.
Keep us posted.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Shocking by msauve · 2016-12-20 06:40 · Score: 1

"A company who has refused to follow state and city laws for years is ignoring more laws."

...in a city which itself ignores the law.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Shocking by TrekkieGod · 2016-12-20 07:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

A company who has refused to follow state and city laws for years is ignoring more laws.
Uber is 100% right on this one, though. They have a licensed driver in the front seat in command. So, whatever the car is doing autonomously, how does that differ from technology like cruise control, automatic braking, and parking assist? From a legal point of view, adding autonomous features to cars have not required special permission so long as a driver is in control for liability purposes.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Shocking by Luthair · 2016-12-20 07:59 · Score: 1

For one thing, the driver is apparently letting the car run red lights and drive dangerously through bike lanes.
Re:Shocking by Luthair · 2016-12-20 08:00 · Score: 1

Something I posted on a previous Uber story - seize their assets as the proceeds of crime.
Re:Shocking by bfpierce · 2016-12-20 08:05 · Score: 0

The red light thing was shown to be a complete hoax. But yes, let's launch the hyperbole parade here on /.
Re:Shocking by MindStalker · 2016-12-20 08:09 · Score: 1

Uber is 100% right on this one, though. They have a licensed driver in the front seat in command.
It depends upon how its implemented and sold to its customers really.
1) Commercial vehicles have stricter regulations than private vehicles. These self driving cars are NOT owned by the operator like traditional Ubers, they appear to be owned by Uber corporate.
2) The self driving regulations in the states that allow it are trying to achieve a balance, they are giving the driver more freedom to say txt and drive during the testing.
If anyone gets killed by one of these Uber test, expect California to go after Uber corporate hard. This is a liability nightmare that Uber should stop and think about.
Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:31 · Score: 0

> The red light thing was shown to be a complete hoax.
According to Uber.
Re:Shocking by SoftwareArtist · 2016-12-20 08:36 · Score: 2

From a legal point of view, adding autonomous features to cars have not required special permission so long as a driver is in control for liability purposes.
Do you actually know if that's true, or are you just saying what you think the law ought to say? What matters is what it actually says. And yes, the law does distinguish between fully autonomous vehicles and ones with driver assistance abilities.
Don't take my word for it. It took me about one minute to look it up. California Vehicle Code Section 38750 provides the following definitions:

"Autonomous technology" means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
"Autonomous vehicle" means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. An autonomous vehicle does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, such as electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, and traffic jam and queuing assist.
Uber's cars have "the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator." Yes there's a human in the car, and hopefully that human is actively monitoring what the car does. But the car has the capability to keep driving itself even if the driver takes a nap, which is what the law cares about.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Shocking by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2016-12-20 11:38 · Score: 1

ey have a licensed driver in the front seat in command. So, whatever the car is doing autonomously, how does that differ from technology like cruise control, automatic braking, and parking assist?

There are ten recognized levels of autonomy, starting with none, then assisting in direct response to user input (power steering), and ending at "car has no user overrides at all". In between, there is a wide range seen between "autonomy suggests action", "autonomy warns action is going to take place unless overriden" and "keep in mind you have to override autonomy at some times with no warning."
Cruise control is clearly under manual control, and the pedals work as always (save for in the "no feet" position). The user has to remain engaged with the vehicle's operation at all time. Automatic braking seems unlikely to cause an accident (maybe on ice or if the guy behind was following too closely), and again it's not allowing the driver to defocus from the road. Parking assist is in a controlled situation at exceptionally low speeds.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:Shocking by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 16:49 · Score: 0

Uber, Uber alles
Re:Shocking by pnutjam · 2016-12-21 03:49 · Score: 1

Wait, don't you guys believe in small government? I guess that goes out the window when it disagrees with you or presents a chance to attack liberals.
Anyway, YOUR WRONG :
According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report that discussed local law enforcement agencies' responsibilities under 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the "primary federal restrictions on state and local sanctuary policies" concern a state or local refusal to maintain or share immigration status information. However, the report noted that the 1996 law "does not require entities to collect such information in the first place" and the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit indicated that "Congress cannot directly compel states to collect and share information regarding immigration status with federal immigration authorities"

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Shocking by msauve · 2016-12-21 04:43 · Score: 1

That's a straw man. You're (look it up, that's how it's spelled) addressing a completely different law than the one I cited (8 USC 1324), which prohibits "knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place.."

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Shocking by pnutjam · 2016-12-21 05:59 · Score: 1

The point of "sanctuary cities" is that they don't ask questions and feel no obligation to act on this in an enforcement capacity. They are not required to, despite the legion of right wing Derp you find online.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Shocking by msauve · 2016-12-21 06:09 · Score: 1

The point of sanctuary cities is to harbor criminals.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law

So, just like a Human Uber Driver by mcolgin · 2016-12-20 05:36 · Score: 1

So, just like a Human Uber Driver and their Prius.

--
I made this: http://www.bpftpserver.com

Re:So, just like a Human Uber Driver by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:23 · Score: 0

And responsible for the errors they make! Oh wait..

