“Perfect! These are completely safe autonomous vehicles.”
That was the reaction of one Austin cyclist to a Cruise self-driving car, without a person even in the vehicle, making a left turn into a cycle lane before continuing to travel in the infrastructure along the next stretch of road.
At the lights, once stopped, the rider pulls up alongside, revealing an empty vehicle — no driver, no passengers, just one autonomous self-driving car.
Self-driving car drives in Austin bike lane https://t.co/WGRWa6VcxE pic.twitter.com/v83jP10Wja
— Chris Walker (@WalkerATX) January 9, 2023
Currently operating in evenings and overnight in San Francisco, Austin and Phoenix, Cruise’s driverless taxi service operates in much the same way as Uber (just without the human moving passengers from A to B), with people requesting a ride on an app, and the company’s website insists “safety is our priority. Period.”
Once Fox 7 got hold of this video, Cruise released a statement insisting again that safety is their number one priority and the company will be “reviewing our lane-mapping in that area”.
Cruise also insisted the car would not have entered the bike lane if there had been a cyclist using it, but the rider involved — Robert Foster — says it seems “reckless” to allow cars making “egregious mistakes”.
“They’re driving like a lot of maybe less experienced drivers in Austin drive or when they take a left turn, they just do it extremely wide, not realising that’s both illegal and very unsafe,” he explained.
“That just seems so reckless for them to be allowing cars that can make not small mistakes, but egregious mistakes, missing a lane by 16 feet. You know, that just seems egregious out on the streets.
“This is a 4,000-pound vehicle that they’re testing on the city streets. There’s still enough error that I’d be very disappointed if someone I was teaching to drive was driving that way.”
In reply Cruise commented: “Safety is Cruise’s top priority, not just for our passengers but for everyone we share the road with. Our technology is always improving and we’ll be reviewing our lane-mapping in that area.”
But Foster has not been impressed by his experiences riding around the driverless vehicles and says he has seen another driving down the middle of the road, and that they are adding to an already dangerous existence for cyclists and pedestrians.
A little under a year ago we reported two instances of YouTubers capturing footage of their Tesla vehicles in Full Self-Driving Beta (FSD) struggling to avoid danger.
The first came just weeks after Elon Musk had claimed FSD had not been responsible for a single collision since its release in October 2020 and saw the vehicle crash into a cycle lane bollard. Earlier in the nine minute video the vehicle ran a red light.
Then, days later a second YouTuber uploaded a video of their Tesla in FSD almost ramming a cyclist in San Francisco.
66 thoughts on ““These are completely safe autonomous vehicles”: Cyclist spots driverless car using cycle lane”
Autonomous vehicle technology
Autonomous vehicle technology still has a long way to go. The algorithm developers have really struggled to get the vehicles to recognise pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists and also how to predict their behaviour.
Exactly. We were supposed to
Exactly. We were supposed to have flying skateboards years ago, and we don’t even have them yet, so ‘properly’ self-driving cars must be a long long way away… 😉
OldRidgeback wrote:
Even though the point is that because cars deal with road conditions very differently to more vulnerable users (e.g. bicycles) cyclists can move in unpredictable ways.
The only solution is
The only solution is dedicated, segregated infrastructure.
For AVs.
kil0ran wrote:
Scalextric 😉
… is a good pointer. Why
… is a good pointer. Why not embed a ‘sensor’ track in the road bed (no surface infra except maybe a painted line) for vehicles to follow and combine this with hazard detection. Combine this with GPS to enter a destination and cars become individual ‘trams’ in places like cities.
In defence of the autonomous
In defence of the autonomous vehicles, its very unlikely cars will become selfish arseholes.
Off the back wrote:
…or become irritated at something minor and commit a road rage offence.
OldRidgeback wrote:
…or evolve into Skynet Lite and decide that since humans are the problems on the roads then they’d better just get rid of them all.
or evolve into Skynet Lite
or evolve into Skynet Lite and decide that since [some] humans are the problem on the roads then they’d better just get rid of them
I would vote for that, if they used the right termination filter
I think that metric will be
I think that metric will be built into the larger, more expensive, German brands.
The thing that really
The thing that really surprises me about this is the lack of a driver in the vehicle. The video demonstrates that the autonomous vehicle is not capable of driving to an acceptable standard, which raises two questions for me:
1) How has the risk associated with this vehicle being driven on public roads without a driver been assessed and considered acceptable?
