A Warning to People Who Bike: Self-Driving Ubers and Right Hook Turns

http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/

by doener • 10 years ago

78 87 10 years ago

mtgx• 10 years ago

Obviously, the self-driving car AI sees bicycles as competition, and it's trying to terminate them.

I've actually been involved in a collision with a vehicle while cycling where this happened. The vehicle turned right (without a turn signal), cutting me off, and I slammed into the side of it because I couldn't brake fast enough.

I biked away with nothing but a large, painful bruise (and the car was dented), but this is definitely one of the more likely causes of collisions between bikes and vehicles.

djsumdog• 10 years ago

Same here. I had a green light, the driver even passed me, the crosswalk had a green man on it and she still cut me off. She even admitted fault to me and the police officer.

The worst part was dealing with the insurance company. If this happens to you, get a lawyer and never talk to the insurance directly on the phone. Also get all the witnesses names and numbers if you can. The insurance adjuster claimed she couldn't get in touch with the cop (I couldn't either). If you're not in a car that has your own insurance backing it, they'll fuck you over.

I barely got enough money to cover my medical bills. I didn't get enough to cover all the bike damage, and had to buy used/mismatched parts to get it ridable again.

mynewtb• 10 years ago

You can drive a car without insurance in the US? That sounds crazy irresponsible...

stanleydrew3• 10 years ago

I ride my bike both ways to work and have seen this happen a couple of times in front of me, though I haven't experienced it personally.

This may be controversial, but I think bikers should be more cautious when approaching intersections where a right turn is possible from an automobile traveling at about the same speed immediately off their left shoulder.

Yes, I understand that cars are supposed to signal, and when they don't they are creating a dangerous situation. And they are supposed to merge into the bike lane before turning in order to block off cyclists from getting themselves into this exact situation. But they don't.

So cyclists should learn to look out for the signs of a possible right turn (drifting rightwards upon intersection approach is a pretty clear indicator) and be safe.

Don't approach an intersection at speed in the blind spot of an automobile that might turn right. Just slow down a little.

tyrust3• 10 years ago

Agreed. This falls under the general rule of always assuming a car could perform any action (even if it's wrong or illegal) and making sure that you aren't in the way of it doing so. Err on the side of your own safety, even if you have to slow down to do it.

user59944612• 10 years ago

This may be controversial, but I think bikers should be more cautious when approaching intersections where a right turn is possible from an automobile traveling at about the same speed immediately off their left shoulder.

Depending on the exact position, that's a dead angle. The driver will NEVER see the bicycle.

The bicycle MUST stop if he knows the car is turning or he's going to guaranteed collision. Just sayin'

MereInterest• 10 years ago

I think that bikers should be more cautious, but I would be really careful about applying the blame on bikers. The difference between "taking actions leading to an accident" and "being responsible for an accident". Both the driver and the biker in this case have led to the accident, but only the driver is morally responsible.

jakobegger• 10 years ago

Absolutely. It doesn't matter whose fault it is when you are dead.

A couple of years back I wanted to walk over a crosswalk. The pedestrian traffic light was green. I looked left and right, saw a car approaching quickly, and stopped. The car ran the red light, drove over the crosswalk, and hit two crossing cars before crashing into a building on the other side of the road. The driver must have missed the red light.

Never assume that other people see you, never assume other drivers are as alert as you are, always be defensive, yield when you are unsure if the situation is safe, especially when you are vulnerable (pedestrian or biker vs. car).

trgn• 10 years ago

Yup, cyclists should be careful. But drivers can do a lot of harm, so they should be extra careful. Too few drivers want to bear the responsibility that should correspond to piloting 2 tons of steel at high speed. "I had the right of way", "dog should have been on a leash", "couldn't see the walker in his dark jacket at night", "biker should have slowed down when approaching intersection" etc.. etc.. That may all be true, and blame can be distributed in all those cases, but it's the driver still that causes all the tragedy in these crashes. The public road is not an equal playing field. A driver following the laws 100% correctly may still be a menace on the road. That's something that few drivers are willing to accept.

jayajay• 10 years ago

I almost got killed at an intersection because of a careless driver who decided to turn right into me, as I sped through the intersection. Thankfully, I was able to slam the breaks in time. Unfortunately, my friend's bike's back breaks didn't work, so I ended up getting thrown off of the bike and head-smacking the black road pavement without a helmet (i.e. I'm retarded). Ended up with a concussion and an abrasion to my skull. I got lucky that the driver didn't run over my head. The driver also hit-and-ran me, which is expected in a shit hole like New Haven.

