
A Warning to People Who Bike: Self-Driving Ubers and Right Hook Turns - doener
http://www.sfbike.org/news/a-warning-to-people-who-bike-self-driving-ubers-and-right-hook-turns/
======
cesarb
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
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
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.

------
KerrickStaley
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.

~~~
stanleydrew
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.

~~~
jakobegger
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).

------
freehunter
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-greer
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.

~~~
freehunter
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.

~~~
jim-greer
I'm not advocating a new law, and neither is the article. I just want Uber to
take these cars off the road until they've fixed known safety issues.

------
CoryG89
> 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.

~~~
tyrust
>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](http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21717.html)

~~~
mynegation
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.

~~~
revelation
A signal is not priority. If there is a vehicle in the lane to your right they
are perfectly free to pass, signal or not.

~~~
gumby
Indeed they are free to pass _legally_ , and even morally. But as a (mostly
former) cyclist and parent, I taught my kid: "The laws of physics trump the
laws of the California Republic." Or, as Neil Stephenson put it: act as if the
drivers are proactively trying to kill you.

And apart from one unpleasant automobile-bike interaction this (and a helmet)
has kept me alive.

~~~
falcolas
One more for your collection: The car always has the right of weight.

------
agildehaus
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.

~~~
eximius
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.

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

~~~
eximius
Fair.

------
rdlecler1
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.

~~~
abalone
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...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing)

------
ArlenBales
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.

------
Nomentatus
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.

------
macawfish
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.

------
kevin_thibedeau
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.

------
1_2__3
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).

------
bradford
[http://bicyclesafe.com/#righthook](http://bicyclesafe.com/#righthook)
[http://bicyclesafe.com/#dontPassOnTheRight](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
"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).

------
chrisallenlane
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
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.

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

------
paintnp
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.

~~~
monochromatic
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.

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

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

------
mjevans
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.

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

~~~
mjevans
This brings up a related point.

Safety could be vastly improved if only there were a common standard for all
drivers, pedestrians, and other users of the road.

The only problems are ( [https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)
Standards ) and getting everyplace to adopt it.

Maybe we can get Google's Spinoff, Tesla, and the other self driving companies
to just define one and push that in to law?

