5 ms·

I was thinking about this a while back, wondering if these self-driving cars were any better at "seeing" bicycles (and motorcycles and pedestrians) than humans

I was thinking about this a while back, wondering if these self-driving cars were any better at "seeing" bicycles (and motorcycles and pedestrians) than humans are. I haven't rode a bicycle since I was a kid but I do put ~10k miles/year on my Harley. In the last 10 years, I've been hit head-on twice, ran off the road once, and had too-many-to-count "close calls" by drivers who weren't paying attention (not to mention the friends that been killed) -- and that's on a loud, relatively visible (compared to a bicycle), 900-pound piece of steel. I can't imagine the average bicyclist is "seen" better than I am, especially in busy traffic areas/large cities/etc. I'm all for anything that can makes the roads safer for those of us on two wheels!

mirimir 10y ago
I suspect that motorcycles are the harder problem. They aren't that much larger than bicycles. They use the road like cars, which only pushy bicyclists do. And they're faster than cars, and almost as maneuverable as bicycles.
- cpt1138 10y ago
  Pushy? Since bicycles are defined as motor vehicles they have just as much right to the road as cars.
  - stouset 10y ago
    Ah yes, but you see I'm in a hurry home to catch Game of Thrones reruns and I had to wait twelve entire seconds for oncoming traffic to pass so I could get around some inconsiderate guy trying to stay fit and/or reducing the effects of traffic. </sarcasm> The sad irony is it's those "pushy" cyclists who stay alive, by making themselves more visible, being a part of typical traffic patterns, and refusing to be pushed off to the side by cars trying to squeeze into the same lane.
    - mirimir 10y ago
      Yes, I've been a pushy cyclist, for that very reason. Getting pushed off the road, or broken on opened doors, is no fun.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Yes, it's strange how motorists perceive the cyclist limiting their speed to 15-20 mph for a whole city block when most of the city is crawling at 5-10 mph due to all the cars.
    - et-al 10y ago
      Certain streets in SF are unspoken "highways" with timed green lights to get across the city quickly: Fell/Oak, Sutter/Bush, Geary, Lincoln Ave, 19th Ave, Guerrero, Howard/Folsom (though this seems to have changed with the crazy wide bike lanes). While it's completely in one's rights to ride a bike on those streets, it's pretty stupid unless you're hauling ass because the speed differential between the car and bike is too great. Urban planners can talk all they want about how these streets are bad design and cities shouldn't have them, but it's best for both parties if bikers didn't use those streets. I don't know how someone rides on those streets without thinking it's a bad idea because most of the time, it's someone on a slow mountain bike going 10 mph.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    They're vehicles, sure, but not motor vehicles. Unless they have motors, anyway. And sure, "they have just as much right to the road as cars". But being right isn't much use if you're dead.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
trevyn 10y ago
Radar and LiDAR are exceptionally good at seeing bicycles and motorcycles and pedestrians. Predicting their movement is a separate problem.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Didn't stop Uber's cars from doing the dangerous right hook turns instead of merging in the bike lane EVERY single. time. http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/ http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self... I guess they've succeeded in acting like most human drivers. I've almost gotten right hooked a few times while running (and wearing bright highlighter-colored high-viz reflective clothing).
tomhallett 10y ago
The public policy and PR question I'm curious about - how will the conversation be structured around self driving cars and their difficiences? When someone on a bicycle gets killed, they'll be able to point to the limitations of the system and say "this code can't handle this and it'll kill others - we should outlaw it". While others can point to stats to say self driving cars are safer, I'm afraid the dialog won't be that rational and they'll get banned on a state/city level.
- gambiting 10y ago
  I had this conversation with a friend the other day. "If an automatic car will only detect a red light or a cyclist or a child on the road accurately 99.99% of the time, should it be allowed on the road?" - his answer was "if it's safer than a human on average, then yes". My answer is - absolutely not. System malfunction is one thing, but if there's a non-zero chance of not detecting something that it has to detect to operate safely, then it shouldn't be allowed to be sold.
  - aggie 10y ago
    So by your logic, human-piloted cars shouldn't be sold either, as humans are not able to detect things 100% of the time.
    - gambiting 10y ago
      A human is not a component for the car - the car itself is not smarter than a knife or a gun - it's how you use it that defines the responsibility here. Or to put it in other words - if I run a red light by accident, then that's what it is - an accident. I'm still responsible for causing a crash if one happens, but there's nothing more I can do to improve my perception of surroundings(and we already do ban humans who are unfit for driving). If a self driving car runs a red light, because its sensor is only 99% accurate, then I'm pretty sure the company making it will be sued to oblivion, because they released something that does not work all of the time(and I am talking about normal operating conditions, not sensor malfunctioning).
maxerickson 10y ago
One of Google's demos was recognizing a hand signal made by a bicyclist in front of the car.
nevir 10y ago
Waymo's cars do a pretty incredible job of detecting bikers (even erratic ones) - and even understands hand signals

mirimir 10y ago

I suspect that motorcycles are the harder problem. They aren't that much larger than bicycles. They use the road like cars, which only pushy bicyclists do. And they're faster than cars, and almost as maneuverable as bicycles.

