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

Uber has admitted that there is a "problem" with the way autonomous vehicles cross bike lanes, raising serious questions about the safety of cyclists days after the company announced it would openly defy California regulators over self-driving vehicles. From a report on The Guardian: An Uber spokeswoman said on Monday that engineers were working to fix a flaw in the programming that advocates feared could have deadly consequences for cyclists. Uber began piloting its self-driving vehicles in its home town of San Francisco last week, despite state officials' declaration that the ride-share company needed special permits to test its technology. 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. Despite threats of legal action from the department of motor vehicles (DMV) and California's attorney general, Kamala Harris, Uber refused to back down on Friday, claiming its rejection of government authority was "an important issue of principle."

Comments

Driver's license

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The city should impound the vehicles.

Re:Driver's license

[queazocotal]

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.

Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

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."

It only took a self drving car.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

[Luthair]

Its more of a cultural problem, go to Copenhagen and you can see it actually works well.

Sensors?

[fluffernutter]

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?

Re:Sensors?

[bfpierce]

"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.

This is where government needs to step in

[smooth wombat]

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.

Shocking

[acoustix]

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

Re:Shocking

[TrekkieGod]

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.

Make Them Bleed

[Princeofcups]

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.

Re:Doesn't surprise me...

[Altus]

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

Re:Depends how you look at it

[Anonymous Coward]

Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.

I'd say the same thing about Uber.

Re:Doesn't surprise me...

[bluefoxlucid]

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.").

Silly

[BrookHarty]

"Traffic laws are for humans" - Uber

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

Re:numerous errors seen

[bfpierce]

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.

Did bicyclists program the car?

[dprimary]

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.