back to article Self-driving bus in crash just 2 hours after entering public service

A self-driving bus has been involved in a collision, barely two hours after being introduced into public service for the first time. The vehicle was reportedly hit by a human-driven lorry, according to the BBC, which adds that the lorry driver was given a ticket by police. Describing the accident with the bus as a “fender …

  1. scrubber
    Terminator

    German Efficiency

    "Germany has already decreed that robot vehicles must be programmed to kill animals and destroy property before thinking of harming humans"

    Get the practice in before turning on the humans.

    1. Just Enough

      Re: German Efficiency

      This set of priorities is all very well, until we get down to determining the order within the human subset.

      Does the car kill the occupants of the car, or those of the other car? Or those pedestrians?

      I predict that no-one is ever going to buy a car that doesn't put their life at the top of the protection list. At that point the production of robot cars becomes an arms race. The car that has the quickest and smartest AI to anticipate what the other is going to do, wins in any collision. Driving last year's model? Tough luck, you're going to die.

      1. Ugotta B. Kiddingme
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: German Efficiency

          Then we come to liability. It's all very well coughing up for damage caused but what about when a self driving car gets it wrong and decides to mow down a row of Spacemen for no good reason?

          If it's a human they go to prison but what about a large corporate? Isn't it more likely they'll hide behind a barrage of expensive lawyers (is that the correct collective noun?)? I can see any court case going on for years and no-one being held to account.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: German Efficiency

            If it's a human they go to prison but what about a large corporate? Isn't it more likely they'll hide behind a barrage of expensive lawyers (is that the correct collective noun?)? I can see any court case going on for years and no-one being held to account.

            I suspect that a software "bug" will be introduced that ensures it only mows down lawyers. The lawsuits will dry up very quickly after that.

            :)

            Joking aside, we're at the very beginning of it all - this will take years of wrangling and never get to a good conclusion because there are too many variables here. This is the point where software developers enter the world of being accountable. That in itself is quite a mind shift especially for their managers who now have to pay attention to bug reports and creating viable, real world test cases etc etc.

            This is why I personally have more confidence in viable, safe solutions coming from car manufacturers than software houses such as Google - they already HAVE that accountability so they know how to deal with it. That doesn't mean they're perfect (the VW scandal is a prime example of screwing up badly) but they're closer to the real world than the people who start any project with writing the disclaimers.

            1. ma1010
              Joke

              Re: German Efficiency

              I suspect that a software "bug" will be introduced that ensures it only mows down lawyers. The lawsuits will dry up very quickly after that.

              Lawyers are definitely a good start, but we need a firmware patch to include account executives, hairdressers, telephone sanitizers and other "middlemen." Consider: It's much cheaper than the "B" Ark but with the same happy outcome. In fact, mod the firmware in cars sold to "middlemen" to seek out hovercraft ramps or cliffs, too.

              1. Captain DaFt

                Re: German Efficiency

                Lawyers are definitely a good start, but we need a firmware patch to include account executives, hairdressers, telephone sanitizers and other "middlemen." Consider: It's much cheaper than the "B" Ark but with the same happy outcome.

                We all die from a disease from an unsanitized phone?

                Well, that's me cheered up. :/

              2. kwhitefoot

                Re: German Efficiency

                > with the same happy outcome.

                You mean all of the rest of us being wiped out by a particularly virulent bug caught from a dirty telephone?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: German Efficiency

              I accept that I'm a noob... but where do I sign up to help crowd-fund the 'mowing down lawyers' software project?

          2. Captain DaFt

            Re: German Efficiency

            Isn't it more likely they'll hide behind a barrage of expensive lawyers (is that the correct collective noun?)?

            I always thought it was a leech of lawyers, but a quick check shows otherwise.

            1. Charlie van Becelaere
              Headmaster

              Re: German Efficiency

              On a tangentially related note, my favourite collective noun has always been a flourish of strumpets.

