Autonomous cars #2: Speed Limits and other ignored-laws

Previous post #1: If an autonomous car break the speed limit -who takes the blame?

Cycling journalist Carlton Reid, followed up by referencing an article by "Robocar" engineer and evangelist, Brad Templeton, who argues that fears of robocar-related crashes are overrated. He may well have a point given the willingness of todays drivers to make decisions that endanger "overtake cyclists before a corner" with followon decisions that compound the first mistake "I continued ever after seeing the oncoming cyclists".

Robocars are unlikely to suffer from it is the unwillingness to reverse a decision once the situation made it clear it was not the right one. Yet we see that on the road every day: the overtaker who keeps going, the left-hook van driver who, even though they have underestimated the cyclists' speeds, continues to pass and turn. Removing egotism from the decision making process may be progress.

However, the article wasn't actually on the reliability of robocars, but on the moral issue: should robocars break speed limits -and if so, who is at at fault.

Brad actually picks this issue up at one point:

More complex are the situations where breaking the vehicle code is both normal and even necessary, particularly for unmanned vehicles. One must be assertive on some roads in order to get through at all, and everybody does it and nobody is ticketed except in an accident or during zero-tolerance enforcement days.

He has acknowledged that breaking traffic laws is a social norm in many cities, and  rather than saying "it will be impossible for robocars to break the laws", he says "it's complex".  Yet he hints at why the laws get disregarded: because you can. If you only get tickets on "zero-tolerance" days then you can discount the law.

Which is of course precisely why the Daily Mail Fuckwits are so strongly against speed cameras, RLJ cameras and CCTV enforcement of school keep clear zones and bus-lanes. We can automate enforcement of traffic laws today -yet to do so generates a backlash from those who consider being able to break them a human right.

Brad gets into detail on the speed limit issue in another article, where he argues that it should be the right of a robocar to decide for itself what a safe speed is, looking at the two options of speed limits

1. As with its ancestor, the cruise control, the operator of a robocar can set the car to operate at any speed within its general limits, regardless of the road speed limit. The moral and safety decisions rest with this person.
2. The vehicle must be programmed to not break the speed limit, nor allow its operator to do so. It must be aware of all limits and obey them. 

I believe the first choice is both better and more likely. It's more likely because the public has a strong love for having control of their car, even if it is automated. Attempts to put in speed limiters by law have all been rejected, and cars are routinely sold able to go much faster than any allowed speed limit. 

That is, he believes that the driver has the right to make the decisions, even though they endanger others more than the driver -and society has  a set of laws because we recognise that the drivers aren't the best people to make those decisions.

Key claims here:

A vehicle limited to the speed limit will be going much more slowly than traffic on most US freeways, and be forced to drive in the right lane. (& arguments against this)

--- Only if the speed limits were not being enforced. If they were, the robocar would be integrated with the normal traffic flow.

"On many roads all lanes are moving faster than the limit. The limited car would become an obstruction to traffic."

-- Only because all lanes are full of drivers breaking the law. I they were all driving legally this would not be an issue

"This less comfortable ride, plus the longer travel time, will create a great temptation to manually take the wheel on many highways." (& increased risk follows)

Again, this only holds if the driver could break the speed limit with impunity. If speed limits were enforced there would be no benefit of manual driving, hence no increased risk. Anyway, surely robocars are about the ability to work while you drive, to not get tired on long journeys (where the speed difference between 70 and 80 mph may actually alter journey times)

Eventually he comes out and  makes his stance clear -and this is a stance of someone who works on robocars at at google-

I believe the math and other arguments clearly show that robocars should be allowed to move faster than the speed limit so long as they are rated suitably safe in the particular conditions, and the bulk of other traffic is also doing this.

This is just the safe speed and 85% percentile bollocks restated. Yet it ignores how the defacto speed limits of a road and a country have evolved: through a failure to enforce the limits and the gradual acquisition of a motor vehicle fleet designed to break those limits with impunity. Now that a majority of British cars are stable and quiet above 80 mph, the drivers and passengers believe that it is not only safe to do so -but their right- and that any attempt to rigorously enforce the speed limits becomes a political minefield.