Make Them Bleed by Princeofcups · 2016-12-20 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Considering my last parking ticket in SF was $350 (for street cleaning. I SHIT YOU NOT!), just charge Uber for every violation. They will be bankrupt in no time.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.

Re:Make Them Bleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:13 · Score: 0

You should probably be able to contest those based on all the human feces everywhere.
Re:Make Them Bleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:52 · Score: 0

Losing money is their business model - it is how they have become so successful. Fining them may actually help them out.
Re:Make Them Bleed by HornWumpus · 2016-12-20 08:20 · Score: 1

We are back to 'book to burn' ratios rather than 'price to earnings'.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Make Them Bleed by BancBoy · 2016-12-20 08:24 · Score: 2

As the current street cleaning ticket in SF is $66, it sounds like there were more violations involved in your incident.

--
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Re:Make Them Bleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:06 · Score: 0

No bubble! No bubble! You're the bubble! No, you're the bubble.
Re:Make Them Bleed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:36 · Score: 0

They lost nearly a billion last quarter, I don't think that word is in their vocabulary.
Re:Make Them Bleed by IcyWolfy · 2016-12-20 16:55 · Score: 1

Court Fees.
I received a $39 ticket, that came out to $219 after all the court fees were summed in.
It's crazy that this is legal.
Re:Make Them Bleed by mvdwege · 2016-12-20 19:45 · Score: 1

No, you're an entitled little shit who wants to use services without paying for them.
You could have just paidd the fine. Instead you contested it, or were late, or for whatever other reason you involved the court system, as is your right, but now you are unwilling to pay for that service. Let me guess, you're one of those "taxes are theft" bozos?

--
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?

Why should Uber be punished for normal driving? by SuperKendall · 2016-12-20 05:43 · Score: 0

On day one, numerous autonomous vehicles -- which have a driver in the front seat who can take control -- were caught running red lights and committing a range of traffic violations.

So what? Have you DRIVEN in San Francisco? Or biked there?

I've done both. Cars are running red lights like mad. Traffic violations are a way of existence, a kind of flow that has most drivers literally moving from one violation to the next.

The funny thing is the Uber cars are probably still safer for bikes because I would bet a million dollars they actually would (a) notice and (b) stop for a bike. Can you say that about 90% of SF drivers? As someone who has biked there I'd rather the streets were filled with red-light running Ubers over the "drivers" they have right now.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:Why should Uber be punished for normal driving? by ColdWetDog · 2016-12-20 06:32 · Score: 1

You have ** One point ** left on your driver's license.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Why should Uber be punished for normal driving? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 10:56 · Score: 0

Big bada boom.

Running red light ? by aepervius · 2016-12-20 05:45 · Score: 0

I am sorry, but that alone should be a recall/a sign to stop using those car until the problem is fixed. Stops, red lights, are condition sine qua non to allow those car on the road.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Silly by BrookHarty · 2016-12-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Traffic laws are for humans" - Uber

Its getting to be like Death Race 2000 out there, watch out humans.

Ride share by 110010001000 · 2016-12-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Uber isn't a ride share service! It is a unlicensed taxi service! It doesn't have the same rules and regulations that taxi companies have to abide by. That is why taxi service is so much better, cleaner and safer in the US. Right?

Re:Ride share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:12 · Score: 0

From the days before regulation when a taxi cab would be shot at if it ventured into territory serviced by another cap company, yes, taxi service has progressed very far.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Have you forgotten when Uber used to make fake pickup requests to over taxi services? Why do you promote such business tactics? And you are promoting them if you support Uber. You are voting with your wallet.
Re:Ride share by 110010001000 · 2016-12-20 06:43 · Score: 1

Oh no! Supporting Uber? Terrible! Who wants an alternative to taxis? Not me! No sir!
Re:Ride share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:39 · Score: 0

Except it's not a fucking alternative. It's a fucking taxi service where you push a button on an app instead of call a dispatch for a car pickup.
They charge about 3 to 4 times what I usually pay for when using a car services, seriously they charge about $40 when my usual car service charges about $14, and their bullshit surge pricing is basically price fixing.
Re:Ride share by lgw · 2016-12-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Learn something about the industry. Uber is not a taxi service - uber cars aren't specially marked and lit, you can't hail one from the street, they aren't metered, etc. Uber is a new kind of hired car service - a low end version of a towncar service. Uber's first service was just internet-dispatched towncars.
Heck, in a lot of places (including where I live now), it's cheaper to take a towncar to and from the airport than a taxi. There seems to be some cultural barrier to wide adoption of towncars, though, so Uber went downmarket.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Ride share by AvitarX · 2016-12-20 09:45 · Score: 1