Basically, don't speed through intersections on a bike, try to wear a helmet even if they are uncomfortable.

freehunter2• 10 years ago

Drivers in general have an issue with cyclists. While I agree that we should strive for autonomous cars to be better than humans, being merely as good as humans is a really good start.

And if the cars are breaking the law, of course they should get a ticket like everyone else. But making a law that says self driving cars aren't allowed to break the law doesn't really make much sense. They're already not allowed to break the law. That's why it's called the law.

jim-greer5• 10 years ago

I disagree, and I think a jury would as well.

Drivers have personal liability. Self-driving cars have corporate liability. I'd expect a big judgment if someone is killed because of a known issue.

freehunter2• 10 years ago

But there are already laws governing that. This petition is calling for the cars to be banned until new regulations are invented but we already have those regulations. They're called the "Highway Code". Every regulation that a self driving car has to follow is printed right in that book, specific to each state and locality. Making a new law that says "that, but in a self driving car" is pointless. The law already exists. If it's being broken, it's being broken.

Yes, if a car is on the road and it's breaking the law, it should be removed from the road. But again, we already have laws that govern this. "But with a self driving car" isn't a special case. We've already written every law they need to follow.

People are killed from known issues with non-autonomous cars today, and companies are getting punished for them. There is already precedent. There are already laws. They exist.

jdminhbg2• 10 years ago

Corporate-owned cars and trucks get into fatal accidents all the time now. There's a large body of civil law about liability, and (not coincidentally) a requirement to carry liability insurance. I don't see why this is different.

mjevans2• 10 years ago

To be perfectly honest, as a HUMAN driver not from this city (I should say, STATE. Where I live the driving laws are different), the self driving cars are doing EXACTLY what I would do.

I would not enter a reserved lane, but would by necessity cross over the intersection portion of that lane in order to take a right hand turn.

It sounds like San Francisco needs to modernize roadways they've improperly added 'bike lanes' to to include dedicated right turn lanes on the OUTSIDE of the 'bike lane'.

A better solution would be to isolate different types of traffic to dedicated pathways that are not directly adjacent.

jim-greer5• 10 years ago

Having dedicated turn lanes isn't realistic in San Francisco. Most streets are too narrow.

koenigdavidmj• 10 years ago

Rule one of turning was this: never ever cross a lane that goes straight as part of a turn. You don't turn from the left lane because you forgot to get in the right lane first. You don't turn across a bus lane. And you don't cross over a bike lane. Same principle in all cases.

dminor• 10 years ago

In Oregon you don't move into the bike lane to make right hand turns - it's the law.

stanleydrew3• 10 years ago

It sounds like San Francisco needs to modernize roadways they've improperly added 'bike lanes' to to include dedicated right turn lanes on the OUTSIDE of the 'bike lane'.

The city is starting to do this in quite a few spots.

The standard marking at the moment is to put a solid white line along the protected stretch of the bike lane, which becomes a dotted white line about 50 feet from an intersection. That's supposed to indicate to cars that they should merge if they want to turn right. In practice cars don't seem to realize this often.

Also, over years of consistent bullying from cyclists I honestly think drivers are in many cases afraid to enter the bike lane at all, even when they should do it to safely merge for a right-hand turn.

Anyway the correct answer is to do the full lane crossover as you suggest, but it's awkward on single-lane roads.

DoctorNick• 10 years ago

bullying from cyclists

How on earth do cyclists "bully" drivers? Drivers aren't going to die if cyclists hit them.

agildehaus4• 10 years ago

I don't have any problem with self-driving cars as a concept, I want them on the road and believe they offer a ton of benefits to humanity.

