
How fixed-gear bikes can confuse Google’s self-driving cars - santaclaus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/26/how-fixed-gear-bikes-can-confuse-googles-self-driving-cars/
======
ipsin
_While a human driver can easily see a rider doing a track stand isn’t going
anywhere_...

Ok, I'm just going to come out and say, I'm a licensed human driver and a
bicyclist, and I find track stands _confusing_ too. Like a skateboarder in the
bike lane, there's a lot of potential for unexpected motion, and that needs to
be accounted for.

The bicyclist is wobbling in place, but could easily transition to going
forward or backwards without warning. The bicyclist is intent on the stand, so
drivers won't be able to gain eye contact.

I think the cloud of uncertainty around bicyclists is also why cars wrongly
yield to my bike so often at stop signs. Some bicyclists do unpredictable
things, and drivers incorporate that into their mental models.

People learn, and I'm confident that self-driving cars will too. Eventually.

~~~
pfooti
Yes, when I'm at a stop sign anywhere near a bike, I'll yield if I'm in a car.
Bicyclists are just too unpredictable - sometimes they'll roll the stop sign
even if it seems unwise (or maybe they just didn't notice me). So now I just
assume all bicyclists I see on the road will ignore all stop signs in their
way; it sometimes leads to awkward wave/stops, but better that than running
somebody over.

~~~
mc32
Keep in mind that once you "wave" you assumer responsibility for any accident
which might ensue do to your waving people on because others may not be aware
of your waving and interrupting expected traffic patterns.

~~~
pfooti
Yah, in general I hate wavers. The problem is that I've experienced bicyclists
who just don't follow traffic rules regarding stop, yield, and red lights.
Given that I know there's a nonzero probability that a bicycle will intersect
with my car if I pull out, I don't go from my stop until I'm pretty sure
they're going to stop at the 4-way.

As I mentioned in a cousin reply, I once struck a bicyclist who wasn't obeying
traffic rules (she blew a stop sign at a 4-way) and was found liable for the
accident at least by the officer who wrote the accident report. We're all
lucky her injuries weren't major, but there's _no way_ I'm going to risk
hitting a biker who is barreling down a hill toward a 4-way by assuming
they're going to follow the traffic laws.

------
seibelj
I truly believe that general purpose self driving cars are much farther away
than the latest press releases would suggest. Apparently they don't work well
at night, in the rain, when the road lines aren't perfect, etc[1]. They
basically only work in the perfect weather and roads of Mountain View during
the day.

In Boston, the roads are shit, the drivers are crazy (including me), and
everything is permanently under construction. Once people learn how to spot
these cars, very quickly the tricks to passing them are going to be learned.
Not to mention the jokers using laser pointers and whatnot to mess with them.
If you think this won't happen, you are sorely naive.

I think self driving cars will work for specialized cases, like long haul
trucking on highways, but for the commuter, it's going to be a long ways off.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-
car-...](http://gizmodo.com/6-simple-things-googles-self-driving-car-still-
cant-han-1628040470)

~~~
grecy
The first time an airplane flew it only went 120 feet (37 m).

11 years later the world had it's first regularly-scheduled commercial
airline. [2]

A lot can happen in 10 years.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Flights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Flights)

[2] [http://www.space.com/16657-worlds-first-commercial-
airline-t...](http://www.space.com/16657-worlds-first-commercial-airline-the-
greatest-moments-in-flight.html)

~~~
jfoutz
I think it's more amazing we went from 0.02 miles one way, to 477800 round
trip to the moon in just 66 years.

I vaguely recall the google director saying their autonomous cars already
drive better than his parents.

Even if it's only daytime clear weather driving, super cruise control would be
insanely useful for commuters, truck drivers, and city busses.

It's easy to fall into the trap of perfect or nothing. Even partial solutions
create a lot of value. Complete autonomous driving will be here real soon, but
there might be a few intermediate steps along the way.

~~~
kuschku
> super cruise control would be insanely useful for commuters, truck drivers,
> and city busses.

There’s something that does exactly that, is cheaper and safer: It’s called
rail.

~~~
jfoutz
And people often use that, the NYC subway is a great example. But it's not so
effective in lower density, or less established rail systems. You'll often see
east/west travel relatively accessible, but north/south hard, for example.
Rail only really serves those along the line. I'm sure phoenix could build a
ring and spoke system to connect up all of those low density developments.

The thing that sucks though, it's a big upfront cost. super cruise control is
an incremental cost that takes advantage of existing infrastructure.

Rail isn't so great at getting food to grocery stores. (cities, sure, but not
actual transportation endpoints.) Such a system could be built, but trucks are
so obviously effective, and they work with the existing infrastructure.

Rail is cool but a big upfront cost for something that's not obviously
superior to the current system seems wasteful.

Maybe fill train stations with self driving taxis to cover those last few
miles to home, or work, or wherever.