If the taxi service where I lived:
1) showed up in under ten minutes unscheduled (where I work, mid day, ten minute or less for an uber, I saw a woman wait 2 hours for a cab)
2) used GPS (Well past 2010 NYC cabbies would ask me directions, as if I knew showing up to meet a new client, and then make menus my GPS)
3) didn't go on strike about using GPS (happened in Philly, way too late for it to be acceptable to not have GPS)
4) took convenient payment (well past legal mandate in both NYC and Philly, cabbies would refuse credit cards)
5) didn't go on strike about taking convenient payment (Philly)
6) didn't bitch about ride destinations (cabbies will throw a fucking hiss fit if they pick you up in Williamsburg and find out you're going to bushwick edges after you've already made it into the cab)
7) was available at odd hours (I've tried to take cabs home from the bar on not particularly remote areas, dispatchers outright refused to send a cab)
Note, the Philly strikes may have been threatened only, I forget now, but it doesn't matter because they would pretty much refuse to take credit card unless you got aggressive back at them.
All of that is why I very rarely use cabs now, the industry has done it to themselves by being anti customer and relying on lack of technology and regulatory capture to keep profitable. Just as I have little pitty about the collapse of the recording industry, I have little for the cab industry either.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Ride share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:45 · Score: 0

Unfortunately US taxi services are absolutely horrible and I can understand why people in other countries have a hard time understanding why we need Uber. We need Uber because all our taxi services SUCK.
Re:Ride share by IcyWolfy · 2016-12-20 17:10 · Score: 1

It's illegal to hail a cab from the street in many cities (many in the bay area; utah, Las Vegas, Cincinatti, etc.), you need to call them (everywhere), or use the internet to book one (chicago cab companies)
They are metered, just not conveniently posted, and are subject to change (surge). But otherwise $2 + 1.15/mi + 20c/mi.
Uber is a glorified taxi dispatcher.
Uber-Pool is something unique -- maybe it can be expanded to uber public transit. Just start operating fixed routes in addition to their regular service; and get business on-board to support non-driving options to get more cars off the road.
Re:Ride share by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 09:49 · Score: 0

Uber has never been a taxi service of any kind, at most they are a car service. The clear distinction being that Uber drivers do not take street hails.

I remember... by MitchDev · 2016-12-20 05:48 · Score: 1

Back in the 80's, KITT didn't have this problem....

Re:I remember... by zlives · 2016-12-20 06:16 · Score: 1

KITT followed 3 rules of robotics
Re:I remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:37 · Score: 0

Except for its evil windshield wipers.
Re:I remember... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 15:21 · Score: 0

But then there was KARR.

the cars aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 05:54 · Score: 0

get the bikelanes out of the street! bike lanes should be a dedicated right of way. painting lines on a vehicle right of way does not create a bike lane, it creates a safety hazard.

Re:the cars aren't the problem by PPH · 2016-12-20 05:57 · Score: 0

Can't do that. Bicycles are our most effective form of traffic calming devices. In other words; human speed bumps.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re: the cars aren't the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:09 · Score: 0

Europe has been doing this for many years. In the Netherlands the bicycle right of way even has its own signal devices.
Re: the cars aren't the problem by slashrio · 2016-12-20 07:29 · Score: 1

That's not for safety, silly, that's because every municipality has some Philips people in their Council directing the town to install as many traffic lights as physically possible, and then some more.

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Re: the cars aren't the problem by Ash-Fox · 2016-12-20 09:03 · Score: 1

Europe has been doing this for many years.
Not really, it's just been certain countries in Europe.

In the Netherlands the bicycle right of way even has its own signal devices.
The Netherlands has had dedicated bycicle roads going back as far as World War I. Meanwhile, they don't even exist in Northern Ireland.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Easy fix by PPH · 2016-12-20 05:55 · Score: 1

All Uber has to do is to pay the state for autonomous car permits. Then everything will be fine.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Easy fix by DickBreath · 2016-12-20 06:58 · Score: 1

I can just see it. Having acquired autonomous car permits, Uber proudly announces that it can now ignore cyclists with impunity.

--

I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.

The car knew by arichnad · 2016-12-20 05:57 · Score: 1

Something they didn't address in the article: did the Uber car determine there was nobody in the bike lane? My guess is that it had.

I ride in bike lanes often and most human drivers do not check for bikes in the bike lane: I have to believe self driving cars will be better at this.

Re:The car knew by slashrio · 2016-12-20 07:30 · Score: 1

Well, guess what? Uber cars are programmed by car drivers, no cyclists.

--
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.

sounds bad. is it? by shadowrat · 2016-12-20 05:58 · Score: 1

While this doesn't instill a lot of confidence in uber's system, i wonder if this is really the standard to hold self driving cars to. Our traffic rules are built with the faults of human drivers in mind. Humans have more blind area than vision so we make rules like, Don't cross into this lane ever, or Don't go when the light is this color. Do these rules ultimately need to apply to autonomous cars? A part of me has more faith that a robot with 360 degree vision and lidar can make a better judgement call [than a human] on when a red light can be ran or a bike lane can be traversed.

They certainly need to be predictable as long as there are human drivers alongside them, but is knowing where all the bike lanes are required if we can show that the car would detect and avoid cyclists and people100% of the time anyway?

