I think self-driving cars would best be operated on tracks or electric grids, if they do come to fruition. Which means a huge outlay in infrastructure that not everyone will approve. It would be like rides at advanced theme parks. For example, a driver should actively drive until the car reaches a highway or main arterial street, then turn the car over to automation in synchronation with other traffic. When returning to low traffic side streets active driving should be resumed. The s-d cars solve the issues of under-utilized vehicles and distracted driving. However, the concept doesn't absolve the rider/driver of the responsibility of safe driving on public, or even private, roadways. When liability mechanisms are in place then we can turn a blind eye to the road.
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 22, 2016, at 3:32 PM, via Bikies <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send Bikies mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Bikies digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Bikies Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 (Robert Schultz via Bikies) > 2. Re: Bikies Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 (Scott Morris Rose via Bikies) > 3. Re: Uber admits to self-driving car 'problem' in bike lanes > as safety concerns mount (The Guardian) (Scott Morris Rose via Bikies) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:58:41 -0600 > From: Robert Schultz via Bikies <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Bikies Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 > Message-ID: > <CAOY1PeaLpJwT77EHYh5DUTsz0=a8jdn3gg-j4gwlqf1oplo...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Re: Self-driving Ubers -- > > On the other hand, it's great that Uber's engineers are rushing to fix the > issue. > > I'm not in a position to judge whether or not Uber's self-driving > technology is at the point where it can be reasonably road tested, however, > I think that testing in real-world traffic is necessarily a part of the > development process, and must happen at some point. Rational minds can > disagree on this, but I personally do think it is unreasonable to expect > self-driving cars to hit the roads in "perfect" form. Real-world testing > will be essential to identify issues that are difficult or impossible to > observe in controlled settings. There will be bugs and oversights. Is there > a risk inherent in that? Absolutely. But there's also risk in letting human > student drivers practice on the road. > > The potential benefits to society from self-driving technology are too huge > to ignore, and I'd hate to see one company handling self-driving tech > poorly color our expectations for the essential development track of > autonomous vehicles. > > We should also take care not to let perfect be the enemy of good. > Implemented correctly, self-driving cars will be infinitely better at > identifying and interacting with other road users -- especially cyclists > and pedestrians. Even if the cars currently perform some sketchy right-hook > maneuvers (that humans routinely do as well), I'm more inclined to trust a > computer that's appraising its surroundings hundreds of times per second > over a human who is checking for new text messages hundreds of times per > second. > > -Rob > > >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber- >> self-driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >> >> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a rush >> to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle lane. >> >> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist injured >> when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the roadway >> where he was cycling. >> >> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/ >> bicyclist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >> >> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >> outfits like Uber. >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber- >> self-driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >> rush to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle lane. >> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >> injured when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the >> roadway where he was cycling. >> >> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/ >> bicyclist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >> outfits like Uber. >> >> -- >> S. Rose >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.danenet.org/private.cgi/bikies-danenet.org/attachments/20161221/f4a35737/attachment.html> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:07:47 -0800 > From: Scott Morris Rose via Bikies <[email protected]> > To: Robert Schultz <[email protected]> > Cc: bikies <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Bikies Digest, Vol 98, Issue 5 > Message-ID: > <CA+7TJwXfJ+TC=uVNsS-A0arffs9ap85ZGhQZH2KhHoB=vhq...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > It would be absurd to demand perfection from self-driving vehicles before > they are deployed - that's an impossible standard. I haven't heard anybody > suggest that as the standard, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that > it's my standard. > > In this case, we have a company that has illegally deployed vehicles on the > road - this is documented in another Guardian story that is linked from the > first paragraph of the story - which is why I characterised it as a "rush > to market." > > While I think it's encouraging that they acknowledge the problem, we only > have their word for it that they are rushing to fix the issue with > assignment of sufficient resources to keep the risk acceptable. > > It may well be that the performance of these vehicles is already better > than the performance of the average driver - we cannot know. That's why > there are regulators in the loop. But Uber has rejected regulation. And I > think that the situation is far from ideal - for other road users, for Uber > itself, and for the entire