Video: SEAT demos 4x4 that can recognise cyclists and brake to avoid collision if driver ignores warnings

don simon fbpe wrote:

Remember folks, this is Spanish technology and more than likely to take evasive action towards the left, to the left.

Right!!

Pushing50 wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Remember folks, this is Spanish technology and more than likely to take evasive action towards the left, to the left.

Right!!

Yes, that's right, they drive on the right.

The car will, therefore, steer away from the cyclist, to the left, and towards the middle of the road. I know, it's crazy.

don simon fbpe wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

don simon fbpe wrote:

Remember folks, this is Spanish technology and more than likely to take evasive action towards the left, to the left.

Right!!

Yes, that's right, they drive on the right.

The car will, therefore, steer away from the cyclist, to the left, and towards the middle of the road. I know, it's crazy.

If I had written write, I would be wrong.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

I can see at least one issue with this particular system.

If a driver starts a typical foolish overtake of a cyclist and then spots an oncoming car, would the automated system then slow/stop the car and thus crash into the oncoming car?

I hope so.

Is that an issue?  From your last sentence, you susggest not.

If it has slowed/stopped, then won't the oncoming car be the one to crash into a now stationary object.  It would be up to the driver (or AI) in the oncoming vehicle to perceive a hazard in its lane and respond accordingly (i.e. brake).

The foolish overtaker's car would have minimized the combined impact velocity, and hopefully the alert driver (or AI) of the oncoming vehicle would have also scrubbed off all speed so either collision is avoided or happens at a low impact velocity such that only vehicle bodywork is damaged, not human bodies.  

CygnusX1 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

I can see at least one issue with this particular system.

If a driver starts a typical foolish overtake of a cyclist and then spots an oncoming car, would the automated system then slow/stop the car and thus crash into the oncoming car?

I hope so.

Is that an issue?  From your last sentence, you susggest not.

If it has slowed/stopped, then won't the oncoming car be the one to crash into a now stationary object.  It would be up to the driver (or AI) in the oncoming vehicle to perceive a hazard in its lane and respond accordingly (i.e. brake).

The foolish overtaker's car would have minimized the combined impact velocity, and hopefully the alert driver (or AI) of the oncoming vehicle would have also scrubbed off all speed so either collision is avoided or happens at a low impact velocity such that only vehicle bodywork is damaged, not human bodies.  

I was imagining more that the car would pull out, start to overtake, suddenly slow/stop and the oncoming car (without robo-assistance) would crash into it as they didn't have time to react.

It'd be an issue if drivers turn off the system so that they can drive like loons, but that would leave us with the current situation.

Pushing50 wrote:

This is all well and good, but when will the manufacturers invent the technology to eliminate the verbal and physical abuse thrown at cyclists who dare to get in the way of the autonimous vehicle?

Such technology already exists to counter the human driver.  It's small and portable and can be fastened easily to a cyclist's belt.  

There are many manufacturers currently in the market.  Kryponite, Pitlock, Abus...

Should you be reading this in a country with somewhat less panicked and hysterical laws than the UK, the list of manufacturers extends to Glock, Smith & Wesson, Taurus...

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Such technology already exists to counter the human driver.  It's small and portable and can be fastened easily to a cyclist's belt.  

There are many manufacturers currently in the market.  Kryponite, Pitlock, Abus.

I carry mine in a saddle bag or pannier, which rather limits how quickly I can use it.

I wonder if you can still buy caltrops...

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Pushing50 wrote:

This is all well and good, but when will the manufacturers invent the technology to eliminate the verbal and physical abuse thrown at cyclists who dare to get in the way of the autonimous vehicle?

Such technology already exists to counter the human driver.  It's small and portable and can be fastened easily to a cyclist's belt.  

There are many manufacturers currently in the market.  Kryponite, Pitlock, Abus...

Should you be reading this in a country with somewhat less panicked and hysterical laws than the UK, the list of manufacturers extends to Glock, Smith & Wesson, Taurus...

HaHa, yes indeed I had forgotten about this technology!

I was thinking along the lines of what John Smith has posted above:

"Having seen the anger that crash detection causes to some drivers, who hate the fact that their cars brake when they accelerate towards a car cyclist they assume is turning, I think this is going to be hilarious a dangerous scenario . Lots of close pass attempts resulting in emergency stops... and confrontation"

EK Spinner wrote:

surprised that this appears to be getting launched by Seat rather than the more premium brands of Audi or VW, or are they simply doing it a little more low key

 

Yeah, they are.  Lots of brands already have systems to detect and avoid VRUs (vulnerable road users) - this is something that we cyclists have to thank Euro NCAP for as they're really been pushing this technology (by testing it in their star-rating protocol).

The tests: https://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/the-ratings-explained/vulnera...

How the cars rank: https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ratings (Mercedes A-class is currently best rated car in terms of VRU protection)

How the cyclist tests are done currently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOCSRa0PUdM

How they'll be done in the future: https://www.abdynamics.com/en/products/track-testing/adas-targets/launch...

