Uber Admits To Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes As Safety Concerns Mount (theguardian.com) 383
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."
Driver's license (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the only punishment of the driver a fine? I would think you don't get to drive a car for a year or two if you are caught "driving" one of these.
Re:Driver's license (Score:5, Insightful)
The city should impound the vehicles.
Re:Driver's license (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be reasonable to have a very skilled team of lawyers look at what the law actually says
Law is far too important to leave in the hands of lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Or bureaucrats who make statements thinly backed by what they would like the law to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Law is also far too important to leave in the hands of corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to have a society that isn't dominated by the government or corporations. Don't see how it's possible, though.
Then you have anarchy and law of the gun. No thanks...
Re: (Score:3)
No, then you have how humans lived for most of the history of the species: rule by social norms and peer enforcement. Not at all what I would welcome, but I think all those horrible normal people would be just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
practically speaking, you have a choice between corporations or governments.
at the moment, due to decades of anti-government propaganda by corporations, you americans have abdicated control of your government to corporations so there's little distinction between them.
that's not inherent, though. although you have NO chance of ever influencing or controlling corporations (except through government regulation - which is why you've been bombarded with decades of corporate propaganda railing against the evils
Re: (Score:3)
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 publicaly 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.
Insurance doesn't cover all the risks. I don't know what kind of insurance Uber is providing to the 'backup' driver. But if someone dies (either the passenger or a someone outside the car) there's really no insurance or indemnity that can stop a district attorney from charging the 'backup' driver with reckless endangerment, or from someone from suing the 'backup' driver for a civil action like wrongful death. Even a $5-million insurance policy (currently required by the DMV for autonomous vehicle operati
If the act is intentional, vs red light crash (Score:3)
> You can't take insurance against being caught committing a crime. If what Uber is doing is illegal and there is an *accident*, insurance won't cover it
[Emphasis added]
Running a red light is illegal. Insurance will cover an accident caused by running a red light. The key word is *accident*. In most jurisdictions, insurance doesn't cover liability for *intentional* criminal acts; it does cover liability for illegal / unlawful acts where the damage is not intentional (either the unlawful act doesn't re
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't surprise me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Doesn't surprise me... (Score:4, Insightful)
yeah but just the other day Uber was telling us that these vehicles are not autonomous but more like an advanced driver assist system which is why they say they don't need a permit to operate in california... but here they are telling us that the vehicle itself is cutting through bike lanes. Which is it?
I mean Musk would tell us that the auto pilot is magic when it is driving you into a truck, but this is just as big of a pile of bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a sec, Uber could be correct ... Hear me out. If indeed the Uber system is an 'advanced driver assist' it exists to essentially help the driver navigate the streets, then you would expect the system to mimic driver behavior.
Like running over bicyclists.
Any truly autonomous system would not run over bicyclists and pedestrians as a matter of course. The legal oversight staffs would be adverse to this behavior.
Uber was right after all.
Re:Doesn't surprise me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure about the wording. "Admission" sounds like guilt, which is a complex concept. Fault isn't guilt.
Uber doesn't seem to have engaged in a cover-up or avoided the issue, so they don't seem to be "admitting" anything. I can't imagine the issue wasn't noticed by others prior to this, so "disclosed" doesn't seem the right word. Perhaps "acknowledged" or "confirmed" would be more politically-neutral, with the latter being a more-favorable action word ("Uber has confirmed its engineers are working to correct a flaw...") while the former is a less-favorable statement ("Uber has acknowledged a flaw exists. They know. Stop calling them about it.").
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a lawyer or a pedant? (But I repeat myself.) You can admit things without admitting guilt. The opposite of admit is deny, which they are not doing. There's nothing wrong with the headline.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a persuasion thing. I never learned to lie, so I learned to say things with specific words, inflections, ordering of ideas, and other manner of technically-saying-the-same-thing to imply other things not being said, or to prevent people from asking uncomfortable questions by making sure the thought never crosses their minds.
It's a matter of identifying the emotion people associate with a certain statement. A word may not mean "evil person," but may bring an impression of nefariousness to the perso
Re:Doesn't surprise me... (Score:4, Funny)
I don't believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
When an autonomous car was caught running a red light, Uber was very quick to blame the driver.
And they didn't really "came out". They only admitted a few issues when evidence was piling up against them and were told by the DMV that public roads are not their playground.
Re: (Score:3)
Next time I come with construction foam applied in the exhaust of such unter cars.
Self-driving Car 'Problem' in Bike Lanes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is our "generous" offer: $250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."
Sounds like a grocery store offer. When my mother slipped and fell in an grocery store, the manager offered her $500 on the spot. She went to small claims court and won $2,000 instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Why am I not surprised that both you and your mother are leeches off the system?
The $500 that the grocery store manager offered didn't cover her doctor bill. Using the small claims court to recover the cost of treatment is entirely legal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True! I hope she is OK.