Finally, Brad comes out and admits the situation we have in cities today: breaking the law is sometimes necessary because everyone else does: Speeding is just one of code violations almost everybody does.
 

In cities today, "aggressive driving" is often viewed as necessary. Examples: squeezing past bicycles, pulling out half-way across a road to complete a right turn, pulling out in front of oncoming traffic at a roundabout, turning right across the front of an oncoming car.

These are actions that are commonplace in a city, viewed as acceptable to drivers -yet which are some of the actions which are utterly terrifying to anyone trying to cycle in the area.

The "rules of the road" which have evolved in our cities are rules built around  800 Kg vehicles with ABS brakes and fast acceleration -and an assumption that they have right of way over all others. 

In the UK, the law that gets broken the most must be the "give way to pedestrians when turning" law. Anyone walking would die if they believed this would hold: so what will the robocar story be here? To actually give way to pedestrians? Or to follow the actions of the rest of the motor fleet?

The choice of which driving policies to implement in a robocar is something we cyclists cannot naively hope will be made so as to suit us. It will be made to suit the paying customers, within the constraints of the legal system. If robocar sales are suppressed because they don't drive aggressively enough, because they don't speed on the motorways, then the manufacturers will keep pushing this "we need to keep up with traffic" bollocks, this "everyone does it" rule.

But what will happen over time? Even if the first generation of robocars broke the speed limit, cut up pedestrians and squeezed past cyclists "because everyone did it", will there be some threshold -say when 51% of the motor fleet is automated, when suddenly the "everyone does it" argument becomes obsolete? As at that point vehicles will be driven dangerously not because people choose to drive that way, not because robocars do that way to blend in, but because it is what robocars have been programmed to do -and even when they are in the majority, it is how they will behave.

This is why it is critical that autonomous cars are not allowed to break speed limits in autonomous modes from day 1. If not, a precedent will be set that will remain unchallenged even if the cars form the vast majority of the fleet. There won't be a sudden "75% day" when there are deemed to be enough of them that they have to stop speeding, to stop blocking junctions to make progress, or to start giving way to pedestrians. These have to be done from the outset, so that the robots can set an example for the humans.

If an autonomous car break the speed limit -who takes the blame?

Autonomous Cars are the great hope of the car industry, ironically, to solve all problems that cars have created: congestion, safety, parking, etc. It's also an obsession with google -maybe in a misguided belief that it will solve problems, more likely that they want to get all those extra hours people spend in traffic -browsing time.

Ignoring the technical issues -will they work- there are legal issues -and that's something cycling and road safety campaigners need to sort out -before the decisions are made for them.

Start with a simple question: If an autonomous car break the speed limit -who takes the blame?

This is a simple question but gets complex fast.  Today, if a car breaks the speed limit, the driver takes the blame. The driver is expected to be aware of what type of road it is, and what extra road signs show restrictions on the mandated maximums: 50 mph, 40, 30, 20. There are even temporary speed limits -those on motorways are still enforced.

It doesn't matter whether speed limits are long-standing, temporary or recent -if you break them, you take the blame.

Yet lots of people do break the limits, to the extent that if you drive round Bristol at 30 mph drivers behind you start to get impatient and then frantic. Drive down the end of the M32, where it's become 30 mph -you'd have a bus go into the back of you.  And as for the M5 to Birmingham: 85 is the minimum speed in the fast lane.

The defacto speed limits of much of S Gloucs and Bristol are higher than what's legal -the reason people drive at those speeds is because they get away with it. Which is why there's so much hate of speed cameras. Everyone views it as their right to drive at 85 mph down a motorway,  35 in town. Speed cameras don't catch one or two speeders -they force the speed limit down by 15 mph.

But speed camera or police camera: driver is always guilty.

Now, what about Autonomous Cars?

If they can be configured to break the speed limit, if there is some "break the law" button, what would that mean? That drivers have the option of telling the car to break the law -and if so, they are liable? But even building such a feature in means the car manufacturer wink-wink providing an overtake option "to use in emergency" -exactly the same way they hint about how cars can drive at 130 mph "in Germany".

The alternative: you can't speed in autonomous mode, you have to go manual -how is that handled? Does the a-car log this fact and speed? They'd have to: because if the car got caught speeding in manual mode, then the fact it wasn't in autonomous mode is something that'd be used by the car manufacturer as a defence.

