7 ms·
Nissan driverless car guilty of “close pass” overtake of UK cyclist
- dabeeeenster 10y agoAmazing how Nissan have managed to get their car to emulate 99% of London drivers.
- mtgx 10y agoThat's really one of the big problems with having AI in general learning from us, isn't it? That it would learn all of our flaws and biases as well.
- cronjobber 10y agoThat would be an almost benign problem to have. The real real big problem is that AI will learn to exploit all our flaws and biases. AI will evolve to be supernaturally intelligent and supernaturally psychopathic at the same time.
- dogma1138 10y agoLike London cyclists are any better they are much worse than cars.
- phicoh 10y agoThe Dutch rule is basically, that the driver is liable if an accident happens, even if it's the cyclist's fault (unless you can prove that the cyclist deliberately caused the accident). So there are not a lot of rules on what you should do. And this kind of passing is required often enough on narrow streets, that usually cars don't swerve if there is more space. So that means that those self driving cars have to have a per country profile on how to behave. So if you have to do that for every country in the EU then that will make developing self-driving cars quite a bit more expensive than the current system where you have a common market.
- Zak 10y agoSelf-driving cars should try to avoid collisions regardless of fault and should not adjust that behavior based on who the local liability laws will hold responsible. As far as traffic regulations specifying behavior go, yes, they differ from country to country and self-driving cars do need to be able to follow them. That doesn't necessarily mean the cars need to learn to follow a bunch of weird rules; it may be more of a lobbying problem. "Standardize your rules so we can offer self-driving cars that are X times safer than human drivers in your country" isn't a terribly hard sell.
- gens 10y ago>Self-driving cars should try to avoid collisions regardless of fault and should not adjust that behavior based on who the local liability laws will hold responsible. I would love to watch a show called "Driverless cars in India".
- na85 10y agoThe Russia edition of that show would be quite entertaining as well.
- phicoh 10y agoThat depends. The goal of local drivers is to go from A to B in reasonable time. If extreme risk deduction interferes that, people will revolt. Some of the rules in some countries regarding overtaking cyclists would create a complete mess in the Netherlands. Of course, in theory you could have one set of rules self driving cars and another for human drivers. I'm very curious if you can have a significant percentage of self driving cars in a city center without causing complete gridlock. My guess is that once cyclists and pedestrian realize how careful self driving cars are, they will just take priority and bring all car traffic to a halt.
- raverbashing 10y agoThough the article shows some bias, it's nonetheless something that shouldn't have happened More interestingly, this was a LHD car in an UK road, might have something to do with it (though the navigation system seemed to be aware of it).
- dabeeeenster 10y agoBias for what? Following the Highway Code?
- raverbashing 10y agoNissan CEO... (when introducing it he told the) arrival of the technology could be delayed by pesky cyclists who, he said, "don't respect any rules usually." Which to be fair is true, but I also don't agree on picking on cyclists as a driver (as a pedestrian, it's a different issue)
- m0nty 10y ago> to be fair is true No it isn't. It's confirmation bias of a stereotype. Motorists often display contempt for the rules, but everyone goes on about cyclists doing it. An asshole in a car will be an asshole on a bike given the chance. So afaict, we have an asshole problem, not a cyclist or a motorist one. > don't agree on picking on cyclists as a driver If you did, would you do it? Because "picking on cyclists" with the help of a two-tonne vehicle is what gets people killed.
- raverbashing 10y agoYou're right it's an asshole problem. However some cyclists think that cars (and trucks) have 360 degree field of vision and unlimited braking potential. That causes a lot of accidents as well. > If you did, would you do it? I think you're misreading my comment. "Picking on" in this case means blaming. (def. 32 http://www.dictionary.com/browse/picking http://www.dictionary.com/browse/picking)
- kalleboo 10y agoThe car clearly identified the bicyclist, so this just seems like poor training/rules, which is easy enough to fix. I'm more interested in the second video from the BBC where it couldn't identify the maintenance vehicle. If the driver hadn't intervened, would it really have plowed straight into it? I seems like even a current, non-self driving car, would have intervened with automatic braking (or slowing down with auto-cruise control) in that situation.
