Prosecute driverless car devs for software snafus, say Brit cyclists A cyclists' association wants software developers for any "errors" in driverless car software to be "criminally prosecuted" in Blighty. Cycling UK's submission to the Parliamentary committee considering the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill (AEV Bill) also suggested that owners of driverless cars should be liable for …
"Perhaps it's also time they were required to carry insurance?"
Be good if all motorists did that:
- https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2016/september/one-million-uninsured-drivers-still-too-many/
- https://www.churchill.com/press-office/releases/2016/uninsured-driving-hotspots-in-the-uk
Almost all cyclists do carry insurance - either as part of membership of organisations like British Cycling, Cycling UK, Audax UK etc...) or through their household insurance.
Yes - your household insurance almost certainly has a public liability clause which covers you when out cycling.
Insuring a cyclist costs a few pounds a year - because they simply don't have the destructive capacity of a tonne of metal which can propel itself at 100mph...
I think you will find that already exists, the legislation. Just needs enforcing.
As for requiring them (of which I am one) to have insurance. It doesn't seem to stop car drivers (of which I am also one) behaving like nutters. Its not entirely a bad idea though. Maybe you need insurance to ride on A roads where risks are higher because of higher speeds. It would be a bit harsh requiring your kid to need insurance to cycle around a residential estate with their mates.
"" It would be a bit harsh requiring your kid to need insurance to cycle around a residential estate with their mates."
Why?"
Because that would make the world a bit shitter than it already is. I used to play football in the road. If a car came we'd pick the jumpers (goal posts) up. Let the car past then carry on. When the fuck did car drivers get to demand that resiential streets were theirs and theirs alone.
No wonder there's an obesity crisis when its not safe (because of self obsessed idiots who want to be be able to drive around residential estates at 30-40 miles an hour) to let your kids out to play in the street. Go f yourself with something embedded with nails.
Taking this example ... Cars are very expensive to repair these days. A teenage cyclist is larking about with his mates, and crashes into your perfectly legally parked car, perhaps even on your drive - How do you react? Cheerfully call your insurance company and loose your no claims bonus, or dig into your pocket to pay for potentially thousands of pounds of repairs?
Because the cost of policing and administering the insurance would outweight the actually payouts of the insurance. Cyclists cost little infrastructure, and cause very little damage to others. In short, why do you not have insurance for walking around the streets. It's about as dangerous.
"We also need legislation to make the (small number) of nutter cyclist legally accountable when they cause an accident (though a significant number are unable to be questioned after-the-fact).
Perhaps it's also time they were required to carry insurance?"
Can we focus this on the small group of nutters who have taken over the venerable Cyclists' Touring Club (CTC), sacked the people who knew about Touring and rebranded themselves as 'Cycling UK' without even consulting and getting approval from their members in order to set themselves up as the spokes-people of all cyclists.
Well, not this one - although I'm a still a member - but only for the insurance! Oh, and I pay the same amount of Road Tax as a Toyota Pius driver ...
Roll on autonomous vehicles. They have got to be an improvement on most of the 80% of motorists who consider themselves 'above average'.
We also need legislation to make the (small number) of nutter cyclist
Absolutely. I wish I could give you +10.
I cycle and maintain the cycles for the family where everyone cycles. Some of us clock > 4k per year cycling in an urban environment. As a responsible cyclist I would like to sign under this, despite knowing that it is a very tough one in the UK. Just to be clear - I also drive (clocking > 18k in a some years).
UK has no identity document requirement, so the only option the police has it to impound the cycle and/or arrest the person on the spot for the worst cases. I remember when they used to do the former (I have never seen them do the latter). Nowdays - they cannot be arsed. As some other people noted - the legislation is mostly there, just nobody can be bothered to enforce it.
There are plenty of people who deserve being arrested and/or having their precious >400£ bicycles put into a garbage press in front of them too. I see anything between 2 and 5 idiots per mile cycled who jump red lights, bunny hop in front of cars, have no lights while wearing dark clothing during the hours of darkness, ignore priority at roundabouts and worst of all have no brakes (the f*** fixie riders).
As far as the legislation - all for it. The case when a woman got killed in broad daylight by a cyclist on a fixie without brakes and he GOT AWAY WITH IT with only 19th century legislation being applicable comes to mind. Cycling dangerously and cycling on a not road-worthy bicycle should be punishable offences. Same as it is for driving and cars.
He got away with it in as much as he is now serving an 18 month sentence, yes.
A driver who deliberately removed his brakes and went on the road to kill a pedestrian by driving like a nutter would have been given up to 15 years, The more common number in a case where the modifications to the vehicle have been deliberate is ~ 7 years. He got only a year and a half.
Do I need to say more?
Actually, he didn't remove his brakes, the bicycle in question was sold without brakes. It was not supposed to be used on the road and should not have been.
This was a very rare case. The guy is an idiot, no one is defending his behavior.
However, there have been many cases where a driver of a motor vehicle has caused the death of a pedestrian or cyclist though driving without due car / dangerous driving and completely got away with it.