2) How is the vehicle supposed to learn (e.g. that you shouldn’t drive in a cycle lane) if there is no-one there to teach it through driver intervention? I can’t believe that someone is reviewing footage and performing manual software updates. That would prevent the massive benefits of machine learning.
Sounds like drivers in
Sounds like drivers in Lancashire (thanks wtjs!). Apparently no-one is providing them feedback either when they don’t tax / insure their vehicles or drive them without due care and attention. So maybe the autonomous car is being “trained” for operation there?
Sounds like drivers in
Sounds like drivers in Lancashire
I think I would still be safer around an AV ‘autonomised’ by a Raspberry Pi Zero than near Lancashire Audi and BMW drivers
Some drew a parallel with
Someone drew a parallel with aeroplanes and automation which has implications for autonomous cars – see wired article
https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-the-plane-paradox-more-automation-should-mean-more-training
It’s an interresting article.
It’s an interesting article. I would however make two counterpoints when applying the logic to cars:
Firstly, pilots receive much more extensive and ongoing training and scrutiny than drivers. Given the behaviour of many drivers, there’s a much lower bar for safety to be improved overall, even if automation introduces some new risks.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, cars have an obvious failsafe mode that planes don’t: you can stop a car. If there’s a problem that the computer can’t deal with, all it needs to do is apply the brakes. If something goes wrong with a plane, it still needs to be able to keep flying and land safely.
OnYerBike wrote:
Let us know how that works out for you when you do it in lane 3 on a busy motorway!
Brings me back to the first
Brings me back to the first point: the only danger comes from other drivers who are driving carelessly. Automated cars aren’t pefect but they are pretty good at not following too closely and not crashing into the back of the car in front when it slows down/stops.
I like the big sticker on the
I like the big sticker on the back of the car…”May stop quickly”. Remind me, as I am sometimes very thick, but isn’t that a consideration whenever following another mode of transport (even when walking)?
We’d like it to not crash
We’d like it to not crash into the back of other vehicles that might be on the road too.
And apparantly driving into a
And apparantly driving into a cycle lane regardless of who else might have thought they would remain on their part of the road. Good enough to avoid other cars does not equal good enough to be on the road.
Will this be the new standard
Will this be the new standard for driving licenses? – Hey you drove around for 2 hours and didn’t hit anything – great here’s your licence.
Ashley Neal’s description of
Ashley Neal’s description of his Tesla’s assist: it’s like a bad driver with good reactions.
They may not hit things if they can help it, but their aggressive and erratic manoeuvring can cause problems. You can often spot a driver planning to do something odd, would a Tesla give you the same cues?
The all need Rhonda Pickering
The all need Rhonda Pickering as the passenger.
Failsafe mode on the flat
Failsafe mode on the flat maybe, I’d like to see AI handling a necessary stop on a 1:20 grade that has oil spilled on the road. Or where its necessary to keep on going no matter what, maybe on a road that is going under water because of rising floodwaters, or because of the approaching tornado, or the bushfire, or maybe your angry husband is chasing you with a gun. All rare and unusual incidents of course; but any study of local newspapers will show that rare and unusual is not so uncommon.
Although planes do need to
Although planes do need to keep flying, they start from a high altitude giving a lot of time to get back control. Whereas in a car, you may only have a few seconds to act which may be less than the time required to orientate yourself to the situation.
I’m not sure you can say the brakes can always be invoked if the system is controlling the car. I’m not that confident in bug free systems.
hirsute wrote:
No such thing. The goal is always to minimise bugs and try to ensure they do not compromise correct operation of the software.
hirsute wrote:
Unless the plane has only just taken off, as per both of the 737 Max crashes.
That’s a fair point, I never said it would be a perfect system. But the ability to “just stop”, whether that be the car’s reaction or a human intervention, is still there in a way that it isn’t with an aircraft.
OnYerBike wrote:
but that wasn’t so much and aircraft failure as a failure of regulation and training, so very much like the tesla problems
Like this?
Like this?
https://insideevs.com/news/630445/tesla-fsd-crash-san-francisco-footage/
I had actually seen that pop
I had actually seen that pop up on twitter – I maintain (as did many other commentors) that the crash was the result of the following drivers’ careless/dangerous driving. It’s not the UK so I don’t know the letter of the law over there, but I’m pretty sure that the basic principle of leaving a sufficient distance to stop safely applies.