- tomatsu 10y ago> this just seems like poor training Heh. Yea, passing too closely is what many humans do. Speaking of potentially murdering cyclists, since they already got all those sensors, they could prevent drivers and passengers from "dooring" cyclists. The "dutch reach" (opening the door with your other hand which automatically makes you look over your shoulder) is unfortunately not commonly taught in driving schools.
- bootload 10y ago"The "dutch reach" (opening the door with your other hand which automatically makes you look over your shoulder) is unfortunately not commonly taught in driving schools." Excellent idea, going to use that one.
- anotheryou 10y agoWould a radar reflector on my bike help me? Like this but smaller: https://aceboater.com/media/guide/1/radar-reflector-3.jpg https://aceboater.com/media/guide/1/radar-reflector-3.jpg
- ptaipale 10y agoThis was because of decision made by software, not because of not detecting the cyclist.
- anotheryou 10y agoAre you sure? I read bycicles are really hard to detect. And I thought a bigger radar signature, pumping up some confidence value, might influence the behaviour too.
- manmal 10y agoYou can see the cyclist on the bottom screen in the video, represented as a yellow speck.
- snackai 10y agoWell remove cyclists from streets. Its as simple as that. Remove humans from streets. Also remove all cars from the streets that need a driver. It will happen sooner or later. Humans will eventually be the single point of failure.
- Neliquat 10y agoLet me simplify that for you. >Remove humans
- discordianfish 10y agoPlaying devils advocate here.. Couldn't you argue a driverless car simply needs less space to guarantee the same/better safty for the cyclist?
- tmnvix 10y agoA cyclist can swerve very quickly for all sorts of reasons. Drivers (human or computer) need to allow space for this.
- phicoh 10y agoSwerving is good way to get yourself killed. If you find yourself swerving to the center of the road without making sure there is no traffic trying to overtake at the moment, then you have to figure out what to do to avoid that. Relying on each an every driver to leave enough space just in case you need to swerve is a losing proposition.
- smileysteve 10y ago3 feet is a minimum to allow quickly swerving around a crash causing pothole.
- jeennaa 10y agoa cyclist should be treated the same as any other vehicle on the road. they might need to swerve to avoid an obstacle while the car is overtaking, just as a car may need to swerve while another car is overtaking. when a safety margin is possible, as it was here, it costs nothing to apply one.
- phicoh 10y agoI don't know where you live that you have that much space. My personal rule is don't swerve. If you don't have time to signal that you are going to move, or look to make sure other traffic is not in the way, then either brake hard or continue straight (with the obvious exception if not swerving causes you to hit another person). There are just too many roads where you can't swerve without causing a head on collision. If you make it a reflex to swerve, then you will also do it when there is no space for other traffic to avoid you.
- vesak 10y agoThis is perhaps the real risk of AI. In the first wave, the industry is dominated by a wish to make a great product. In the second wave, the bean counters walk in and start to optimize everything. And then we start getting the behavior from Fight Club. I don't see any way out of this loop except for penalizing bad business behavior (on an individual level) heavily while protecting engineers who fight them.
- na85 10y agoYes, no engineer has ever behaved badly, or been complicit in ethically grey areas, and all the world's ills are due to business types.
- vesak 10y agoWell, sure, there's another point. Programmers should have a similar guild/organization that medical doctors do, and people who abuse the ethics should be barred from practicing.
- na85 10y agoI fully agree. It would solve a lot of problems we currently face in technology, but there are two issues that I see: 1) Doctors, surgeons, engineers (actual professional engineers, not people with comp sci degrees who call themselves engineers), lawyers, etc. are called professionals because they have professional colleges of their peers that oversee things like ethics and can revoke licenses, etc. They're self-regulating. This works because for things like medicine and engineering and law, there is a large barrier to entry. You have to go to a recognized school and pass an ethics/comprehensive exam. This isn't so with programming. There's almost no barrier to entry. Any kid can open up a tutorial on MySQL and call themselves a back-end engineer. Unless the software industry is willing to require formal qualifications on all their hires, this will remain a problem. 2) One of the great things about software is the democratic aspect. Software is great precisely because any random kid can open up a tutorial and notepad.exe and start writing code. To rectify problem #1, you'd to a certain extent kill the democratic nature of learning which is a large part of why many people are in the industry today. I also think that a large portion of people who work in software would be highly resistant to this sort of thing, to say nothing of the difficulty of enforcing ethical behaviour if you can't see what's going on due to proprietary licensing and obfuscation.