That was back in the 1980's.
Re: (Score:2)
You are supposed to have health insurance or live an country with a working health care system. If you slip and fall on a sidewalk who do you sue? All the people in the city as it is a public property. That is insane. If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance.
Re: (Score:2)
You are supposed to have health insurance or live an country with a working health care system.
This was the 1980's. My family had health insurance but it didn't covered chiropractic care. That was 100% out of pocket. Hence, my mother declined the $500 offer and sued in small claims court for $2,000.
If you slip and fall on a sidewalk who do you sue? All the people in the city as it is a public property.
This happened inside a grocery store.
That is insane.
So is your comment.
If you slip it is your own fault, unless there is grease and or other substance.
The bagging boy did a terrible job of cleaning up the broken mayo jar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have the laws changed if you don't agree with them.
Re: (Score:3)
$250K, sign this "no fault" agreement, and "GTFO."
I guess it's a better offer than the divorce.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of states have tort limits for personal injuries, so this will vary by state. It is unlikely to ever be more than 75% of any states' tort limit. If you sue and win, the attorney fees would actually make you win less than settling.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of states have tort limits for personal injuries, so this will vary by state. It is unlikely to ever be more than 75% of any states' tort limit. If you sue and win, the attorney fees would actually make you win less than settling.
IANAL, but my understanding in nearly all cases the tort-caps only affect non-economic damages (e.g., pain suffering). If you have actual economic damages (e.g., doctor's bills, lost wages, loss of future employability etc), you can nearly always sue for 100% of established economic damages.
wow (Score:3, Funny)
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 drving car. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It only took a self drving car. (Score:5, Insightful)
^^^ This. Bike lines on any street with speed limits > 35mph? Fail. (Get the cyclists on a parallel path.) Bike lines that double as parking on city streets? Fail. (Get the cyclists onto the less-busy streets.) Bike lanes in roundabouts? Fail. (Let the cyclists use the off-circle sidewalks - there is no such thing as a "low impact" crash if you aren't wearing a car.)
I could go on, but someone please mod this AC up.
Re:It only took a self drving car. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bike lanes on any street with 35mph speed limits? Physically separate the lane.
Bike lanes double as parking? Remove the parking.
Bike lanes in roundabouts? Fine - works all over the world.
I could go on. Your solutions are not solutions, they're shifting the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should the bike lane be adjacent to the main thoroughfares instead of one block over?
Maybe the cyclists want to be on this block.
Maybe there just isn't another block over.
Maybe the city was founded in a time when things grew organically and isn't organised on a block basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Bikes shouldn't be on the street, period. You couldn't pay me enough money to ride a bike in traffic. The laws of physics say you're gonna lose badly.
Re: (Score:2)
I totally agree. Where I live in Switzerland, there are no shoulders and bikes ride in the road and are not allowed on sidewalks.
This seems like a category error to me.
"Hey, cars have wheels, bikes have wheels, therefore bikes and cars should use the same space"
Instead the categorization in my mind could be:
"Hey, pedestrians and bikes are almost the same mass, almost the same size, and much closer in speed, maybe they should share infrastructure instead."
Unintended collision of bikes and pedestrians are muc
Re: (Score:3)
If the pedestrian is a toddler, your first claim is wrong. If the rider is an idiot, the second claim is wrong.
Had a near miss this when some asshat came flying round a blind corner. Missed my kid by inches, and only because I pulled him out of the way; made no attempt to slow down or swerve. And the fucking asshat yelled at me. It's a sidewalk, not a sideride.
Re:It only took a self drving car. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensors? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sensors? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, there will never be 0 accidents. That's not what 'better' means in this context.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long before these run over someone's pet?
What is your pet doing roaming the streets?
Okay, sometimes you can't help it. One of our family dogs when I was a kid loved to dig under the fence and escape despite our efforts to stop him. As it turned out all he really wanted was a ride in the car and if my father picked him up a mile away from our house, he got to hang his head out the window for a few minutes.
That was an explanation anyway, borne out that after a while my dad would just honk the horn a few times in the driveway and the dog would come
Re: (Score:2)
But if I keep my cat indoors, who'll catch the mice?
Not my dogs - they don't do stealth. The dogs will just run after the mice and bark as the mice scurry away safely into their hiding place.
Re: (Score:2)
If they run over cyclists you can be damn sure they'll run over pedestrians too.
This is where government needs to step in (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
San Francisco, if it's government had any balls, would start booting all Uber self-driving cabs based on the risk to society.
San Francisco drivers could do a better job. One time I was in the middle lane of a busy street when the light changed green. The driver in the right lane suddenly decided to make a left hand turn in front of me. I always count to three after the light changes before I start moving while driving in San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3)
San Francisco drivers could do a better job.
From what I've seen, the worst offenders are their police detectives.