Re:sounds bad. is it? by darkstar949 · 2016-12-20 06:17 · Score: 1

Our traffic rules are built with the faults of human drivers in mind. Humans have more blind area than vision so we make rules like, Don't cross into this lane ever, or Don't go when the light is this color. Do these rules ultimately need to apply to autonomous cars?
Except they are also built for traffic control as well. For some busy streets, the only way you are going to cross it is when the traffic has to stop for red light.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by shadowrat · 2016-12-20 07:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, but that's also due in part to human nature. Human drivers don't always like yielding. Many take it as losing out in some battle of wills or being dominated by someone else. Assuming it's physically possible, a robot car will simply stop if you step out in front of it.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 07:02 · Score: 1

I had thought that an autonomous car would sense any and all objects in the road, sense their movement, and not impede on their movement. Therefore I don't see why it would have to understand bike lanes at all, just know that there is a bicyclist there and don't drive into them. It kind of worries me about the state of AI if it doesn't operate with that simple rule.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by shadowrat · 2016-12-20 07:21 · Score: 1

yeah. It almost sounds like overengineering if we are trying to make the cars view the world exactly as we do. why waste computational resources trying to decide if a line on the road means something in this context when it can simply be really good at identifying things to not hit?

that said, i'm not convinced that's uber's logic in this. I kinda think they are thinking more along the lines of build an autonomous car on the cheap.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:17 · Score: 0

i wonder if this is really the standard to hold self driving cars to.
They want to get the cars on the streets and operational before anyone can define the standards. These guys are smug megalomaniacs who want the robot future right now.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by Zmobie · 2016-12-20 09:56 · Score: 2

If they don't identify lines then how the hell would it identify the center line so its not just driving all over the road careening from object to object as it tries not to hit something... The car HAS to be able to identify things in the context we see them simply because there are other drivers (and cyclist in this case) on the road that are operating that way. We are in a very strange time with autonomous vehicles simply because we have the technology to make them a reality (albeit after much development and testing), but the economics will not make it practical for the end goal of the entire road being autonomous vehicles for some time (if it gets there in our lifetimes even).
The vehicles therefore must operate like a human would otherwise it creates much greater complications on the road, such as the car just driving anywhere on the payment so long as it isn't going to hit something and its driving in the right direction (hell, the only reason the GPS knows what side of the street you are on in the display is because you are moving in a specific direction). If it worked like that it could easily drive down the wrong side of a street and make oncoming cars start swerving or acting sporadically because this thing is not operating within the normal parameters of driving conditions. The car may even not realize this because the sensors don't see anything its going to hit or even more fun it does exactly like I said earlier and simply careens from obstacle to obstacle as it tries not to hit things.
These are more extreme examples, but the same thing applies to the bikes. Are there flaws in the way bike lanes are designed? Probably, but if a car violates a law governing that you bet your ass their are liable whether a human did it or the car itself did. The only way our roads work at all is there are certain expectations of how everyone is supposed to operate (hence why people get mad and cuss/flip people off when someone acts outside those conditions).
Re: sounds bad. is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 11:57 · Score: 0

Until the car has to stop. Then it's stopped in a bike lane. Making me want to beat it with my lock when I ride up on it.
Oh no, it's cool, I'll just ride around it into traffic. Oh that's when traffic starts moving again. Now I have to remerge back across traffic to my bike lane, pissing everyone off.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:11 · Score: 0

the only reason the GPS knows what side of the street you are on in the display is because you are moving in a specific direction
My (cheapish) GPS usually has the right idea of what *lane* I'm in, so I don't think what you said there is true.
Rest is spot on.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 03:19 · Score: 0

Kind of like those elevators in Hichhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the fully autonomous car of the future will refuse to leave the garage.
Re:sounds bad. is it? by Zmobie · 2016-12-21 15:24 · Score: 1

Only sort of (I've actually looked into technical specs on some GPS stuff). The problem with a lot of them is fine grain GPS to that level requires a LOT of power and a fairly strong signal. You are correct that they can get a pretty good idea of what lane you are in (although on a single lane two way street, which is more what I was picturing, this gets into a grey area). Since the power requirements are pretty high and most any navigation equipment has an accelerometer it can be easier to just use a little lower grain GPS and use the speed and compass data to determine direction. I don't know if all of them do that since it would depend on the software implementation, but I know at least some do.
Power is not as much of an issue on the autonomous cars obviously, but signal is a serious concern. GPS is an extremely weak signal designed to travel very long distances. GPS jammers are actually really cheap and easy to make because of this (all they do is blast white noise on the frequency, nothing technical to them beyond simple physics). I would imagine because of this it would be a very bad idea to rely entirely on the GPS for position on the street, especially when GPS signal can get lost even in very urban areas for fairly large stretches of road.

Too soon? by JohnMcAulay · 2016-12-20 06:16 · Score: 0

They weren't trialing this technology in Berlin yesterday were they?

Re:Too soon? by mujadaddy · 2016-12-20 06:32 · Score: 1

Timely!