~~~
kuschku
Yes, the thing is just that the interstate system was in the end more
expensive than similar rail infrastructure would have been (especially in
maintenance).

And, well, yes, cars and trucks will still be necessary, but not nearly in the
same amount.

~~~
chadgeidel
I'd love to believe this quote, but light rail per mile is an order of
magnitude more expensive than highway per mile. Do you have any citations I
can look into?

Thanks.

~~~
jfoutz
I can't find anything more formal with a quick search, but this is pretty
plausible [http://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-
roads-...](http://alankandel.scienceblog.com/2014/01/11/rails-vs-roads-for-
value-utilization-emissions-savings-difference-like-night-and-day/)

$35million/mile for rail, $25million/mile for a single lane. Rail maintenance
is cheaper, and ongoing costs are generally lower - you don't need police
patrolling railroads.

Railroads are cool, and they have a lot of advantages, but we've got this huge
investment in our existing system. And unfortunately, unlike self driving
cars, there isn't a smooth transition. It's like switching from pc to mac, but
all of your software is home made, and must be rewritten. You have a huge
upfront investment to just get started, and you have to maintain the other
system as well.

~~~
pjc50
The two key advantages of road over rail:

\- much shorter stopping distances. This lets roads be "general access" in a
way that rails have never been, even if you were to have a railway running
past your house.

\- much smaller minimum turn radius

\- ability to drive around obstacles

~~~
kuschku
The situations where roads are better:

\- low amounts of people (or goods) \- going into different directions \-
coming from different places

The situations where rails are better:

\- high amounts of people (or goods) \- going into the same general direction
\- coming from the same general area

Which is why roads are damn useful in rural cases, but if you think about
building a 23-lane highway, maybe rail might be better.

------
drcode
Please Google Engineers: If your car knows where bicyclists are anyways, can
you please have an additional safety to stop people from opening the driver-
side door, even in a parked car, if a bicyclist is actively passing the car?

That is probably the biggest danger to me as a bicyclist in the city: People
opening doors on parked cars for me to slam into (and potentially throwing me
into a lane of car traffic) Your cars could easily outperform most humans in
preventing this dangerous situation.

~~~
monochromatic
Yes, I definitely want a car that locks me inside if it thinks some moron is
passing too close to my door.

~~~
Taylor_OD
I hate cyclists and driver online arguments bbbuuuttt... You probably also
hate when a cyclist is riding in the middle of the road to avoid car doors and
which makes you unable to pass him.

~~~
monochromatic
Cyclists should ride near the middle of the lane and be treated as taking up
the whole lane. I'm not gonna try to squeak by somebody within a single lane
just because he's riding toward the right side of the lane.,

------
jonknee
> “The odd thing is,” wrote the cyclist, “I felt safer dealing with a self-
> driving car than a human-operated one.”

In the not so far future this will be a concept impossible to explain to kids.
That we all used to drive around these multi-thousand pound machines and rely
on the expertise of often distracted strangers to not be maimed or killed (and
dying by the millions by the way)... It already is starting to sound
ridiculous. The thought of no machine in control will be terrifying before
long.

~~~
wingerlang
> In the not so far future this will be a concept impossible to explain to
> kids.

That people used to operate vehicles themselves? I don't see why this is a
concept hard grasp for kids.

~~~
dalke
In the not so far past, there were people employed to operate an elevator.
(Elevator operators still exist, but then again, so do steam trains - neither
are in widespread use.)

As a kid, this was hard for me to grasp. "Why did they hire someone to push a
button?"

------
tdaltonc
How should the car have responded to the cyclist? In ambiguous stops like this
I find non-verbal social cues like nods, facial expressions, and hand waves
are the only way to break the impasse.

~~~
mattzito
Potentially the car could flash the headlights, a signal that's commonly used
today to say, "I am waiting for you to go".

~~~
ams6110
Not everwhere. The other meaning for flashing headlights is "get out of my
way, I'm coming through"

~~~
jessaustin
This reminds me of the driving I saw when I traveled to India many years ago.
On relatively-major "two-lane" roads, trash and draft-animal traffic would
force trucks to drive basically in the center of the road. When two trucks
met, they would each swerve slightly to the right so as to barely avoid
crashing. _Before_ they met, however, they would each turn on their _left_
signal light. Our driver said it was supposed to intimidate oncoming traffic
into leaving more room.

~~~
aptwebapps
In India they drive on the left, did you get your sides switched?

