Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: Autonomous Cars vs Cyclists and Runners

in: Orienteering; News

Nov 4, 2018 12:26 PM # 
chitownclark:
Nature Magazine this week published a survey which is bad news for US cyclists and orienteers who run on roads:

.....largest ever survey of machine ethics finds that many of the moral principles that guide a driver’s decisions vary by country. For example, in a scenario in which some combination of pedestrians and passengers will die in a collision, people from relatively prosperous countries were less likely to spare a pedestrian [or runner].....

.....an ethical paradox about self-driving cars: in surveys, people said that they wanted an autonomous vehicle to protect pedestrians even if it meant sacrificing its passengers — but also that they wouldn’t buy self-driving vehicles programmed to act this way.....


For instance, the author speculates that such data will cause US programmers to route driverless cars down the RIGHT side of car lanes rather than the center...just because such positioning reduces the number of side-swipes from other cars and trucks. But may take out a runner or two in so doing.

A follow-up article in Forbes last week added further dimensions to this dilemma.

.... Renault chief executive [said] that pesky cyclists could delay the arrival of the technology. “One of the biggest problems is people with bicycles. The car is confused by cyclists because from time-to-time they behave like pedestrians and from time-to-time they behave like cars.” He complained that cyclists were free-spirits: “They don’t respect any rules usually....."

As a result, rumor has it that bikes, pedestrians and runners might be banned from ALL roadways for a period of time, in order to facilitate the introduction of this important new technology.
Advertisement  
Nov 4, 2018 1:52 PM # 
tRicky:
...important new technology.

Why stop there, just tie people down in their beds with a VR headset and let the computer do all the thinking for them.
Nov 4, 2018 1:53 PM # 
jjcote:
Rumor...
Nov 4, 2018 1:55 PM # 
Mr Wonderful:
First...source of rumor? Did they speculate about how it would be enforced?

From Nature Magazine:

Bryant Walker Smith, a law professor at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, is sceptical that the Moral Machine survey will have any practical use. He says that the study is unrealistic because there are few instances in real life in which a vehicle would face a choice between striking two different types of people. “I might as well worry about how automated cars will deal with asteroid strikes,” Walker Smith says.


The "wouldn't buy them" issue may be a moot point as things seem to point to ridesharing as the dominant first wave application of autonomous cars, where people will be renting their use. I've not heard of Uber drivers being interviewed on their preferences for passenger vs. pedestrian safety before people consent to being shuttled around, but I don't get out much.

From Forbes:

In 2015, a cyclist in Austin, Texas, confused a Google driverless car when he did a near-motionless “track-stand” at an intersection. The Google car was so bamboozled by the behavior of the balancing cyclist it would not budge.


For my money, an autonomous car reacting to potentially confusing bicycle behavior by stopping seems like a sensible and safe option.

Something like 7000 pedestrians and cyclists were killed in traffic accidents in 2017. My hunch is that something that can't play on its phone, can't drink, can't tend to children in the backseat, and can't have a bad day, while having 360 degree laser ranging and stereo cameras that enable them to see ninja-dressed runners and unlit cyclists while probably speeding less than human drivers will be less likely to hit them.

Disclaimer: I work on autonomous car steering (not the picking the steering part, just the pointing the steering someone else picked part) and my views don't represent my employer.
Nov 4, 2018 2:18 PM # 
chitownclark:
Thank you Mr Wonderful; very interesting. But I think you guys are a bit naïve when it comes to the power and clout of the car industry in America. Billions of dollars of cost savings and efficiency improvements are coming to the American economy with the introduction of driverless vehicles. This technology is coming...soon. And the fate of a few runners and cyclists will just be so much collateral damage.

The best-case scenario may be that pedestrians and cyclists are required to carry some kind of transponder that broadcasts their identity and presence whenever on or near a roadway...just like aircraft have used for the past 75 years.
Nov 4, 2018 2:35 PM # 
haywoodkb:
It seems to me that this technology would best be implemented on motorways and interstate highways, but deactivated on two-way streets and in neighborhoods where pedestrians are present.
Nov 4, 2018 2:50 PM # 
Mr Wonderful:
pedestrians and cyclists are required to carry some kind of transponder

Truly a dystopian future!

