Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

"These are completely safe autonomous vehicles": Cyclist spots driverless car using cycle lane

Cruise insists its car would not have gone into the bike lane if there was a cyclist in it

"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.

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.

Cruise driverless car in Austin bike lane (screenshot Twitter/@WalkerATX)

"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."

Cruise driverless car in Austin bike lane (screenshot Twitter/@WalkerATX)

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.

Tesla FSD Beta crashes into cycle lane (screenshot via YouTube/AI Addict)

> Tesla using Full Self-Driving Beta crashes into cycle lane bollard...weeks after Elon Musk's zero collisions claim

Then, days later a second YouTuber uploaded a video of their Tesla in FSD almost ramming a cyclist in San Francisco.

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

66 comments

Avatar
pasley69 | 1 year ago
0 likes

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?

Avatar
cmedred | 1 year ago
0 likes

C'mon. How about looking at the bright side? It will keep pesky cyclists from filtering!

Avatar
Daclu Trelub | 1 year ago
3 likes

Why are these asshole companies allowed to do this on the public streets? Some weird shit going on over there.

Avatar
Born_peddling | 1 year ago
1 like

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)

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to Born_peddling | 1 year ago
1 like
Born_peddling wrote:

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)

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. 

Avatar
PRSboy | 1 year ago
7 likes

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!

Avatar
hutchdaddy | 1 year ago
3 likes

So, no difference between this and a car with a driver?

Avatar
andystow replied to hutchdaddy | 1 year ago
9 likes

I'm assuming that these self driving cars are technically on the phone 100% of the time, instead of just 30%.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to andystow | 1 year ago
2 likes

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".

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to andystow | 1 year ago
2 likes
andystow wrote:

I'm assuming that these self driving cars are technically on the phone 100% of the time, instead of just 30%.

But unlike humans, computers can genuinely (sort of) multi-task. 

Avatar
cyclisto | 1 year ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
KDee replied to cyclisto | 1 year ago
0 likes

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. 

Avatar
Gimpl replied to KDee | 1 year ago
5 likes
KDee wrote:

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. 

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. 

Avatar
giff77 replied to KDee | 1 year ago
3 likes

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. 
 

 

Avatar
schlepcycling replied to giff77 | 1 year ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
brooksby replied to schlepcycling | 1 year ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
rivers replied to brooksby | 1 year ago
1 like
brooksby wrote:

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.

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.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to schlepcycling | 1 year ago
0 likes
schlepcycling wrote:

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.

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. 

Avatar
schlepcycling replied to Jetmans Dad | 1 year ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to schlepcycling | 1 year ago
0 likes
schlepcycling wrote:

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.

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. 

Avatar
KDee replied to schlepcycling | 1 year ago
0 likes

Exactly. Until they're beyond being test taxis, they offer nothing.

Avatar
pasley69 replied to schlepcycling | 1 year ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
KDee replied to giff77 | 1 year ago
1 like

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.

Avatar
cyclisto replied to KDee | 1 year ago
0 likes
KDee wrote:

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. 

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.

Avatar
Beatnik69 | 1 year ago
8 likes

I take it Robert has only recently learned the word "egregious"

Avatar
makadu | 1 year ago
3 likes

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.

Avatar
Sredlums replied to makadu | 1 year ago
7 likes

I'd say the car not recognising those faded lines is another reason for not allowing autonomous cars.

Avatar
nosferatu1001 replied to makadu | 1 year ago
1 like

TSGRD2016 mostly got rid of that loophole - signs just have to be good enough and not perfect.  

Avatar
janusz0 replied to makadu | 1 year ago
0 likes

Is it legal to cross an unbroken lane marker in Austin, Tx?

 

Avatar
polainm replied to makadu | 1 year ago
0 likes

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. 

Pages

Latest Comments