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac

Hit & Run by kimvette · 2016-12-20 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

An interesting legal issue; what will happen when (not if) one of their vehicles is involved in a hit & run collision, and for the traffic violations? If the decision makers at Uber are willing to take on the felony charges and traffic violations and do time or pay the fines out of their own personal pockets when this happens then we should be all for them testing without the proper permits and no drivers in the vehicles.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50

Re:Hit & Run by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 07:04 · Score: 1

I would say damages would be covered by their vehicle insurance. If the insurance company they are with had been too stupid to realize what they were insuring, then the insurance company would sue Uber.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Hit & Run by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:17 · Score: 0

Honestly, if I were involved with a hit and run with one of these, I'd use their statements in a petition to the court to have them arrested and criminally charged. Clearly they knew they were violating the law, thus those who made the statements should be charged personally. A lot of why criminal charges aren't brought is an inability to find the person to charge, in this case it's simple.
Re:Hit & Run by HatofPig · 2016-12-20 07:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

If the passenger who hired the car was liable for accidents then Uber would be stopped dead in its tracks. After all, Uber just made the gun; it's the passenger who pulls the trigger by putting it on the road. Make it so passengers need auto-insurance to hire one.

--
Silicon & Charybdis McLuhan Kildall Papert Kay
Re:Hit & Run by painandgreed · 2016-12-20 09:47 · Score: 1

If the passenger who hired the car was liable for accidents then Uber would be stopped dead in its tracks. After all, Uber just made the gun; it's the passenger who pulls the trigger by putting it on the road. Make it so passengers need auto-insurance to hire one.
I suspect they won't even do that. They'll just tell people who own driverless cars that they can use the Uber service to find customers if they want, and try and wash themselves completely of the issue of insurance.
Re:Hit & Run by Zmobie · 2016-12-20 10:04 · Score: 1

I disagree if they know that the risk is there for this to happen. It is gross negligence to allow that. Ford sure the fuck knew the Pinto would burst into flames if it were rear ended at certain speeds, and because of this when they put it out anyway it was their ass for doing it.
If Uber didn't know, it gets into a grey area simply because with engineering (especially software) even when you take every reasonable precaution things can still go wrong. I would bet BIG though that Uber has not taken reasonable precaution (hence why these things can't even reliably follow basic traffic laws) and very much doesn't care. The more I hear about this company the more they sound like a damn Bond villian with the slowest and lamest plot to fuck up the world. They clearly have a great idea with the business, but damn they must have a made a deal with Satan to think of it and he stipulated they can't have a moral conscious.
Re:Hit & Run by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 10:41 · Score: 1

It's pretty hard to claim you didn't know when you're the one developing it and you didn't test a particular scenario that results in an accident.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:Hit & Run by Zmobie · 2016-12-20 15:52 · Score: 1

Absolutely agree. There is a very slim chance they didn't know.
Re:Hit & Run by IcyWolfy · 2016-12-20 17:20 · Score: 1

That's assuming they even have insurance on the vehicle.
Anyone with a large fleet of vehicles, or has the money to -- will not have external insurance, and simply be financially liable.
For instance, enterprise rental here doesn't have any insurance policy for their cars, but have proof of the bare minimum liability ($10,000), which as a national company -- they do.

Different... how? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:30 · Score: 0

So, self-driving cars in bike lanes... that's different from people-driven cars how?

What the actual fuck? by wwalker · 2016-12-20 06:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

> claiming its rejection of government authority was "an important issue of principle."

Which means next time you see a self-driving Uber, feel free to scratch the fuck out of it any way you see fit, break the headlights, or even steal it if you like. Since Uber doesn't recognize the government authority on principal, they must have given up police protection as well.

Re:What the actual fuck? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 06:55 · Score: 1

It's particularly funny since they are an incorporated entity. I wonder if they do their books upholding the same principle.
Re:What the actual fuck? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:44 · Score: 0

Don't worry, they will create private police. It will be called "Uber police." it's going to be poor chums with guns, paid by the task, not by the hour. So on a day with no crime, Uber won't have to shed a dime. What could possibly go wrong? ;)

CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI by userw014 · 2016-12-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

The California law REQUIRES the automobile to USE the bike lane to make the right hand turn.

Michigan law FORBIDS the automobile from using the bike lane (except to cross it.)

I can believe other states are even more complicated..

Re:CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:46 · Score: 0

Well then it's a good thing that California and Michigan don't occupy the same physical space and that each state has it's own driver licensing program.
Re:CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI by aaarrrgggh · 2016-12-20 08:01 · Score: 3, Informative

The only time autos can drive in the bike lane in California is when it drops from a class two bike lane to a class three shared lane bike route. Standard marking is that the white line separating the auto lane from the bike lane becomes dashed, the little "bike vector" symbol is typically painted on the shared lane, and cars can turn right.

The laws don't conflict, just the way that the transitions are done. (Arizona allows crossing the bike lane at dashed lines, but maintains a class two lane through the intersection as an example.)
Re:CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:28 · Score: 0

There are only 48 states to worry about. All cars use satellite navigation to determine where they are (seeing as they're following fscking maps). Are you claiming a minor class change of a mere 48 cases, of which many will be identical, cannot be handled with today's technology? Idiot.
Re:CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:40 · Score: 0

Thank you.
I think that the road markings in Michigan would indicate the same (both states probably follow the Federal code about highway markings in this respect.) I've seen dashed-line markings on the roads in Michigan for dedicated bike lanes. There is no requirement to use a dedicated bike lane as a right-turn lane, which is what the original article implies California does. Most of the bike-lanes I've seen in Michigan are dedicated lanes right up to the stop-bar at the intersection.
And they're covered with snow now.

