Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
So Uber's driver-less cars drive like a soccer mom trying to get her spawn to school?
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."
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
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.
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
"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.
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
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... ;)
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.
Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.
I'd say the same thing about Uber.
"Traffic laws are for humans" - Uber
Its getting to be like Death Race 2000 out there, watch out humans.
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?
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.
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
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
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.
> 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.
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..
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.
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.
...a Bike problem to me.
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).