What I do have a problem with is companies like Uber, Comma.ai, and to a certain extent Tesla who seem to not understand/appreciate how much work has to go into proving these things are safe before shipping them.

CoryG892• 10 years ago

It's never going to be 100℅ safe. But that's not necessarily needed. You just need to be safer than the human drivers currently filling our roadways.

dboreham• 10 years ago

There's no way this is true. What court is going to allow a self driving car to kill a human "because accidents happen"?

agildehaus4• 10 years ago

It needs to be well safer than that. Humans have a higher level of tolerance for mistakes by humans than mistakes by robots made by humans. Every death and injury from self-driving cars is going to be on the news and public perception is everything to this technology.

Fair? Probably not. But safety must be top priority here. We can't look like we're throwing this technology out there and hoping for the best.

And I don't think you can say Tesla's Autopilot 2.0 has been shown to be safer than humans.

monochromatic2• 10 years ago

companies like Uber, Comma.ai, and to a certain extent Tesla who seem to not understand/appreciate how much work has to go into proving these things are safe before shipping them

Is there anyone who understands it better than the companies who are actually making them?

catdog• 10 years ago

Is there anyone who understands it better than the companies who are actually making them?

The engineers building the stuff probably yes but there are managers under high pressure to ship something, better be yesterday and costs should better be low. Chances are high that the second group decides to go for it in the very moment the first group says it's kind of ready.

If you have a company like Uber who generally push their products into the market with as much force as possible using hands full of VC money while ignoring all damage it may cause and always with full risk, this may even be worse. Also profit oriented companies not really caring about their impact to the general public (security,safety,health) is really not that uncommon.

eximius3• 10 years ago

I think you underestimate their understanding.

Their goal is to be the first to market and swallow the relatively minor public image loss garnered from these accidents which, by their calculation, will be few. These losses will ultimately be offset by being a pioneer in the field and capturing a huge market share.

They might even intend to fix these problems, but they are by no means show stoppers. Companies do not have morals. They only have balance sheets and single digit number of lives barely even register.

agildehaus4• 10 years ago

Which is why I included the word "appreciate". I know full-well why they're doing it.

user59944612• 10 years ago

relatively minor public image loss

"Uber car drifts in front of a school and kills 3 children." -- 5 more in the hospital. A witness captured the scene on his smartphone see video.

The first manufacturer to market half-assed will be the first to die.

Don't under estimate how much the public value their life and their limbs ;)

paintnp• 10 years ago

What the writer of this article is forgetting is that the self driving cars has all kinds of 360 degree sensors to let it know whether it is safe to take that turn or not. It's not going to turn right if it has been tracking a cyclist on a collision course due to that turn.

monochromatic2• 10 years ago

While this is (presumably?) true, the self-driving car should still be programmed such that it doesn't break the law. If the law says you need to merge into the bike lane before turning right, well, the car needs to follow that rule too.

CoryG892• 10 years ago

This kind of turn is one featured in a 2013 blog post that is known to be one of the primary causes of collisions between cars and people who bike resulting in serious injury or fatality.

Perhaps it is the primary cause of collision between bikes and cars being driven by humans. Perhaps the primary cause of collision would be different for self driving cars.

Personally, beyond convention, I don't see why one of these turns would be inherently safer than the other. Either way, you still need to look behind you, in the lane to your right, in order to safely turn.

A self driving car has the advantage of being able to see in all directions at the same time (to the extent that it's sensor array allows). I don't think it's entirely clear that the safest way for a human to drive will always be the safest way for a machine to drive.

revelation3• 10 years ago

This particular self driving car technology has been found running dark red lights [1], fundamentally ignorant of the law [hinc] and the operating company unwilling to meet even the most basic reporting standards that DMV and others require of self-driving cars [2].

Whatever advantages you ascribe to it are the product of science fiction, not the evidence in front of us.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self...

2: http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13990318/uber-refusing-pe...

jim-greer5• 10 years ago

The advantage of merging first is that you'd only side-swipe a cyclist.