Some Uber execs should go to prison by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:00 · Score: 0

It's one thing to run an illegal taxi service. It is another to run driverless cars on public roads. Breaking the law, seems to be part of Uber corporate culture. Some Uber executives should go to prison, to coerce the company to be more law abiding.

Autonomous Cars are Fine by wisnoskij · 2016-12-20 07:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

As long as the Owner/CEO gets treated as the driver in all cases. If an auto Uber car runs over a person, throw Kalanick in jail for a few years, and revoke the company's license to operate autonomous vehicles for a few decades.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:Autonomous Cars are Fine by SoftwareArtist · 2016-12-20 08:40 · Score: 1

and revoke the company's license to operate autonomous vehicles
You mean the one they don't have because they refused to apply for it?

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:Autonomous Cars are Fine by Zmobie · 2016-12-20 10:06 · Score: 1

Apparently they don't care about having a license to operate so that second part isn't going to do much without impounding their vehicles or other sanctions...
Re:Autonomous Cars are Fine by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 16:17 · Score: 0

We need a corporate "points" system like for individual.
violation X... 2 points on your license.
violation Y... 1 point on your license.
get enough points, lose your license.
Just figure out how many points a corporation gets for it's "license" and let the festivities commence.

Sounds like... by DarthVain · 2016-12-20 07:17 · Score: 2

...a Bike problem to me.

numerous errors seen by clovis · 2016-12-20 07:18 · Score: 5, Informative

So I looked at the video in the article
https://www.theguardian.com/te...

1) It's a one-way street, and the crosswalk has SIX red lights. one over each lane, two at the sidewalk before and after the crosswalk. How did the sensors miss all those lights? Was it looking at tree and decided "Green? Keep going ..."

2) There is a pedestrian stepping into the crosswalk and the Uber drove past him. In Ga, all traffic must stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, and I'm quite that sure Ca's law is even more strict.

3) The uber passes a car already stopped for the red light at the crosswalk. I don't know California law, but in Georgia it is also illegal to pass a car stopped for a pedestrian at a crosswalk. It's also common sense - you can't see if the car was stopped for a child/short person/wheelchair attempting to cross, so you should stop first and look second in that situation.

4) the light turned yellow at the 2 second mark in the video, and the Uber went though at 11 seconds, so it's not even close.

5) common sense that people have: If I'm coming to an intersection and other cars are stopping, I slow and look around; I know something is happening.
maybe the light changed while I was dozing, or maybe a passenger is going to open the door in front of me.
It appears that the Uber lacks this sort of situational awareness, but I don't know if the human was given an alert and ignored it in this case.

Re:numerous errors seen by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 07:28 · Score: 1

Wow I'm surprised the human augment driver would even let the car DO all that without intervening.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re:numerous errors seen by bfpierce · 2016-12-20 08:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

The Human was driving it at the time, so yeah, there's that.
Was just operating like any other taxi driver I've ever seen.
Re: numerous errors seen by fluffernutter · 2016-12-20 08:23 · Score: 1

So? These drivers are supposed to be training the car to drive properly. Very hard to do that if you don't drive properly yourself.

--
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Re: numerous errors seen by silas_moeckel · 2016-12-20 10:31 · Score: 1

Properly as defined as like a city taxi driver, that means binary gas or break and try and scare anybody out of your way.

--
No sir I dont like it.
Re:numerous errors seen by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:28 · Score: 1

In California you are definitely not allowed to enter a crosswalk until the pedestrian has departed it. In at least some cases it's ambiguous whether you have to wait until they depart it completely, not just having crossed off your half of the road. You can pass a car stopped at a crosswalk in the other lane, but if you hit a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk anywhere in California you are automatically at fault, so it is a good idea to be extremely cautious about that.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:numerous errors seen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 12:43 · Score: 0

Do we want to be able to override the automated vehicle or not? We need to make up our minds. Because blaming the AI when we permit the human to take over and the human gets it wrong is childishly stupid. "Dolly did it!"
Re:numerous errors seen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 16:16 · Score: 0

The Human was driving it at the time, so yeah, there's that.
Was just operating like any other taxi driver I've ever seen.
Uber says that car was being driven by the human at that time.
But because every day is opposite day for Uber, "That car was being driven by the human" means in Uber-speak "That car was not being driven by the human".
Re:numerous errors seen by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 03:22 · Score: 0

sounds like a typical california driver to me.

Need an hard ass judge to force uber to give out by Joe_Dragon · 2016-12-20 07:25 · Score: 1

Need an hard ass judge to force uber to give out code, logs, etc in a trial when an auto dive car kills someone. And a few days in lock up for contempt of court will fix the people with the NDA's from saying I can't tell you.

independently but is the software independent? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-12-20 07:27 · Score: 1

independently but is the software independent? or does that become an recall issue and the manufacturers must fix safety issues for free.