enterprise of developing self-driving vehicles > should Uber's gamble turn up snake eyes. Given that they lost $8e8 last > quarter, they may be willing to accept some exceptionally long odds on > their gambles. > > Meanwhile, highway fatalities per unit of travel are starting to drift up > again in the US, presumably because of increased driver distraction (or > opiate intoxication?). So your point about the risks of human operators is > well-taken. > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Robert Schultz via Bikies < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Re: Self-driving Ubers -- >> >> On the other hand, it's great that Uber's engineers are rushing to fix the >> issue. >> >> I'm not in a position to judge whether or not Uber's self-driving >> technology is at the point where it can be reasonably road tested, however, >> I think that testing in real-world traffic is necessarily a part of the >> development process, and must happen at some point. Rational minds can >> disagree on this, but I personally do think it is unreasonable to expect >> self-driving cars to hit the roads in "perfect" form. Real-world testing >> will be essential to identify issues that are difficult or impossible to >> observe in controlled settings. There will be bugs and oversights. Is there >> a risk inherent in that? Absolutely. But there's also risk in letting human >> student drivers practice on the road. >> >> The potential benefits to society from self-driving technology are too >> huge to ignore, and I'd hate to see one company handling self-driving tech >> poorly color our expectations for the essential development track of >> autonomous vehicles. >> >> We should also take care not to let perfect be the enemy of good. >> Implemented correctly, self-driving cars will be infinitely better at >> identifying and interacting with other road users -- especially cyclists >> and pedestrians. Even if the cars currently perform some sketchy right-hook >> maneuvers (that humans routinely do as well), I'm more inclined to trust a >> computer that's appraising its surroundings hundreds of times per second >> over a human who is checking for new text messages hundreds of times per >> second. >> >> -Rob >> >> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self >>> -driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >>> >>> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >>> rush >>> to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >>> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle >>> lane. >>> >>> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >>> injured >>> when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the roadway >>> where he was cycling. >>> >>> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bicy >>> clist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >>> >>> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >>> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >>> outfits like Uber. >>> >>> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber-self >>> -driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >>> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >>> rush to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >>> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle lane. >>> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >>> injured when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the >>> roadway where he was cycling. >>> >>> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/bicy >>> clist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >>> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >>> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >>> outfits like Uber. >>> >>> -- >>> S. Rose >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bikies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org >> >> > > > -- > S. Rose > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.danenet.org/private.cgi/bikies-danenet.org/attachments/20161221/1ec10596/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:40:08 -0800 > From: Scott Morris Rose via Bikies <[email protected]> > To: Bikies <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Uber admits to self-driving car 'problem' in > bike lanes as safety concerns mount (The Guardian) > Message-ID: > <ca+7tjwwshjrdw+y5dhznpc_ddtcpyx8x1whju1xjbyvei4x...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Uber has now canceled their unauthorized trial of autonomous vehicles in > San Francisco, offering the hope that known flaws in their algorithms will > be fixed before the vehicles are next deployed. > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/21/uber- > cancels-self-driving-car-trial-san-francisco-california > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Scott Morris Rose <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/19/uber- >> self-driving-cars-bike-lanes-safety-san-francisco >> >> The rush to market for self-driving vehicles seems poised to lead to a >> rush to the morgue for other road users, in particular for any cyclist who >> stumble into the path of an Uber making a right turn across a bicycle lane. >> >> Here's a story about a $38 million award won by a Seattle bicyclist >> injured when a parking valet took a common but illegal shortcut across the >> roadway where he was cycling. >> >> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/ >> bicyclist-severely-injured-by-valet-in-crash-awarded-38m/ >> >> The point being that injuring bicyclists for the sake of expediency can >> lead to hefty civil penalties. Presume this logic will be applied to >> outfits like Uber. >> >> -- >> S. Rose >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > S. Rose > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://lists.danenet.org/private.cgi/bikies-danenet.org/attachments/20161222/c79de85e/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Bikies Digest, Vol 98, Issue 6 > ************************************* _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