              You're welcome.

              1. jake Silver badge

                Re: German Efficiency

                My favorite collective noun is a wunch of bankers. Followed by a thicket of social networking aficionados.

                Did ElReg & commentards ever come up with a collective noun for podule?

        2. Fink-Nottle

          Re: German Efficiency

          "determining the order within the human subset."

          Fellow transport workers first, obviously. Übermensch erst, in a manner of speaking.

      2. 2Nick3

        Re: German Efficiency

        If someone finds a way to apply their own software updates this could get ugly very quickly...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: German Efficiency

          "... Ugly ..." Now that could be important when determining who's going to live. Lets hope the coders aren't sexist, racists and/or religious fanatics.

          1. Orv Silver badge

            Re: German Efficiency

            Lets hope the coders aren't sexist, racists and/or religious fanatics.

            Even if the coders aren't (intentionally), it can still wind up that way. I'm reminded of the "racist webcam" problem.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: German Efficiency

            It's lawyers... who cares about the rest?

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Linux

          Re: German Efficiency

          "If someone finds a way to apply their own software updates this could get ugly very quickly..."

          I guess that rules out "Open Source" for these things... dammit...

          1. Adam 1

            Re: German Efficiency

            > I guess that rules out "Open Source" for these things... dammit...

            Ability to view the source code isn't the same thing as ability to flash a new version to a vehicle that you intend to use on a public space. You could regulate to demand that the source is available. That and:

            (1) a mandated critical security bug bounty from the manufacturer; and

            (2) full legal immunity for the researcher if responsibly disclosed to the regulator

            Today security researchers have to use disassemblers (eg diesel gate) or otherwise MitM some radio transmission (eg Subaru keyfobs). They manage, somehow. (With some of the code I have had to look at, I glaze over with what the author was attempting to achieve, and that is with code.) But it would be better to remove that hurdle.

      3. Blank Reg

        Re: German Efficiency

        Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and were in communication with each other as there would be no surprise maneuvers.

        Until then we'll get all kinds of problems. They say this vehicle did what it was supposed to do, but I've been in similar situations and had the awareness to back up and avoid getting hit.

        Simply stopping is not always enough.

        1. Orv Silver badge

          Re: German Efficiency

          Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and were in communication with each other as there would be no surprise maneuvers.

          At least until a transformer blows, creating an electrical arc that briefly wipes out radio communications, causing a fifty-car pileup on the neighboring freeway. ;)

        2. Deltics

          Re: German Efficiency

          In communication with each other. sounds easy when you say it like that. By which I mean, without actually addressing what's necessary to make that possible.

          "In communication with each other".... so every vehicle in communication with every other ? Of course not. In communication with those in the immediate vicinity... now we're talking.

          And how do we achieve that ? Vehicles carrying around their own PAN, constantly connecting and disconnecting from other vehicle PAN's rapidly enough (never mind the data transfer rate itself once the connection is made) to establish meaningfully useful communications with an exchange of information rapidly enough to make the communication useful for avoiding collisions at anything above walking pace.

          For one thing, a vehicle might be connected to, say, a dozen other vehicles. Let's say that as a result it knows the speed and direction of travel of each of those. Now all it needs is to be able to correlate that data with the objects that it detects around it. GPS ? Sure... But when GPS currently can't make up it's mind from one second to the next whether I am in my living room or sitting in the middle of the street outside, how is it going to help tell the the difference between the vehicle immediately behind me and the one behind that (or the one in front of me, or alongside).

          And talking of using GPS to solve inter-vehicle relationships.... one word: Tunnels.

          You might just as well as say "collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and loved and respected each other". Let somebody else worry about how that is actually going to work, as long as somebody can assure us that it will (without being able to say how).

          The worrying thing is, politicians and those in positions to allow these things to happen listen to similar pipedreams from those peddling the technology and aren't stopping to ask such questions.