They certainly contributed,
They certainly contributed, but it does seem that the Tesla fail safe response was not very fail-safe. Surely simply removing drive would be a better response, akin to disengaging cruise control than actively stopping in a live motorway lane. If it was intelligent enough to be self-driving (albeit with supervision that it objected to detecting not being present), it should be bright enough to stop on the hard shoulder or exit the freeway and stop.
When would stopping on a motorway live lane ever be the response of first resort to an issue?
Bear in mind that the 2 second rule does not relate to a safe stopping distance.
Clearly stopping suddenly in
Clearly stopping suddenly in a live lane is not ideal, and of course it shouldn’t be a first resort. But as a last resort, it is (IMHO) more sensible than just cutting the power. And my original point was simply that it is a last resort option that is not available to an aircraft!
My understanding is that it
My understanding is that it was likely to be a response to a driver ignoring attention reminders. Whilst bringing the car to a halt may be an appropriate action in many urban environments, it is probably not the right choice on a freeway, where a moderate speed reduction and changing lane to the inside but progressing is safer than stopping. Given that the driver has already abrogated their responsibility, passing control to an inattentive driver on a high speed road does not seem well thought through. But that’s the point isn’t it? They are struggling to get self-driving cars to cope with normal scenarios, so abnormal scenarios are a big problem.
Hmm in defense of the
Hmm in defense of the autonomous vehicle the paint on the road looks very faded – the system may not have recognised it was a live painted bike lane – another reason for not using painted lanes.
I know here in UK there is talk of enforcing mandatory bike lane infringement – but suspect faded paint would be a valid excuse for wriggle lawyers to exploit.
I’d say the car not
I’d say the car not recognising those faded lines is another reason for not allowing autonomous cars.
TSGRD2016 mostly got rid of
TSGRD2016 mostly got rid of that loophole – signs just have to be good enough and not perfect.
Is it legal to cross an
Is it legal to cross an unbroken lane marker in Austin, Tx?
In the UK the so-called cycle
In the UK the so-called cycle infrastructure is an incoherent mess of paint and street furniture, shared with pedestrians, so I guess AVs will just park on the pavement like all the other SOVs, and the ultra rare police won’t do anything to police this.
They will, if the AV parks
They will, if the AV parks where they want to park on the pavement / in the cycle lane…
Reading this reminded me of a
Reading this reminded me of a trip a week ago when i was following a tradesman (a painter) up a local highway. A large tin of white paint had fallen over in his trailer and was leaking onto the road – Wheee, for several km two narrow lanes created from one normal lane. The autonomous car’s AI system would have had fun with that. And then I got to thinking: Is this going to be the next method for vandalism? Teenagers painting white lines on the roads? e.g. bring an existing lane to a point. Or would this amount to terrorism if done on a high-speed freeway – imagine the potential chaos – paint in a few diagonal white lines and paint a few existing lines black.
I take it Robert has only
I take it Robert has only recently learned the word “egregious”
These seems like minor issues
These seems like minor issues that will be solved when as they get deployed more and more. I do believe that some nasty accidents will happen but eventually self driving cars will be super safe, as they will not exceed speed limits nor do road rage driving. The problem is that many people who don’t drive will buy them and there will be more cars on the streets.
I can literally think of zero
I can literally think of zero people that can’t drive but want a car. I know rather many people that can drive, and don’t have a car (such as myself). Really don’t see AV’s causing an increase in motorised traffic.
KDee wrote:
Really?
I grew up in a tiny village (early 80’s) with no bus service. If my parents had had an autonomous car it would have opened things up for me considerably. In addition – we don’t have them currently so we’re not entirely sure how we’re going to use them. I clearly remember having a conversation in the early noughties about the new 3g network and no-one really knew how much that was going to impact our lives in only a few years. It was like, great, I can browse the internet, so what.
I know numerous people who
I know numerous people who would enjoy the ‘freedom’ offered by an AV. It would allow them to get to places and social events that would be inaccessible due to poor public transport that has yet to enter the 21st century. It would also allow them to get to places not serviced by the same public transport. My own father would have relished an AV after he gave up driving as neither my brother or I were always available.
How/why does an AV offer any
How/why does an AV offer any more ‘freedom’ than a mincab or an Uber?. AVs would still have to be deployed/available in the areas where people want them. One of the issues with Uber is that they are rarely available in rural areas with rubbish public transport because the drivers know that there’s more likelyhood of getting a fare in towns so that’s where they hang out.