- Sent from my iPhone
Nov 4, 2018 3:24 PM # 
AlistairH:
Just as long as they add a feature that stops doors from being opened when a cylist is detected...
Nov 4, 2018 4:01 PM # 
chitownclark:
Actually AllstairH, such a 'dooring' prevention feature is available now, according to BikeBiz....

...Hyundai’s fourth-generation Santa Fe SUV introduces Safety Exit Assist which senses when cyclists are approaching from behind and temporarily locks the doors before being opened, so that the driver and any passengers can exit the car without killing or injuring somebody....
Nov 4, 2018 10:04 PM # 
undy:
I worry about how autonomous vehicles will navigate to the parking spot in a typical orienteering parking paddock.
Nov 5, 2018 1:16 AM # 
tRicky:
That's easy, put in a sensor that detects people wearing high vis orange waving their arms about and aim for that.
Nov 5, 2018 10:56 AM # 
chitownclark:
...Truly a dystopian future!

Not really....I predict an app for that.
Nov 5, 2018 4:02 PM # 
Pink Socks:
Whoosh!
Nov 5, 2018 5:49 PM # 
Super:
Indeed the first wave has already washed over us, so smooth you may not have even realized. I can’t, for example, ride my bike on an interstate. Nor can I run on them and that’s been going on for ages.

Wake up, people! The revolution won’t be televised!!!!
Nov 5, 2018 6:27 PM # 
jjcote:
Certain interstates, you can. Or away least that used to be the case, I don't know if there are any left, but I suspect there are.
Nov 5, 2018 8:27 PM # 
GuyO:
I-25 btw CO Springs and Pueblo?
Nov 5, 2018 8:50 PM # 
chitownclark:
Don't think there is any commonly-enforced restrictions. The rule I've heard is that you have to use local roads, if they exist within twenty miles of the interstate. But I've ridden interstates all over the states west of the Mississippi and have never been stopped or questioned.

As a long-distance cyclist, you always have the trade-off: take your time on local roads and enjoy a safe and pleasant ride? Or hop on the parallel interstate, and really make time. Beside having better pavement on their shoulders than most local roads, the huge amount of grading to eliminate the hills and valleys when interstates are constructed becomes an unexpected pleasure.

But of course, you have to be on your guard for high-speed traffic swerving a foot or two onto your shoulder, and the intense 'bow-wave' of some 18-wheelers as they come by...the vacuum behind them can actually pull you out into the traffic lane. Interstate bridges are constructed for fat car tires. So it is wise to dismount and walk your bike across gaping expansion joints and metal plates rather than potato-chipping your front wheel if it drops into a long crack, or slips on the wet metal. And you're going to have more flats riding that debris-filled shoulder...just something you have to accept.
Nov 6, 2018 12:17 AM # 
jjcote:
Guy's example is one. Also I-70 west of Grand Junction and I-15 northeast of Las Vegas, and doubtless many others. I've been thrown off the interstate by the police twice, because there was an alternative road that was safer for bicycles. No hard feelings, they were looking out for my best interests (in one case the alternative was too small to show up on my map).
Nov 6, 2018 1:25 AM # 
tRicky:
In my state you're not allowed on the highway if there is a cycle path next to it (derr...) but if the path stops for a certain section of the highway - and this does happen - well then you are allowed back on it. Of course when they resurface the roads, typically they don't bother to resurface the part that bikes go on.
Nov 6, 2018 2:54 AM # 
J$:
But what will the google car do if the lidar is jammed by snowflakes and mud is covering the camera lens, lol.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-17...
Nov 8, 2018 9:04 AM # 
gruver:
Anyone know if there are autonomous rail vehicles in use? Would seem to be an easier thing to control, but there's no sign of around here. All the talk is of roads (2-D) and FCS the air.
Nov 8, 2018 9:21 AM # 
Jagge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_ur...
Nov 9, 2018 2:33 AM # 
gruver:
Doh. I think we've only just stopped employing "guards" to sit at the back. The sky was supposed to fall in when they were abolished. Haven't really advanced since this pioneering endeavour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cCwscH8_9s
Nov 9, 2018 9:23 AM # 
fletch:
We had an autonomous train in WA a few days ago... for about 90km... after the train rolled away when the driver got out to do an inspection. Deliberate derailment required to stop the train before it reached civilisation and potentially costing the company $55 million per day while it all gets fixed/cleaned up.
Nov 9, 2018 3:13 PM # 
yurets:
>> lidar is jammed by snowflakes

Those are special snowflakes

Please login to add a message.