For example:
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/somethings-very-seriously-wrong-here/
Another recent case, i don't have the link available, but wasn't there a case recently where a 26yo woman turned into a side street and wiped out a person already on a zebra crossing? Prosecuted yes, but found absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing. The report also mentionned she was a legal bod. Whether that had any bearing is kleft open to question. One has to ask what the fuck is going on.
On the matter of software liability, it should be a completely moot point.
The law requires that a motorised vehicle when overtaking a cyclist should give that cyclist the equivalent space of a vehicle, say 4-5ft. There have recently been a few instances where Police have acted against drivers who fail to do so.
So, simply program this into any autonomous vehicle software. If, in the 0.1ms it takes to decide, it isn't safe to overtake then the autonomous vehicle doesn't do so. Problem solved, end of.
It's more uncommon to see cyclists obeying the law, pavements, pedestrian only areas, red lights, pedestrian crossings, one way streets etc. etc. all regularly abused by them and yet raising that seems only to bring the nonsensical argument 'cars do more damage, when they stop we'll stop'.
It really is time to do something about mandatory insurance and identification plates on bikes so these idiots can be identified and reported.
"A driver who deliberately removed his brakes and went on the road to kill a pedestrian by driving like a nutter would have been given up to 15 years, The more common number in a case where the modifications to the vehicle have been deliberate is ~ 7 years. He got only a year and a half."
Unlikely to be true. Construction and Use Regulation violation is a summary offence, so magistrate only. Usual scenario is a fixed penalty notice and 3 points or the same at Court with a slightly larger fine.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/part/II/chapter/B/made
This guy was the typical entitled cyclist that gets us all a bad name. Didn't think he was riding dangerously and complained that HIS life was ruined. c**t.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/15/cyclist-who-hit-little-girl-on-the-pavement-denies-riding-his-bike-dangerously-5297096/
Fixies actually have a fixed drive train.
When the back wheel moves, the cranks and pedals move.
It has a brake which requires stopping by your legs on the pedals.
Some skilful riders are quite adept at lifting the back wheel and locking it while it's in the air. However it takes longer to do this than to squeeze a pair of brake levers.
In my opinion they should be illegal to ride without a pair of hand lever brakes also. And they're so inconvenient to ride,
Can't go between a car and a gutter,
Pedals keep turning etc.
This post has been deleted by its author
Fixies actually have a fixed drive train.
...
In my opinion they should be illegal to ride without a pair of hand lever brakes also
This is the case, hence why they were able to press charges against the rider who was using a track bike, that didn't have hand brake levers, on the public road.
If the guy had brakes fitted then based on the evidence made public, there seems to be no real evidence that they were riding dangerously or wantonly hence the court would then had to give greater weight to the extent to which the lady pedestrian caused the accident by not attending to her surroundings and instead attending to her phone.
There is a good write up here on the case http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk
"The case when a woman got killed in broad daylight by a cyclist on a fixie without brakes and he GOT AWAY WITH IT with only 19th century legislation being applicable comes to mind."
Motorists have been killing other motorists, cyclists and pedestrians for fucking decades and getting away with it.
But one cyclist accidentally knocks over a pedestrian who was on her phone and not paying attention to traffic when crossing the road and you're all up in arms, bloody hypocrites.
But one cyclist accidentally knocks over a pedestrian who was on her phone and not paying attention to traffic when crossing the road and you're all up in arms, bloody hypocrites.
If a driver was driving a car with no working brakes and driving an a "wanton and furious" manner then everybody would be up in arms too. Think it through.
I think you make the point you were arguing against quite well, the number car drivers that kill pedestrians due to outrageous driving far outstrips the number of cyclists and in general there isn't anywhere near the outcry that this particular tosser on a bike caused.
I used to work with a chap, great bloke, kind and helpful but once his lycra was on his personality changed. Every few month he would arrive in the morning a bit scraped up and be swearing that another pedestrian had stepped out in front of him. Other days he could be jumping for joy because he had shaved 30 seconds off his 40 mile cycle journey to the office in central London. He never seemed to get it that the pedestrians he kept hitting did not realize they were intruding on his personal race track.
Having been nearly knocked down by a cyclist who was on the path, at full speed I totally agree. He rang his bicycle bell but made no attempt to slow down.
I think he was in the same mentality as the ones that run the red lights in London - wearing the full Lycra like they are in a road race.
Make those bastard pedestrians have insurance. And children. And dogs. And cats. And all those squirrels...
Yay, says the insurance industry...
If a cyclist causes an accident, just the same way as a pedestrian, then they are liable? Except the bill's possibly picked up by the Motor Insurers Bureau -- which was implemented when insurance became compulsory -- or the car driver's insurance.
Relative to the number of cage drivers having accidents, how many are caused by bicycles and not by car drivers behaving recklessly?
Make those bastard pedestrians have insurance.
Not a totally stupid idea given how many pedestrians have a death wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllnlHvWT88
Also if you watch things like the Women's Tour and other cycling road races, you'll regularly see people doing similar (including OAP's in their buggies) and even dodging around marshalls to cross the road directly in front of a pack of cyclists giving their all...