In almost every show I've watched, they race through the city in muscle cars or full-size sedans at reckless speeds, going airborne at each hilly intersection. Half the time they miss hitting a trolley by mere inches. It's just crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
When did you learn to count to 3?
Kindergarten. And you?
Did you learn in your awesome government IT job?
I use regex to reduce a complex dataset to fewest items possible items that will fit on three pages or less before I work on them. Accuracy is very important.
Re: (Score:2)
The "fewest items possible items"?
You actually caught that mistake — I'm impressed.
Genius!
Thank you!
I'm glad our government IT is in good hands.
Always a pleasure to serve the public.
Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
A company who has refused to follow state and city laws for years is ignoring more laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From a legal point of view, adding autonomous features to cars have not required special permission so long as a driver is in control for liability purposes.
Do you actually know if that's true, or are you just saying what you think the law ought to say? What matters is what it actually says. And yes, the law does distinguish between fully autonomous vehicles and ones with driver assistance abilities.
Don't take my word for it. It took me about one minute to look it up. California Vehicle Code Section 38750 provides the following definitions [ca.gov]:
"Autonomous technology" means technology that has the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operator.
"Autonomous vehicle" means any vehicle equipped with autonomous technology that has been integrated into that vehicle. An autonomous vehicle does not include a vehicle that is equipped with one or more collision avoidance systems, such as electronic blind spot assistance, automated emergency braking systems, park assist, adaptive cruise control, lane keep assist, lane departure warning, and traffic jam and queuing assist.
Uber's cars have "the capability to drive a vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring by a human operat
Make Them Bleed (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Silly (Score:4, Insightful)
"Traffic laws are for humans" - Uber
Its getting to be like Death Race 2000 out there, watch out humans.
Ride share (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember... (Score:2)
Back in the 80's, KITT didn't have this problem....
Re: (Score:2)
KITT followed 3 rules of robotics
Easy fix (Score:2)
All Uber has to do is to pay the state for autonomous car permits. Then everything will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds bad. is it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our traffic rules are built with the faults of human drivers in mind. Humans have more blind area than vision so we make rules like, Don't cross into this lane ever, or Don't go when the light is this color. Do these rules ultimately need to apply to autonomous cars?
Except they are also built for traffic control as well. For some busy streets, the only way you are going to cross it is when the traffic has to stop for red light.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't identify lines then how the hell would it identify the center line so its not just driving all over the road careening from object to object as it tries not to hit something... The car HAS to be able to identify things in the context we see them simply because there are other drivers (and cyclist in this case) on the road that are operating that way. We are in a very strange time with autonomous vehicles simply because we have the technology to make them a reality (albeit after much developm
Hit & Run (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
What the actual fuck? (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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.
CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI (Score:5, Interesting)
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..
Re:CA Bike Lane Laws conflict with MI (Score:4, Informative)
The laws don't conflict, just the way that the transitions are done. (Arizona allows crossing the bike lane at dashed lines, but maintains a class two lane through the intersection as an example.)
Autonomous Cars are Fine (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Sounds like... (Score:3)
...a Bike problem to me.
numerous errors seen (Score:5, Informative)
So I looked at the video in the article
https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com]
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.
Bike lock, meet window (Score:3, Interesting)
As a cyclist if a self-driving car cuts me off in a bike lane or otherwise tries to kill me I'll put my bike lock through one of its windows. That way the car owner will learn of the incident.
Uber deserves no sympathy (Score:3)
Uber is all about bypassing and ignoring regulations and laws in the name of profit. I hope San Francisco can find a way to ensure they follow the rules, and prosecute them fully when they don't.
Uber drivers and automated vehicles (Score:3)
Did bicyclists program the car? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a driver behind the wheel who is supposed to override the computer whenever the computer makes a mistake. If they don't, perhaps they need to lose their driver's license.
Re: (Score:2)
What job could be worse than being an Uber driver? Being an Uber Safety Driver.
Re:Depends how you look at it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Depends how you look at it (Score:5, Insightful)
Cyclists are a scourge that really need to be eradicated.
I'd say the same thing about Uber.
Re:Depends how you look at it (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: Depends how you look at it (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
They they have Deliveroo where you are? They're all complete cunts, the lot of 'em.
Re: (Score:3)
Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.
Uber is a private company.
It's also one that bleeds the investors' money rather fast.
Re: (Score:3)
Increasing shareholder value, the motherhood of corporate boards everywhere.
Uber is a private company.
That makes shareholder value more important, not less. In a public company, the board members represent the shareholders. In a private company, the board members ARE the shareholders.
It's also one that bleeds the investors' money rather fast.
That is what investor money is for. You spend it to grow faster than you could if you were only reinvesting profit. As long as Uber is growing and expanding into new markets, the investors are getting what they expect. Cashflow will come later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have ** One point ** left on your driver's license.