Re:independently but is the software independent? by swillden · 2016-12-20 09:39 · Score: 1

independently but is the software independent? or does that become an recall issue and the manufacturers must fix safety issues for free.
The maker of the self-driving system should be fully liable for all damages caused by the system. I don't see who else could be liable.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

Perhaps some sort of IR approach? by p51d007 · 2016-12-20 07:31 · Score: 0

Some sort of iR signal, paint, QR code or something in the pavement, sign or something that would let the cars know where these are? Updated GPS or something else? Personally, I don't like the idea of self driving cars...yet. It's going to take a LOT of years to make them sort of "self aware", then we are REALLY screwed ;)

Re:Perhaps some sort of IR approach? by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:39 · Score: 1

Some sort of iR signal, paint, QR code or something in the pavement, sign or something that would let the cars know where these are? Updated GPS or something else?
They have what they need in the paint already: pearl. This makes the paint reflective, and you can use LIDAR to find it. A car which cannot operate using the same cues as a human driver is useless.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Perhaps some sort of IR approach? by djinn6 · 2016-12-20 21:36 · Score: 1

Not useless, just less useful. If even one city built smart roads that helps guide self-driving cars, it will make sense for that city's residents to buy self-driving cars. Most of the time they'll be driving in the city where the car drives itself, and when they leave it, they can still drive manually.

Given that self-driving cars are the future, smart roads do make sense. If you compare the total cost of building hundreds of millions of self-driving cars with the cost of making all roads smart, then I would expect the smart roads will win on cost. The signal transmitters can cost on the order of a Raspberry Pi, and you really only need a few of them at intersections, interchanges and construction zones, since lane-keeping is an already-solved problem.

Re:Need an hard ass judge to force uber to give ou by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 07:52 · Score: 0

And a few days in lock up for contempt of court will fix the people with the NDA's from saying I can't tell you.

Yes, because that worked so well with the NSA didn't it. Oh wait, no it didn't.

Bike lock, meet window by Macdude · 2016-12-20 07:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a cyclist if a self-driving car cuts me off in a bike lane or otherwise tries to kill me I'll put my bike lock through one of its windows. That way the car owner will learn of the incident.

--
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America

Re:Bike lock, meet window by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:25 · Score: 0

As a car driver, if critical mass ever tries their bullshit near me, they should expect some parachute cord across the road at cyclist neck level.
Re:Bike lock, meet window by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 08:30 · Score: 0

...And you'd be liable for/guilty of willful destruction of property and possibly assault; that's retaliation, not self-defense. Sorry, but that's the way the legal system works. You don't get to break someone's things and scare them just because they thoughtlessly endangered you.
Re:Bike lock, meet window by silas_moeckel · 2016-12-20 10:33 · Score: 1

Since cyclist dont have to carry insurance or have registrations the police ignore any mischief they do it's to hard to bother.

--
No sir I dont like it.

If the act is intentional, vs red light crash by raymorris · 2016-12-20 08:00 · Score: 2

> You can't take insurance against being caught committing a crime. If what Uber is doing is illegal and there is an *accident*, insurance won't cover it
[Emphasis added]

Running a red light is illegal. Insurance will cover an accident caused by running a red light. The key word is *accident*. In most jurisdictions, insurance doesn't cover liability for *intentional* criminal acts; it does cover liability for illegal / unlawful acts where the damage is not intentional (either the unlawful act doesn't require intent, or the damage was the unexpected result of an intentional unlawful act).

Unlawful acts frequently have a *risk* of causing damage. Jurisdictions, and courts, are divided on where to draw the line - if you look and it appears to be clear before you purposely cut through the bike line, but accidentally hit someone, that's borderline. You didn't hit someone on purpose, but you did cut through the bike lane on purpose.

Re: If the act is intentional, vs red light crash by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:55 · Score: 0

This falls on its face when you are taking about the vehicle not being licensed properly. Insurance will cover you running a red light IF you have a road-legal vehicle, properly registered and you have a valid, current t license for example. Sounds like Uber is not in this territory.

Uber deserves no sympathy by tchdab1 · 2016-12-20 08:12 · Score: 2

Uber is all about bypassing and ignoring regulations and laws in the name of profit. I hope San Francisco can find a way to ensure they follow the rules, and prosecute them fully when they don't.

Uber drivers and automated vehicles by twasserman · 2016-12-20 08:47 · Score: 2

Human Uber drivers tend to run red lights and stop signs, too. So maybe their autonomous vehicles are programmed similarly. Uber humans routinely ignore bike lanes and frequently stop in them. Traffic in San Francisco would be less painful if we didn't always have several thousand ride-hailing drivers cruising the streets while waiting for a fare, adding to the already grim traffic situation here.

Re:Uber drivers and automated vehicles by LordWabbit2 · 2016-12-21 21:43 · Score: 1

The Uber drivers where I live have all been meticulously decent drivers, WAY better than most IMHO, and I have been catching a lot of Ubers lately what with the silly season putting pissed people on the road.

--
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.

The State has Principles too. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 09:06 · Score: 0

They will drag you to Court and Fine you.
It is the Principle of Law.

And if a Car kills someone, then they can drag them to court and see if a Murder charge will stick.

Did bicyclists program the car? by dprimary · 2016-12-20 09:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Running red lights and numerous other traffic violations, that is the standard bicyclist operating procedure around here. It is a miracle 50 a day don't die in my city alone.