But what if the car broke the speed limit in autonomous mode? If you are driving there is no excuse for doing so -and you take the hit: points and penalties. What happens in automatic mode? Does Ford or Google take a hit? Does the driver who was reading email get blamed for the actions of their car?

And how does the car know the speed limits?

Drivers have the road and its signed, but a-cars are going to have to rely on digital maps with speed-limit data on it. How often are those maps going to be refreshed? When a new 20 mph zone is rolled out, can a-cars break the limit until they get an update? And who is at fault then? Is it an "oh well never mind" problem? Is the fault of the driver? The map updaters? Or even the council? After all, today's GPS units have a big disclaimer "don't rely on this" -which is precisely what autonomous cars plan to do.

It gets better thought: in france the speed limits on autoroutes changes depending on weather -that's officially, not just "Slow down in the rain" hints.

Nominally then, an automatic car could break the speed limit in france even if the map was up to date -because it wasn't aware of the weather.

These all sound theoretical questions -but if they don't get answered the likely outcome will be "if an autonomous car breaks the speed limit -never mind". That will be especially in the case in changed limits, permanent or temporary. While drivers could get penalised, the fact that autonomous cars break the limits until the maps are updated is something that could become accepted as inevitable.

No doubt car manufacturers will also be pushing for higher limits for a-cars on motorways, say, 85 mph in dedicate lanes. Which is what they will know they have to in order to preserve the defacto 85 mph limit, to sell autonomous driving on motorways.

Yet from a road safety perspective, this question, who takes the blame when an autonomous car breaks the speed limit, is critical.

Because the answer to that will shape the answer to the next question: if an autonomous car kills someone: who takes the blame?

Level Crossings and red lights

As the govt has just announce 32M for level crossing safety, its worth noting that they have recognised that infrastructure changes are needed, because attempts to change driver behaviour are failing.

• level crossings in NI -someone blocks the "no waiting" area, as its only the normal yellow hatched area people ignore.
• Cornwall: somone oblivious to the warning lights
• scotland. Here they were trying a camera to deter "reckless drivers". Not a "mutual respect" campaign, but one of threats. Still, clearly inadequate.
• Scotland,: same story, better video
• England, a new nine-camera police van: The key point "level crossing lights are the lights even emergency vehicles can't go through". Essex and cambridgeshire "seem to be the worst offenders". 
• 
  
• wales, "Too many motorists continue to break the law by jumping the lights or swerving around barriers at level crossings." (and pedestrians)
• Wales: absolute insanity -though unlike the cambridge cyclist, this fuckwit is endangering everyone on the train: "The motorist admitted dangerous driving, claiming he did not see the flashing lights and failed to notice cars waiting at the crossing."

Where are the fucking mutual respect campaigns "Be nice to trains and they won't kill you?"

The answer, they've tried, they've failed. Which shows how useless mutual respect campaigns are: if they don't teach people to respect trains, what chance have cyclists.

Why are so many vehicles running level crossings? Why are the numbers up? That is something that the network rail have seemed to miss completely, though the BBC has picked up on it,: Jumping the lights is now a mass motoring offence.

Drivers are used to running red lights -even if they are MPs they do it- and now treat red lights as a hint. The lack of experience of level crossings may also be a factor -they don't look like normal lights- but how can you miss dropping barriers? The answer: you can't, you can instead make a decision to swerve round them because either you are going too fast to stop, or you are too impatient to wait.

It's precisely because so many people run red lights in town that the chance of being stopped has dropped -leaving level crossings last only place where the government cares.

Maybe if RLJing was enforced everywhere, aggressively, railway lines would be safer too

Surrey, or why do the home counties hate cyclists?

Last week a debate, broadcast on the radio, about cycling in Surrey.

Reviews by Big Blue Meanie and Surrey MTBer. give a view from the cyclists perspective

1. Claims that cyclists (lycra louts, MAMILs -leisure cyclists explicitly) are bringing the county to its knees by locking the hard-pressed-motorists in their houses on the hundreds of road closures every year.
2. Claims that the narrow country lanes are too narrow for bicycles and cars, with the implication being: no cyclists.
3. Claims the cyclists are a threat to horses.

