3 ms·
> shows some bias The clue is in the name, it's a mag about cycling. It's run by Carlton Reid, a well-known expert on cycling - his most famous book is "Roads
by m0nty 10y ago
> shows some bias
The clue is in the name, it's a mag about cycling. It's run by Carlton Reid, a well-known expert on cycling - his most famous book is "Roads were not made for cars", a history of the intertwined histories of cars and bicycles and how motor transport came to dominate our roads almost to the exclusion of all others. So I'm not sure it's a "bias" so much as "what he thinks about cars and bikes".
> More interestingly
No, that's a minor point. The important thing is that cyclists get killed in close-pass situations, and those that don't are often put off cycling permanently. Along with the Uber car jumping a red light in SF, and Uber basically saying "it doesn't matter", this shows a worrying tendency for self-driving at any cost, including safety, which many of us were hoping would be a benefit of such technology.
- Asooka 10y agoI expect the incidence of these close passes will be drastically lower with self-driving cars than with manual ones. And it would take just one update to the software to fix ALL of them, as opposed to years of lobbying and re-educating stubborn drivers.
- raverbashing 10y agoThanks for your comment You're right cyclists get hurt or killed in close-pass situations (by humans). It seems here the navigation identified the cyclist and avoided it. It incorrectly didn't follow the legal clearance but nobody got hurt (because the avoidance happened correctly it seems). It's an unsafe situation but the car did not ignore the cyclist. The chance for someone to get injured or an accident happening seemed to be much higher in the Uber case.