Re: Did bicyclists program the car? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 12:40 · Score: 0

Or maybe most cyclists that break the rules do it in such a way that it increases traffic flow and safety. Probably not a "miracle".
Re:Did bicyclists program the car? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 18:21 · Score: 0

what we need is autonomous bicycles. without passengers.
Re:Did bicyclists program the car? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 19:58 · Score: 0

It's for survival. Every minute shaved from a cyclist's ride is a minute less sharing the road with death boxes spewing death fumes.
bonus: captcha == oppress

Do these early adopting states by Dareth · 2016-12-20 09:23 · Score: 1

Do these early adopting states have really uniform street/lane markings for things like bike paths?
I have been trying to imagine a car trying to drive on some of the roads in Louisiana. It is hard to make out where the lanes are sometimes.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

No Sanctuary? by Dareth · 2016-12-20 09:28 · Score: 1

If Uber manufactures the cars in another country and smuggles them into the US illegally would they be granted sanctuary?

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

joe adler by Joe_Dragon · 2016-12-20 09:48 · Score: 1

We are going to sue!

The passenger who hired the car
UBER
The State
The City
The coders at Uber
The car manufacturer
Apple, Google, Microsoft for having the app in there store.
The auto insurance
UBER's payment possessors

and so on.

"We've corrected the software..." by tlambert · 2016-12-20 10:37 · Score: 1

"We've corrected the software... it now does not assume that everyone using the roads will obey the relevant traffic laws, if it turns out that at the bottom of the hill is a stop sign, and then there is another hill headed upward, since the stop sign, if obeyed, would cause a loss of momentum and necessitate pedaling".

Better for cyclists to just disobey the traffic laws, and keep that momentum up the hill!!!

And yes, I am looking at you, intersection of Claremont an Ulloa in West Portal in San Francisco.

Impoud by dbIII · 2016-12-20 12:15 · Score: 1

A private citizen doing this stuff would be in jail for this by now. Impound the experimental cars before someone dies. Once that's done Uber may be willing to negotiate and they may do some proper testing instead of letting dangerous unfinished shit on the roads.

Re:Impoud by drinkypoo · 2016-12-20 12:41 · Score: 1

A private citizen doing this stuff would be in jail for this by now.
You've never driven in San Francisco, have you? If you had, you'd know how bollocks that statement was.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Johnny cabs can bite me by Trogre · 2016-12-20 12:36 · Score: 1

Another reason why proponents of self-driving vehicles are kidding themselves.

Driving safely, courteously and responsibly involves far too many variables for a frickin AI to cope with, especially considering that lives are at stake. Keep piling on the rules, exceptions and priority overrides and you'll soon get spaghetti code that is impossible to audit deterministically and behaviour becomes unpredictable.

Granted there are certainly many humans who drive and shouldn't, but replacing them with robots is not the answer.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife

Re: Need an hard ass judge to force uber to give o by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-20 13:09 · Score: 0

Trying to look smart by using "an" in front of an h when it is hard = epic language snob fail.

Open season on pedestrians by Latent+Heat · 2016-12-20 16:49 · Score: 1

When I am in my car, cyclists playing fast with the rules are an annoyance that I counter by regulating my emotions and driving as carefully as I can.

When I am on foot and crossing the street, cyclists sailing through red lights against the pedestrian walk light are a threat.

What am I supposed to do to avoid a life-altering brain injury from getting knocked down -- wear a bike helmet to walk across the street?

enough is enough by gravewax · 2016-12-20 16:56 · Score: 1

It really is time to start throwing Uber execs in Jail. They want to play the civil disobedience card then their execs need to wear the consequences.

Running red light is actually safe by emj · 2016-12-20 19:29 · Score: 1

If you look are actual numbers cyclists break traffic laws with the same frequency as everyone else, and usually in a much safer way.

Some years ago there was a study of 5 years of accidents in Stockholm; no cyclists were injured when running a red light. Left turns aren't that dangerous either. What does main and kill are those right turns which Uber got in trouble for.

Confirmation bias is a thing..

Uber and Tesla both by thisisauniqueid · 2016-12-20 21:19 · Score: 1

Both Uber and Tesla have plowed headlong into creating autonomous driving technology, without engaging in rigorous formal system safety proof and testing methodologies -- and this is reckless and irresponsible. Waymo has driven over a billion miles of road in a simulator as a result of regression testing every major software update -- other companies are not apparently doing this. Waymo technology has something like eight nested failure modes of degraded performance if sensors or other hardware starts failing, and they use formal methods to provide soft proofs that these failure modes work in reliable ways. The other companies (all 50+ of them now) are simply saying, "let's just apply deep learning, it will give us super-human performance with very little effort." No.

Its not just autonomous cars by jaq1an · 2016-12-21 06:55 · Score: 1

that suffer from that problem; thwse days it seems every driver does

Permit not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 07:11 · Score: 0

Uber probably got permission from the Revolutionary Arm of the California Exodus Committee Against Remaining to violate the old American laws of road regulatory oppression.

Sounds like a feature to me. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-12-21 07:37 · Score: 0

Fuck you ball-hugging bike shorts dildos.

Slashdot Mirror

Uber Admits To Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes As Safety Concerns Mount (theguardian.com)

383 comments