~~~
jessaustin
Haha yes I must have.

------
morganvachon
> _If self-driving vehicles almost never crash, roads will become immensely
> more safe and inviting to cyclists._

Not unless the more aggressive cyclists also start following the rules of the
road as they pertain to bicycles. I can't count the times I've seen near
accidents caused by cyclists who make abrupt, last-second dashes into oncoming
traffic because they feel they have 100% of the right-of-way 100% of the time.
And I say that as a bicyclist myself.

~~~
Zigurd
As a driver who recently had a jackass cyclist cut across opposing traffic
across Mass Ave in Central Square in front of me, I'd rather have the self-
driving car I'll soon be robot chauffeured in stand on the brakes than hit the
cyclist, had he been more of a jackass than he was. People inconvenienced for
a few seconds by cyclists need to get over themselves and probably have the
wrong attitude to have a driver's license.

~~~
delinka
"Inconvenienced" is not the right word. "Frightened witless" is more apropos.

Example: The cyclist cuts in front of me, violating traffic laws, and I hit
him and he's injured or killed. Not only does this affect me emotionally, but
suddenly I'm in the liability hotseat unless I can prove the cyclist was in
the wrong. After all, I'm in a one ton car and he's on a 30lb bike. It is this
situation that I'm hoping to avoid, and if a cyclist nearly causes it, I'm
pissed.

Unless it'd been another car. Then the damage to the other vehicle is pretty
obvious and, since we're on city streets, neither driver is injured.

~~~
jessaustin
The impression I get from the media and from cycling advocates is that auto
drivers are very rarely ticketed for killing or injuring cyclists. But please,
ignore that fact and continue to drive so as not to kill and injure cyclists.

------
Lendal
I wonder how they're going to handle event traffic. Football games, concerts
and other events where the traffic is being heavily managed by traffic
officers on the street. You're supposed to obey the traffic officer and ignore
traffic lights, stop signs and even road directionality. If they direct you to
go the wrong way down a one-way street, that's what you do because it is
special event traffic.

Will the self-driving cars be able to handle this?

~~~
dantiberian
Perhaps Google will open up an API for authorities to override map information
for temporary events.

~~~
ninkendo
I think that solution would be far worse. Could you imagine if it got hacked?
Some hacker sends all self-driving cars the wrong way down some one-way
street.

~~~
kuschku
And even if the Google side doesn’t get hacked – as we’ve seen before, the
government side will contract this out to the lowest bidder, who’ll hire some
guy in china to do it and give him full root access.

------
anonu
Hate to nitpick, but... the title is misleading. The effect of doing a track
stand causes the self-driving car to be confused. Not the fact that the bike
has a fixed-gear. I have a free-wheel single gear bike that I can do track
stands on...

~~~
LanceH
I guess you could do one stopped uphill, but with a free wheel, you're just
balancing. There is no way to pedal the bike in reverse.

------
fabrice_d
I'm commuting by bike and on my route in Mountain View I see quite many Google
cars. They are very conservative and so far I haven't seen one that acted
based on my arm turn signals. Either they don't recognize them, or they don't
trust me ;) Overall I feel much more secure biking around autonomous Google
cars than human drivers. Just the number of people doing red light violations
is incredible here in the SV.

------
6t6t6
> _We repeated this little dance for about two full minutes and the car never
> made it past the middle of the intersection. The two guys inside were
> laughing and punching stuff into a laptop._

That's what I would call to have a great job.

------
sandworm101
Lol. This reminds me of communizing on my motorcycle in the rain (vfr800).
Whenever I lay flat on the tank to avoid the rain a bit every human-driven car
thought I was about to rocket past them. I wonder if a similar thing could
happen with a motocycle. Someone on a sportbike can strike a much more speed-
like pose than someone on a bicycle. Perhaps a motocycle looking like it was
speeding into the intersection could convince the robot to panic break?

------
coin
Can someone explain what a "track stand" is?