My village is only 5 or 6
My village is only 5 or 6 miles outside of Bristol city centre and yet locals always complain about how difficult it is to get a taxi home. Apparently taxi drivers don’t want to come out this far because they’d be going back into town empty, as it were. So they (again, allegedly) either flat out refuse the fare or else quote some mind bogglingly stupid fare which guarantees nobody will take it up.
brooksby wrote:
This. I live in a sizeable town about 8 miles from Bristol City Centre. After my work Christmas do, I decided to take an uber as opposed to the bus home. The first couple of Uber drivers who accepted my trip, promptly cancelled once they realised they would have to drive out of town.
schlepcycling wrote:
The difference is that there isn’t a human being making a value judgement on where best to “hang out”. The “driver” of an AV doesn’t care how much money is being made, nor how many fares they collect.
It would just require the operators to be prepared to put them in those areas.
But isn’t the operator of the
But isn’t the operator of the AV human and therefore looking to make as much money from their AV as possible?. Surely the human operator is the one making the value judgement as to where their AVs ‘hang out’ and that’s more likely to be in those places where they’ll get the most business and therefore make the most money.
schlepcycling wrote:
Yes, but that isn’t how it works at the moment. Uber drivers decide where to hang out and which trips to make, not Uber the operator. The operator can take a business/strategic level decision to cover an area with an AV, which is a very different decision than an individual driver making a decision on where his personal income is going to come from.
It might be more expensive for customers (although an AV won’t quote an exorbitant price because it doesn’t want to do it), and if it’s not profitable for the business it still won’t work, but it does potentially change the situation quite considerably.
Exactly. Until they’re beyond
Exactly. Until they’re beyond being test taxis, they offer nothing.
They’ll be fantastic. I could
They’ll be fantastic. I could strap my 5 year-old in his seat in the back and send him off across town to his grandma’s for babysitting.
Until AV’s are 100% reliable
Until AV’s are 100% reliable (or close enough), outside of these real world taxi test environments, you’re going to need a driving licence to sit behind the wheel in case you have to intervene. In the future, it’d be nice for fleets of shared ownership AV’s being available at your beck & call…but that’s some way off.
KDee wrote:
I know people who are young and able otherwise, are well off so they can afford a car, but don’t drive for personal reasons, and have to rely heavily on taxis or on their spouses (male or female) to go where they want. They definitely don’t do it for ecological reasons, so I believe they would be perfect potential buyers. And I know many more who are bored to death to drive, so with an AV they could potentially do more trips. For me there is a big upcoming market for AV, there is still long road to be reliable but I believe in around 10 years the larger cars sold will be predominantly electric and AV or at least AV capable.
So, no difference between
So, no difference between this and a car with a driver?
I’m assuming that these self
I’m assuming that these self driving cars are technically on the phone 100% of the time, instead of just 30%.
Ah – but they’re not watching
Ah – but they’re not watching their phones – their cameras are pointed elsewhere. Of course, just like humans that wouldn’t help with “looked but didn’t see”.
andystow wrote:
But unlike humans, computers can genuinely (sort of) multi-task.
Well that’s progress. Rather
Well that’s progress. Rather than cars driving around with just one person in, here we have a car driving around with no-one in it!
Am I the only person who
Am I the only person who instantly thought of Johnny Cabs? ?
Call it whatever you want am not exactly comfortable in trusting an equation to apply the breaks just in case, and just a small question do these things have a hand brake? (parking brake for u.s. readers)
Born_peddling wrote:
A lot of (most?) modern cars have a parking brake that is applied automatically when the car is stationary and is taken off when power is applied (don’t have one myself but that is how my Dad’s works). I would assume a self-driving car would just have the same.
Incidentally my Dad hates it because he can’t check whether it is on or not.
C’mon. How about looking at
C’mon. How about looking at the bright side? It will keep pesky cyclists from filtering!
Why are these asshole
Why are these asshole companies allowed to do this on the public streets? Some weird shit going on over there.
1. If an autonomous vehicle
1. If an autonomous vehicle runs a red light resulting in a fatal crash, who gets the blame? Who gets charged with manslaughter, who gets tried? who goes to prison?
Don’t tell me it will be the poor old base-level computer programmer who fucked up a loop or divided by zero, or maybe it will be dismissed because an insect impacted the camera lens, or a splash of mud.
2. What does an autonomous vehicle brake for? An elephant – yes, cow – yes, adult pedestrian – yes, large dog – yes, grasshopper – no, mouse – no, cat – ?? where is the dividing line? If a 12 month old toddler wanders on the road and falls over (becoming unrecognisable to the camera, or looking like a small pile of clothes) what side of the dividing line will he fall?