These are all: bollocks.

But they get their airing, they get their national press, 

The key protester, Ian Huggins,  who puts a sports car on his Change.org page, complains about cyclists stopping him getting to work, at his pigeon shooting business. Yes, thats right: The man who wants to keep cyclists out of surrey makes a living by encouraging leisure uses of surrey. Can he not see how hypocritical it is that he complains about leisure cyclists when his own business model is based on people playing at weekends? No, he can't because he's blinded by his own arrogance: that surrey is for cars

Selected comments from the petition, showing that a recurrent theme is not "the road closures", it is the presence of cyclists holding up traffic, cycling too fast (this is on roads where cars are going faster) and generally coming in from outside.

• The volume of cyclists riding 2-4 abreast now on our roads is ridiculous & dangerous
• The bike riders come flying down the lanes, often 3 or 4 abreast at great speed, alternatively, they ride in long lines making it impossible to pass them.
• "This madness must stop; the roads and public spaces are for everybody, and the needs of some should not outweigh the needs of others. "
• It's not only the closing of roads that infuriates me, it's the fact that EVERY Sunday we get swarms of these idiots on their precious bikes riding in packs...GET THEM OFF OUR ROADS.
• Cyclists hav become a pest.
• Hugely congested roads made worse by cyclists, who pay no road taxes and continually break the law.
• The numbers of cyclists on our roads, which are not designed for use by cyclists and motor vehicles at the same time:- IS NOW BECOMING DANGEROUS
• Why should the cyclists completely take over our local roads whilst paying not a penny in insurance or road fund licence.
• Fed up of lycra clad louts on the local roads
• kettled in their own homes, unable to pursue their own activities in order to facilitate the amusement of cyclists who neither live nor pay tax here
• Spoiling the quality of our life in Surrey.
• We are all suffering owing to the huge increase in the number of cyclists practising for the various events especially at weekends
• Surrey's narrow lanes cannot accommodate cycles & cars. 
• This is a problem emerging all over England, not just Surrey. 
• The cyclists are dangerous and abusive need to be stopped
• I have moved my horses away from Surrey as it became too dangerous to ride out in the countryside.
• Monday to Sunday, on most days cyclists are training in this area. The roads are not suitable and during rush hour they cause a major hazard.
• yet again the cyclists take over the roads
• County residents are being bullied off the roads byt he rampant fad for cycling
• I drive daily on the minor roads blighted by groups of inconsiderate cyclists
• Cyclists present a road hazard and should stick to off road routes
• They are a serious menace and should be kept inside the M25 
• Every weekend we already have aspiring Bradleys hogging our roads 
• Impose a fine for the large groups of cyclists blocking up roads 'practising'
• The roads are not a recreational facility, we pay for their up-keep so we can drive on them not close them, 
• We are already plagued by convoys of cyclists riding two or three abreast
• We have since been plagued all year round by uncaring and unwelcome cyclists 
• We are inundated with cyclists every weekend
• groups of cyclists who have no consideration for motorists...Our country lanes used to be such a pleasure to walk or drive along.

The signers view cyclists as outsiders coming in "training" for the big event. They can't understand that the cyclists may be coming out for fun, and that killing the one-day closure events isn't going to make them go away. They also can't seem to recognise that if a road is too narrow for cars and bicycles -maybe the cars shouldn't be there?

All these signatures are a sign of a problem: residents of the home counties who have seen a rise in road cycling emanating from London, one that goes head to head with the residents expectations of their right to drive a crossover-SUV round country lanes at 60 mph. But it is precisely their habits of racing round so fast that has killed everyday cycling in the area, that and the fact that a key role of the home counties is to be extended commuter country for London. They may complain about people from "inside the M25" coming out with their bicycles, but these same people will drive into London -even if now they feel too threatened by cyclists to drive round Richmond Park,.

Anyone who wants to ban cyclists from London from cycling in their county has just lost the right to drive their car in London or any other city. Why should London care that people from Surrey want to drive to work? They've chosen to live out of town -tough. As for people coming out from London at weekends -that's why you have businesses like golf and shooting alongside farming. You can't start being selective about what Londoners do when you come to your area.

