AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES LATEST CYCLIST THREAT
Study's suggestions for sharing the road are unrealistic, says Lorraine Sommerfeld.
A team at the University of Glasgow issued a new study last week to the auto journo world. They've researched how autonomous vehicles could better understand the vulnerable road users they will have to interact with; in this case, cyclists.
“Human-computer interaction specialists from the University of Glasgow are highlighting the need for new systems in autonomous vehicles (AVS) capable of replicating the complex social interactions between human car drivers and cyclists on U.K. roads,” they report.
While it's encouraging to see studies that focus on the complex — and always dangerous — equation of thousands of kilograms of steel meeting flesh, a few things jumped out that made me wonder if we'll ever bridge this divide.
There is no such thing as an autonomous car available to the public right now. Tesla owners keep that brand in the headlines by proving this reality over and again, often at the cost of their own lives and those of first responders, among others. Still, Tesla recently won a court decision against a Tesla driver who blamed the company for her injuries after she crashed while using autopilot, but without hands on the wheel. It's interesting when that company grasps for the fine print to haul its butt out of the fire after its leader keeps shoving them into the flames, taunting his acolytes to prove his theories.
While that's a win for Tesla, it also points to the duelling messages that come from the same company: a leader that claims to be this close to full autonomy, and an industry that knows it's just not so. At the Shanghai Auto Show a couple of weeks ago, China's largest electric-vehicle manufacturer, BYD, went on the record as saying autonomous cars will be “basically impossible.” To be clear, driver-assist programs keep getting better; they just can't be called autonomous.
The Glasgow study offers some suggestions to make roadways safer for cyclists amid a sea of cars driving themselves: “Self-driving cars could better signal their intentions with displays integrated onto their exteriors ... A series of traffic-light-like coloured LEDS on the cars' edges could display animations which signal their intentions to manoeuvre, slow or speed up, or give way, helping cyclists to better interpret the AVS' intentions and respond appropriately.”
While it's nice to see those anticipating automobile autonomy considering vulnerable road users ahead of a vehicle,
I'm curious how many manufacturers would consider building something so esthetically uncool into their designs. And more importantly, that final sentence means the onus is still on the least protected person in this equation. I have to read your car now? What if I can't see it?
The researchers hit a stumbling block with this next suggestion, however: “Cyclists could also wear new types of `smart glasses' which display information on AVS' intentions by allowing the cars to communicate directly with any cyclists around them. AVS could signal that the right of way is up for negotiation, for example, with orange lights displayed on the vehicle and a vibration sent to the cyclists' glasses as a non-verbal message.”
How do we find ourselves seeking ways for cyclists to communicate with a computer if we can't even create a safe environment for vulnerable road users when someone is actually behind the wheel?
You've probably experienced this predicament if you've walked more than a few blocks. You find yourself standing beside a truck with a hood as high as your shoulders (worse if you're a child), and tinted windows that rule out eye contact with the driver whose view is also blocked by side mirrors as big as a suitcase.
Will they yield?
You've never been safer inside a vehicle — especially a large one. I want the same level of safety for everyone else on the road and welcome studies exploring that, but I don't see how autonomous cars will deliver it. The onus is on them.