~~~
stickydink
There's a YouTube video linked in the article. Basically, stand off the seat,
and balance while stationary by rocking forwards and backwards. Possible on a
fixed gear bike because pedaling backwards moves the wheel backwards.

~~~
alistairSH
Also possible on a "normal" freewheeled bicycle. Just takes a bit of an
incline and a bit more body english. Not super useful, but a neat trick, and
good balance exercise.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbeaB3G79vI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbeaB3G79vI)

~~~
ScottBurson
Indeed. I can't do it -- well, I've never really tried -- but I saw a guy
doing it this morning. His bike definitely had derailleurs. (Though hmm -- I
suppose I don't know for an absolute fact that it had a freewheel. But I've
never heard of a rear cluster without a freewheel.)

------
andygates
Track stands are "almost moving" by design - every rock is supposed to be
nearly the explosion that leaps you ahead of the other guy for victory,
fortune and glory. It's a bit like a sprinter's crouch - and as a driver, if I
saw a sprinter's crouch by the roadside, I'd be cautious and confused.

Good to see the car handled it safely.

------
futhey
Interesting. I didn't know the term "track stand" existed, but, yeah, as a
cyclist myself, I know a human driver would have flipped me off after a few
seconds and plowed through the intersection.

------
001sky
_" But the track stand, which are generally done only by riders on fixed-gear
bikes, quickly became a problem."_

Track stand on reg bike no problem. So that's a problem.

------
nkozyra
This obviously has nothing to do with the bike and everything to do with
detecting and reacting to movement. I think the lede is buried here.

------
Zigurd
Closed. Not a bug.

------
zer00eyz
"Gartner placed autonomous vehicles at the peak of inflated expectations"

Sounds about right. I think that we all want to see self driving cars, but I
don't think were ready for software with morality. If I'm driving a car filled
with kids and I'm faced with the choice of running over the old lady or
driving the kids off the cliff I'm pretty confident in what choice I'm going
to make. Is that the choice everyone would make? is that the choice the
programer made? do I have a morality switch in the car? will it make value
judgements about the occupants and the external world when forced to make a
bad call?

Its going to be interesting times if these things end up on the road.

~~~
sandworm101
Maybe autodrive cars, but I certainly do not want to see driverless cars. I
want meat onboard. Licensed meat. Someone to get the tickets. Someone to sue
when the robot does something stupid. Someone with a foot on the hydraulic
braking system and mechanical steering for when the electrics fail.

~~~
toomuchtodo
Where is the meat operating Predator/Reaper/Global Hawk drones? Thousands of
miles away in an air-conditioned cargo container in the outskirts of Las
Vegas.

~~~
zer00eyz
Ok is there a difference between "writing software for global hawk" and
"writing software for self driving cars"

As humans killing others is something we do, and based on history were pretty
good at. We have the ability to justify our actions in some fairly ugly ways.
There is a great quote from fog of war (check it out if you haven't seen it)
on the firebombing of japan in WWII

"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war
criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war
criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if
his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if
you win?"

So thats war, thats folks who build the engines of war, and send folks out to
die and kill. I would say that in writing a missile guidance system, your
writing it as "fit for purpose" and should KNOW and COMPREHEND what is going
to happen when it is used.

Is that going to be the same mind set for someone building a self driving car?
Would I, or you, feel any better knowing that I had saved lives in 'theory' or
'statistically' only to know that I had caused actual death with my
programing? I don't know how I would feel, I'm somewhat thankful that I'm not
facing that dilemma in my current job.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I think you missed my point. Ignore for the moment what drones are used for (a
pilot still makes the final decision to deploy ordinance).

My point was, software has advanced far enough for unmanned vehicles can fly
on their own and navigate without human intervention. The X47-B (the Navy's
"Salty Dog" UAV) can take off from an aircraft carrier, navigate to waypoints,
refuel on-air from a tanker, and land _back on an aircraft carrier deck in the
ocean_ without any human intervention.

Its not a stretch to think that self-driving cars are of similar complexity,
and the problems around them will be solved in due time as well. There is no
reason to have "meat" in the driver's seat anymore.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B)

~~~
zer00eyz
A drone isn't the same thing as a car with a person in it.

Look at the problem tree for the drone, if it comes to a decision between
crashing into the big expensive carrier or dumping it self in the sea, whats
it going to choose? You can base this decision on dollars only and still make
the right call.

The self driving car is going to face a genuine ethical dilemma at some point
(or its coding will have to deal with one, as it isn't "self aware"). For the
sake of simplicity lets make that "occupant or pedestrian". Are the lives of
equal value? How does it choose? Am I allowed to influence that choice as the
"passenger" in the car? By getting in the car do I have to agree to some TOS
that says the car will sacrifice me to save someone else when it is
unavoidable?