This petition goes way beyond Surrey -and as the comments show, it goes way beyond one or two closures. No, it is a sign of conflict between the rural commuters -those who choose to live in the countryside for a quality of life that depends on fast journeys by car, and those who want to cycle round the countryside. Sportives may be the flashpoint, but its clear that cyclists in general are unwelcome.

This is where the BBC's article "Power to regulate Surrey cyclists 'limited'" comes into the mix. It sounds like the residents do want some restriction on cycling, but  as the police say, "we are limited about how much we can regulate cycling which is not part of a race."

Are the police really responding to the petitioners saying "our hands are tied?" That's not a good start.  Because if this Surrey attempt to ban cycling -which is what it boils down to- keeps going on, it's going to get more press, and more of the other home counties joining in. 

The New Forest is clearly another flash point, along with the Chilterns. Near Bristol, it's less inflammatory: there's more space to the south of the city, the cotswolds and then Wales nearby. But even here, the haters will be hearing about Surrey and thinking "we need to regulate them here too"

cycling campaigners: dress normal for the photos

In Reading cycling campaigners are rightfully protesting about cycling conditions.

Yet they are sadly, doing this by appearing in photos covered in hi-viz, waterproofs and helmets. Even in space4cycling the flouro vests made an appearance along with helmets.

Wonderful as these protests are -especially the regional ones -all cyclists must stop dressing like this for press events as it makes everyone look fucking wierd to the usual regional press commenter fuckwits!

Even if you normally go for the full commuter regalia of building-site chic, hiviz & reflective, helmet with headcam and a set of gloves, when you are being photographed for the press -be it a mass protest or only one or two of you in front of some shit cycling farcility -take the time to dress like a person, not like a cyclist. Or at least hide the safety gear before the cameras come out.

Why? It makes you look normal. It makes you look like a person, not "a cyclist", member of the outgroups who get all the bike lanes and yet still aren't grateful.

You all need to present yourselves as residents and commuters trying to make your journeys to the shops, workplaces and schools safe for all people, of age groups, rather than the niche that is todays dedicated commuter.

Dress like you would dress in the Netherlands, not how you have to dress to feel vaguely safe going round your current mess of a town or city. For the sake of all the people we are trying to build bike paths for.

Important Update: the comments and tweets imply this is slagging off anyone who wears hi-viz and helmets. As far as the People's Cycling Front are concerned you can cycle round wearing hi-viz, tweed, MTB-style merino wool tops, Daily Mail T-shirts -and whatever head gear you want. If you commute in Bristol, you'll know that waterproofs are usually something to put on most of the year -or at least have to hand. And if you are going to get a bike-specific waterproof, reflectives and yellow bits are an option that may increase the chance of being seen.

For press events, when you are going to be seen in the local papers, put all the bike-specific gear out of sight. You don't want to come over as "the cyclists", just "people who choose to cycle round sometimes". You need the readers to identify with you, rather than distance themselves. Exception: maybe some helmets for the kids so you don't get denounced (even more) for endangering your children.

The FTA: Britain's NRA?

The US Natiional Rifle Association is an organisation that promotes the us of lethal weapons across the USA

that brings death to its county, through

• Lobbying politicians for support of its agenda
• Actively resisting all proposals to add stricter restrictions on the possession and use of weapons.
• Demanding looser restrictions in possession or use of the weapons.
• Actually helping write the legislation related to the use of their weapons
• Demanding the right to bring their weapons into places their clearly don't belong.
• Speaking to the press after deaths cause by the weapons they advocate
• Consider the deaths of people -adults and children- a price society has to pay.
• Declaring that the deaths of the victims could be prevented through their training and possession of the same weapons.

If you change the weapon from "firearm" to HGV you find that the Freight Transport Association appear to have the same agenda and tactics.

Lorries, brought into cities and even bus lanes,  "self regulation". Bigger vehicles. No more training requirements, No extra limits on existing Lorries.

A couple of weeks ago we had their press team out blaming the victims on a day someone was killed by one of their weapons. They will have been at all the party conferences, pushing for less restrictions, no doubt express sympathy for the murder of so many cyclists, but arguing that it was the victims' fault -and If they were better trained it would be less of an issue.