What's the downside?

tyrust3• 10 years ago

I don't see why one of these turns would be inherently safer than the other. Either way, you still need to look behind you, in the lane to your right, in order to safely turn

As a cyclist, the difference is mostly one of expectations. If a car has slid into the bike lane prior to an intersection, I know that they will turn and that I should not try to pass. If the car does not do this, I may continue to bike next to them or even try to pass them in the intersection. This statement of intent is especially useful when the driver does not use their turn signal or uses it when they have already started their turn (which is often).

Also, it's the law [0] so it's not really up for debate.

[0] http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21717.html

mynegation• 10 years ago

As a driver, I am expected to signal. And if I signal my intention to turn right, if cyclist is not already to my right, I expect them not to go to my right, but stay behind me, whether I am in the bike lane or not.

Having said that, of course, I am always on the lookout for cyclists.

I don't understand why TFA does not discuss signaling.

revelation3• 10 years ago

What a joke. They are kids playing with an image recognition toolbox and letting it run wild on the public.

It seems like the government is happy to wait for the first serious accident that will no doubt immediately end whatever joke of engineering company finds its technology implicated.

gfody• 10 years ago

If I'm not mistaken it's actually Volvo's technology

bradford• 10 years ago

http://bicyclesafe.com/#righthook http://bicyclesafe.com/#dontPassOnTheRight

the above article lists one mitigation for the right hook: "Ride to the left" and, similiarly "Don't pass on the right".

Would this guidance (for bicyclists) be applicable in light of self-driving cars (in addition to human-driven cars)?

bonniemuffin• 10 years ago

"Ride to the left" isn't helpful when there's a bike lane, because you're already taking up a whole lane (the bike lane). It would defeat the whole purpose of having a bike lane if you had to take up a traffic lane to prevent people from right-hooking you.

"Don't pass on the right" is only useful when traffic is going slower than bicycle speed (i.e. during rush hour when the streets are clogged, but not any other time).

rdlecler1• 10 years ago

The Uber vehicle knows exactly if and where a bike is, and so it doesn't have to follow the defensive protocols that compensate for driver error. In fact we actually don't know how the car would react if a bike was in the lane. Maybe it slows down and lets it go by. Maybe it does merge into the lane to notify the rider. A similar problem is present for all merge lane action so I assume that it can deal with this case. About 100 people die in car accidents every day. Every day that we hold up progress on this is another 100 lives lost. Let's not be alarmists without having the facts.

duskwuff2• 10 years ago

"Our vehicles break the law [1] because we think it's not important."

[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

abalone• 10 years ago

The problem isn't that SF is against autonomous driving pilots. The problem is Uber doesn't want to register for a permit and thus be required to report its accidents / incidents of driver intervention.

Uber's claim is that a permit is not required because a human is overseeing the system. But that's 100% disingenuous. The permitting program explicitly assumes a human is in charge. The point is to compel companies to report when the human has to disengage the system because it making an error or fails to intervene in time and causes an accident.[1] That information is crucial for assessing the maturity of autonomous driving systems.

Probably Uber's fail rate is super high, judging from multiple reports about them running red lights on day 1. They don't want to scare people off by reporting their early numbers.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testi...

blurbleblurble• 10 years ago

I was once hit by a taxi while stopped at a light. He he did a right hook turn straight into me. This is why I don't stop at lights if I don't have to, and why I always get towadd the middle lane when I'm biking past a potential right turn zone.

cesarb• 10 years ago

Actually, this shows one of the strengths of self-driving vehicles:

Once an issue like this is found out, acknowledged as a problem, and a fix created, from then on it won't happen again (assuming no regressions). Gradually, the self-driving vehicles should become safer and safer; after several iterations, they should become safer than most human drivers.

That is how commercial aviation became one of the safest means of transport. Every significant incident was reviewed, direct and indirect contributing factors were determined, and new procedures and/or systems developed to reduce the chances of it happening again.

