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."
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."
The city should impound the vehicles.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.