And, if Private Eye is to be believed, they've been sitting in for the UK government in EU meetings on the forthcoming rules for large trucks across Europe.

For anyone who says "there is a cycling lobby", well, the new cycling activist groups may be loud, may be generating press -but none of them get to represent the UK government during legislation discussions; none of them get to have a stall at conferences.

Which is why the road lobby gets billions, while the cyclists get crumbs, crumbs that then get frittered away on mutual respect programs -because taking away road space is too hard -and not possible to do if you only have 18-24 months of time to spend everything.

What we do have is the ability to make noise, to approach the MPs in the cities, the MPs in the councils, lobby the new Police Commissioners (a losing battle for the Daily Mail fuckwits who mostly got elected, but still necessary).

And we need to get the press out that make the FTA look bad, to make them feel threatened.

Because if there is one difference between the NRA and the FTA is that the FTA are funded by companies with tangible business goals. And if they start to see that the alternative to making our streets safer is to be blocked out of cities entirely -Dublin style- then maybe they will come to their senses.

"I can't help it if a cyclist gets in my way"

Today in the Daily Telegraph we not only have a cyclist killer, but one that refuses to acknowledge that any of her actions resulted in the death of a young woman.

Judging by the statements made so far, Dr Helen Measures,

1. Was driving near Stonor by Henley on Thames on a shopping trip on Monday  15 July,  2012
2. Was held up by some cyclists on her lane
3. Overtook them at a blind corner
4. Was "surprised" to meet some oncoming cyclists
5. Didn't back off her manoeuvre
6. Killed one of the oncoming cyclists
7. Refuses to accept any responsibility
8. 
   

While doing the usual court-sympathy-gambits, "weeping" at the death, saying she herself was "a keen cyclist", she absolutely refuses to accept that her actions were at fault.

• She was "surprised" to see Mr Pontin and his girlfriend suddenly coming towards her as she rounded the curve in the road, but felt they still had enough room to get past.
• "I don't know why I didn't see them," 
• "I felt the safest decision was to continue straight ahead because they were in single file.
• "If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly."

Rather than admit that you shouldn't be surprised to see anything as you round a curve in the road, she thinks continuing on was acceptable -presumably they were just cyclists- then blames the cyclist for getting in her way while trying to squeeze past them

"I can't help it if a cyclist, with all due respect, falls over as I'm approaching them and comes into my line of travel."You do not make a manoeuvre if you don't think it is safe to do so. Had everyone stayed upright, there would not have been an issue.”

Imagine she'd come round the corner and seen an HGV coming. Would she have braked? Of course she fucking would. Yet just because it was cyclists she felt she could carry on, that it would work out -and instead she killed one of them.

Yet she refuses to accept her guilt.

This woman killed a cyclist who was doing nothing wrong, because she was so impatient to reach her destination she not only chose to overtake blind, she decided that once she'd seen the cyclists, she would continue the overtake. And now she pretends it wasn't her fault.

To add insult to fatal injury, the CPS only has her down from careless driving, so even if this killer is convicted, it'll be a non-custodial sentence (think of the child left on her own), and 3-6 months without the car. If overtaking on a corner and being surprised by oncoming traffic isn't driving dangerously, they may as well repeal a law that is clearly not needed.

LFGSS discuss the death in 2012 -again the surrey commuter problem: drivers expecting speed  round country lanes, and unable to accept the existence of cyclists or the need to overtake them safely.

It ends up with whole stretches of country road that you can race down without dipping below 70mph if you know them well - and you're fine, so long as there isn't a stationary or slow-moving obstruction in the road.

Sounds exactly like what this unrepentant killer was doing.

At the same time,  in coverage of the death and its impact on family and friends, the vice-chairman of Stonor Parish Council wanting a triathlon rerouted, for the safety of the cyclists -rather than attempting to make any attempt to improve safety, such as pushing for a lower speed limit.

The winding country roads of England stopped being a pleasant place to cycle on weekdays some time ago -at least in commuter suburb zones, such as Surrey, the Chilterns and South Gloucs. The rural roads are rural ratruns, and even on a quiet road you fear the sound of a car coming up past, worrying if this will "be the one".

And what do we get: we get the residents of Surrey trying to ban the cyclists.