@Roland6 .... " death wish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllnlHvWT88 "
Interesting video. The aggressive nut on the bike doing the filming seems to think that the road belongs to him and no one else has a right to be there. If a motorist were to drive like that he would be charged with dangerous driving.
Lycra clad ones typically know what they are doing and are assertive enough so that I know what they are doing too.
Now that the nights are getting dark early though I've a lot of people wearing normal clothes on bikes with only a muddy rear reflector to help me pick them out on 60MPH country roads.
We need it mandated that cyclists have to have something making their bikes more visible, the lack of them wearing helmets, never mind reflective material on my daily commute is terrifying. I've no problem with sharing the road, but I don't want to hit anyone yet few seem to give a toss about their own safety.
"We need it mandated that cyclists have to have something making their bikes more visible,"
You mean like the existing law that mandates rear reflectors and lights at night?
I drove a few miles into town and back last night. Only two out of the nine cyclists I saw had lights fitted and working. One, with no front light and poor, barely visible rear light shot out from a foot path between bushes straight across the road. If not for the roadworks I might have been 30' further on and scratched the underside of my car on his bike. Luckily I was still far enough back to slow and avoid him. Daytime cyclist IME seem to generally reasonable, but at this time of year when it's dark by rush hour, there seem to be influx of morons on bikes with no lights, dark clothes and sense of personal invincibility.
Having said that, I almost got taken out on the way back because a car driver didn't see the left turn only sign for the left lane, nor the road markings and went for the second exit off the roundabout that I was heading for from the right lane as directed by the signage. And then there was a car driving along with no lights on...always on dashboard lights and super bright LED daylight running lights, especially in well lit areas seem to distract some people from actually checking their lights are on.
"And then there was a car driving along with no lights on...always on dashboard lights and super bright LED daylight running lights, especially in well lit areas seem to distract some people from actually checking their lights are on."
There's a lot of that goes on. I think that the console lights should not be on unless the headlights are on. Or that they get rid of the light switch entirely and go with auto on all the time.
As for those idiots in Lycra, there are tons of those around here and they seem to think that they own the road, especially the smaller rural roads within our region (and probably all the others as well). There are tons of non-Lycra clad cyclists who don't seem to believe in lights or reflectors either and do believe in dark clothes are the thing for riding your bike at night.
"Or that they get rid of the light switch entirely and go with auto on all the time."
Oooooh....no! Those stupid automatic lights come on far too early in "better safe than sorry" mode and the programmers don't seem to understand the correct use of sidelights. They can be very distracting and even dazzling in low light levels where under normal circumstances headlights would not be used. Especially those high intensity ones.
The highway code, IMHO is being breached by these automatic headlights and by high intensity headlights.
See http://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/lighting-requirements.html
And then there was a car driving along with no lights on
There are a regular occurrence on the M1 & M6, you know when it's an idiot driving, as they don't put the lights on when they enter a section without street lights...
Mind you, I'm sure many drivers can't see very much (at night) anyway because of: the size, position and brightness of their satnav display.
"Perhaps it's also time they were required to carry insurance?"
The case for compulsory insurance is that motorists can and do kill people when it goes pear-shaped. That's also the reason that only third-party insurance is compulsory.
Cyclists tend not to kill people when they get it wrong, in the same way that pedestrians don't. I'm sure you can find counter-examples of both, but the numbers are so insignificant that society doesn't feel there is a problem to be addressed.
We do. It's very old legislation, but it exists and it's comes with extremely significant sentences.
Just to be clear, though, cyclists can cause lethal injuries, but statistically, it's a very small problem. More pedestrains are killed every year by cars mounting the pavement and running into them than my cyclists at all (about 100 to >10).
In fact, it's likely that the dust from car brakes cause more deaths per annum through respiratory disease than cyclists.
In short, nutter cyclists are anti-social. Car drivers kill people in industrial numbers.
As it happens a great number of cyclist do have insurance. I did when commuting in London by virtue of being a member of the London Cycling Campaign (liability up to £1million). When in dispute with a man who ran me down by driving into the side of me his girlfriend claimed that cyclists don't have insurance. Both the girlfriend and the policeman attending were surprised - they'd never heard of it before, they just assumed that I wasn't insured. I'd like to know where the idea that cyclists in particular cause accidents and that they are not held accountable came from though. Despite one pedestrian being killed by a cyclist recently it is much more likely that a car driver will cause a cyclist to have an accident and cyclists are way more vulnerable than car drivers.
The cyclists have a point, but in a roundabout way: Why should the owner of an automatic car be liable for *any* expense that was not directly of their own doing? Sure they should have insurance for many aspects, but in the event of the self-driving software being at fault to any degree the car company should pick up the whole bill.
Sadly I see moving the costs to the public, via the insurer's premiums, will not result in enough pressure on the software development to deliver something safe and reliable.
I mean look at Google going for this given they never provide anything but 'beta' software, and never guarantee anything in the way of functionality, safety or security.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