cpt1138 10y ago
Pushy? Since bicycles are defined as motor vehicles they have just as much right to the road as cars.
- stouset 10y ago
  Ah yes, but you see I'm in a hurry home to catch Game of Thrones reruns and I had to wait twelve entire seconds for oncoming traffic to pass so I could get around some inconsiderate guy trying to stay fit and/or reducing the effects of traffic. </sarcasm> The sad irony is it's those "pushy" cyclists who stay alive, by making themselves more visible, being a part of typical traffic patterns, and refusing to be pushed off to the side by cars trying to squeeze into the same lane.
  - mirimir 10y ago
    Yes, I've been a pushy cyclist, for that very reason. Getting pushed off the road, or broken on opened doors, is no fun.
- mcbits 10y ago
  Yes, it's strange how motorists perceive the cyclist limiting their speed to 15-20 mph for a whole city block when most of the city is crawling at 5-10 mph due to all the cars.
  - et-al 10y ago
    Certain streets in SF are unspoken "highways" with timed green lights to get across the city quickly: Fell/Oak, Sutter/Bush, Geary, Lincoln Ave, 19th Ave, Guerrero, Howard/Folsom (though this seems to have changed with the crazy wide bike lanes). While it's completely in one's rights to ride a bike on those streets, it's pretty stupid unless you're hauling ass because the speed differential between the car and bike is too great. Urban planners can talk all they want about how these streets are bad design and cities shouldn't have them, but it's best for both parties if bikers didn't use those streets. I don't know how someone rides on those streets without thinking it's a bad idea because most of the time, it's someone on a slow mountain bike going 10 mph.
- mirimir 10y ago
  They're vehicles, sure, but not motor vehicles. Unless they have motors, anyway. And sure, "they have just as much right to the road as cars". But being right isn't much use if you're dead.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

trevyn 10y ago

Radar and LiDAR are exceptionally good at seeing bicycles and motorcycles and pedestrians. Predicting their movement is a separate problem.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
Didn't stop Uber's cars from doing the dangerous right hook turns instead of merging in the bike lane EVERY single. time. http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/ http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self... I guess they've succeeded in acting like most human drivers. I've almost gotten right hooked a few times while running (and wearing bright highlighter-colored high-viz reflective clothing).

tomhallett 10y ago

The public policy and PR question I'm curious about - how will the conversation be structured around self driving cars and their difficiences? When someone on a bicycle gets killed, they'll be able to point to the limitations of the system and say "this code can't handle this and it'll kill others - we should outlaw it". While others can point to stats to say self driving cars are safer, I'm afraid the dialog won't be that rational and they'll get banned on a state/city level.

gambiting 10y ago
I had this conversation with a friend the other day. "If an automatic car will only detect a red light or a cyclist or a child on the road accurately 99.99% of the time, should it be allowed on the road?" - his answer was "if it's safer than a human on average, then yes". My answer is - absolutely not. System malfunction is one thing, but if there's a non-zero chance of not detecting something that it has to detect to operate safely, then it shouldn't be allowed to be sold.
- aggie 10y ago
  So by your logic, human-piloted cars shouldn't be sold either, as humans are not able to detect things 100% of the time.
  - gambiting 10y ago
    A human is not a component for the car - the car itself is not smarter than a knife or a gun - it's how you use it that defines the responsibility here. Or to put it in other words - if I run a red light by accident, then that's what it is - an accident. I'm still responsible for causing a crash if one happens, but there's nothing more I can do to improve my perception of surroundings(and we already do ban humans who are unfit for driving). If a self driving car runs a red light, because its sensor is only 99% accurate, then I'm pretty sure the company making it will be sued to oblivion, because they released something that does not work all of the time(and I am talking about normal operating conditions, not sensor malfunctioning).

maxerickson 10y ago

One of Google's demos was recognizing a hand signal made by a bicyclist in front of the car.

nevir 10y ago

Waymo's cars do a pretty incredible job of detecting bikers (even erratic ones) - and even understands hand signals