Jez Ash wrote:

How the cyclist tests are done currently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOCSRa0PUdM

How they'll be done in the future: https://www.abdynamics.com/en/products/track-testing/adas-targets/launch...

Very interesting, although I'm not sure I like the term "Soft Pedestrian Target"

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

Nope.

Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport - massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.

Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.

Canyon48 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

Nope.

Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport - massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.

Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.

To be fair there's fewer objects to avoid up in the air so it's an easier problem to solve.

My thinking is that as most RTCs involve lack of attention, by getting rid of that issue completely the robots are going to be safer than human drivers.

At least until the inevitable robot uprising.

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Canyon48 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

Nope.

Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport - massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.

Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.

To be fair there's fewer objects to avoid up in the air so it's an easier problem to solve.

You'd think that was true, surprisingly there are a lot of things to bump into and near misses happen all too often!

HawkinsPeter wrote:

My thinking is that as most RTCs involve lack of attention, by getting rid of that issue completely the robots are going to be safer than human drivers.

At least until the inevitable robot uprising.

It'll take a long time before we have fully autonomous cars capable of driving on the open road; advanced machine vision, detection systems and systems integration will eventually allow this though - there's quite a large crossover between the systems used on autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft. The challenge is huge, but, ultimately, autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop/avoid obstacles - humans tend to fail at that bit.

Canyon48 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Canyon48 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

Nope.

Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport - massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.

Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.

To be fair there's fewer objects to avoid up in the air so it's an easier problem to solve.

You'd think that was true, surprisingly there are a lot of things to bump into and near misses happen all too often!

HawkinsPeter wrote:

My thinking is that as most RTCs involve lack of attention, by getting rid of that issue completely the robots are going to be safer than human drivers.

At least until the inevitable robot uprising.

It'll take a long time before we have fully autonomous cars capable of driving on the open road; advanced machine vision, detection systems and systems integration will eventually allow this though - there's quite a large crossover between the systems used on autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft. The challenge is huge, but, ultimately, autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop/avoid obstacles - humans tend to fail at that bit.

 

there are already several different varieties of autonomous vehicles operating on Greenwich Peninsula, carrying passengers, making deliveries etc. At the moment they're not sharing the roads with other motor traffic, but they are sharing it with pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, dogs, ducks, foxes etc. Of course there are road trials in the US, and I believe also in Milton Keynes, where they have to navigate around the unpredictability of concrete cows.

These things won't all suddenly appear on one day in the future, but will start slow and small as they feel their way into our lives, until we gradually realise that we can't imagine life without them any more.

ConcordeCX wrote:

there are already several different varieties of autonomous vehicles operating on Greenwich Peninsula, carrying passengers, making deliveries etc. At the moment they're not sharing the roads with other motor traffic, but they are sharing it with pedestrians, cyclists, scooterists, dogs, ducks, foxes etc. Of course there are road trials in the US, and I believe also in Milton Keynes, where they have to navigate around the unpredictability of concrete cows.

These things won't all suddenly appear on one day in the future, but will start slow and small as they feel their way into our lives, until we gradually realise that we can't imagine life without them any more.

I believe Google are running a completely autonomous taxi service in Phoenix, Arizona.

Only open to a pre-selected group at the moment but on the cusp of being rolled out to the public.

Canyon48 wrote:

It'll take a long time before we have fully autonomous cars capable of driving on the open road; advanced machine vision, detection systems and systems integration will eventually allow this though - there's quite a large crossover between the systems used on autonomous cars and autonomous aircraft. The challenge is huge, but, ultimately, autonomous vehicles are programmed to stop/avoid obstacles - humans tend to fail at that bit.

I think that's the big difference, automated systems will usually default to stopping/taking avoiding action, it's not leaving it to the judgement of a human as to whether they could squeeze through quickly. Hopefully it should make things safer if in most situations the car won't let the driver perform an unsafe overtake, it'll just default to putting the brakes on.

One question I have is, can this be over ridden/switched off by the driver? and if so, does having this system available on your car, switching it off and then colliding with a cyclist make you more responsible for the accident than you'd otherwise be?

Canyon48 wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

Nope.

Take a look at aviation, the safest form of transport - massive technological advances and computerised systems have turned flying from an extremely unsafe mode of transport to the safest. The vast majority of plane crashes are caused by a human flying a plane into the ground.

Kind of works the same for cars, most car crashes are caused by humans being generally a bit hopeless and driving into stuff.

Though the safety systems are pretty good at killing people too..
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-withheld-information-on-737-model-according-to-safety-experts-and-others-1542082575

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Is it wrong for me to have more faith in robots like this than humans?

No, but it's still humans that program machines for now so they can still be as flawed as humans on that basis.

What you get from robots/programs is consistency which is something I think most cyclists would appreciate when being overtaken.