Unfortunately, it will take some time to get there. The initial implementations of self-driving vehicles are going to be less safe than the average human driver, and will remain so until enough experience is gathered. Not every accident is going to be of the "slow speed read-ended while waiting for the light" sort. Google has been getting away with it so far by putting a human on each vehicle, ready to take over on a hair trigger, while still trying to collect enough data to get over the safety cliff. I don't know how far they are, but by having the human assume so early, they are avoiding precisely the sort of difficult situations which could become important learning experiences.

bradknowles• 10 years ago

This assumes that all self-driving cars share the same code base.

I submit that most cars will be running very different versions of the code base, even if they are the same make, model, and year. In fact , because they are going to be in different jurisdictions, we can guarantee that this claim will be true.

lxmorj• 10 years ago

I was just in a human-driven Uber that did this exact thing (bad right turn), whilst I repeated "watch the bike on your right" 3-4 times until he listened just shy of swiping the bike.

1_2__3• 10 years ago

Yeah article doesn't show the third case, where cyclists consider it 'cutting them off' if you don't let them get to the intersection first - even when you're well ahead of them. I suspect what many complaining cyclists call a "hook turn" is just them not wanting to let cars get in front of them and claiming that's a dangerous situation (when in fact if they were another car they'd have the same obligation to let up and slot in behind the other vehicle).

kevin_thibedeau• 10 years ago

In sensible states cyclists only have to ride "as far to the right as practicable" too. That can mean taking the lane near problematic intersections. I always do it at stops to prevent the creep around right hooks just before the light turns green.

ArlenBales• 10 years ago

As a year-round cyclist commuter, the situation outlined is a bit more complicated than just two choices.

C) Sometimes method "A" is best, because there's too much car traffic or too unsafe car traffic for the cyclist to take the lane (method "B"). In this case, it works wonderfully if the car yields to the cyclist (and any pedestrians). When cars don't yield to the cyclist/pedestrians going straight, and they should ALWAYS yield, you have problems.

D) Method "B" is ideal, except when the intersection sucks and doesn't detect the cyclist. There is an intersection I pass through everyday that is like this. If it's empty and I take the lane, it doesn't detect me. If it's completely empty (no cars in sight from any direction), I usually ride through even on a red. If there's cars, I ride to the curb, dismount, hit the crosswalk button, re-mount, and wait for green. The problem arises when after I do this, cars show up behind me to make a right turn and putting me in situation "A". Normally situation "C" plays out if the driver yields to me, but even so I always make eye contact with the right turners to make sure they're aware of me.

The best situation is B) if a car is already in the lane turning right or going straight as I approach the intersection. I can sit in the lane going straight and the light will go green because it detects the car.

tl;dr I wish intersection lanes detected bicyclists better. So much aged infrastructure.

Nomentatus3• 10 years ago

This sort of thinking is why laws were passed to say that every car had to be preceded by a man on foot waving a flag, when cars were first introduced.

The author admits there's no current practical problem: "Since yesterday, we have been told that “safety drivers” in these vehicles have been instructed to disengage from self-driving mode when approaching right turns on a street with a bike lane and that engineers are continuing to work on the problem"

Then he calls for a petition to ban the robot cars! I remember back when introducing daylight savings time was feared because farmers thought it would greatly upset their cows (in Alberta, this was.) As it happens I hate daylight savings time now, but not for that reason. Hmm, come to think of it, there is an argument here re unintended consequences - if we've spotted one already, there are probably more. I believe I've argued myself to a standstill. If I weren't so stubborn, I'd switch sides.

chrisallenlane2• 10 years ago

I wonder if this is as big of a problem as the author is making it out to be.

I understand that the "right hook" kills a lot of cyclists, but I assume that's largely because of human driver blind-spots. Does the self-driving car have the same (or any) blind-spots?

This behavior should probably be fixed regardless, but I doubt these Uber cars are all rolling murder machines like the author seems to believe.

brianwawok• 10 years ago

I do not trust the sensors to be 100% on a small bike moving 25 mph. Not at all like sensing for a pedestrian or another car.

chrisallenlane2• 10 years ago

That's a fair point. That probably is harder to detect.

A Warning to People Who Bike: Self-Driving Ubers and Right Hook Turns

Related Stories