        3. Chemical Bob
          FAIL

          Re: German Efficiency

          "Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and were in communication with each other..."

          Look, if we can't figure out how to drive, why does anybody think we can teach machines to drive better?

        4. You aint sin me, roit

          Re: German Efficiency

          "Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous and were in communication with each other as there would be no surprise maneuvers."

          On motorways maybe, but not in towns and cities when you have pedestrians and wobbly cyclists to contend with.

          And on Saturday nights you'll get people thinking "That driverless taxi will have to avoid me if I step out into the street right in front of it... give the passengers a right scare!"

          Or playing car snooker... "If I step out now that white car will have to swerve into oncoming traffic, forcing that red car to mount the curb to avoid a collision"

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: German Efficiency

            Those are not future activities - they are both already weekend past times for the kids in my neighbourhood. Rush hour on Fri evening is NOT a good time to drive around here.

        5. cb7

          Re: German Efficiency

          "Vehicle to vehicle collisions would be almost non-existent if all vehicles were autonomous..."

          Machines may be able to react faster than humans, but a hunk of metal travelling at 70mph still has momentum. And a blow out or other unpredictable event still has the potential for sudden unanticipated movement that's too quick to safely circumnavigate.

      4. Wensleydale Cheese

        Re: German Efficiency

        "Does the car kill the occupants of the car, or those of the other car? Or those pedestrians?"

        The Trolley Problem

        There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied up on the side track. You have two options:

        1. Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

        2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

        Which is the most ethical choice?

        The best answer I've seen is to let the trolley kill the lawyer, who will otherwise sue you for making the wrong choice.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: German Efficiency

          I always found the trolley problem to be a non problem.

          Simply put and hold the lever between the two options, and hope for a derailment.

          1. Baldrickk

            Re: German Efficiency

            I always found the trolley problem to be a non problem.

            Simply put and hold the lever between the two options, and hope for a derailment.

            And what about the 20 people travelling on the trolley-car who are now crashing?

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: German Efficiency

              Those 20 were out of control and crashing anyway.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: German Efficiency

          Agree - killing the lawyer seems to be the best answer.

          But the trolley problem demonstrates the vacuity of modern ethics.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: German Efficiency

            My logic above isn't the same as the trolley problem, because in that you have five people on the track where you're going, who don't belong there, and one guy on the track you could switch to, who also doesn't belong there. If the track that one guy was on was marked "down for maintenance" and he was working on it assuming he would be safe, then he would be someone who should not be killed by my way of looking at it.

            As far as the trolley problem, I'd say the ethics for a machine should be "don't take any positive action which results in people dying". So stay on your track and kill the five people in the way. People standing around in front of an oncoming trolley deserve what they get.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: German Efficiency

        The car won't do any of the moral calculations the pontificaters are pontificating about while engineers are doing real work.

        The car will brake or maneuver to avoid a collision, or it'll slam on the brakes to slow down as much as possible. There's no liability for a human, and there'll be no liability in it for the computer.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: German Efficiency

      "Germany has already decreed that robot vehicles must be programmed to kill animals and destroy property before thinking of harming humans"

      Sounds fine when expressed in general terms, but there are numerous edge cases where this behaviour is not desirable. For example, self-driving car is confronted with a situation where it has steer one way and hit a single geriatric, or steer in the other direction and crash though the glass frontage of (for example) the local branch of "Anthrax 'R' Us, with a knock-on effect of multiple human deaths.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "numerous edge cases"

        If a human was confronted with a situation where he has to steer one way and hit a single geriatric, or the other way and crash through the glass front of 'Anthrax R Us' do you think he'd do any better? Accidents happen too quickly for humans to make value judgments over who to kill if all options will kill someone, let alone be able to consider that crashing into the wrong building might release anthrax :)

        I think the duty is on autonomous cars to do the "least surprising" thing to others - i.e. don't penalize those who are doing what they're supposed to be doing where they're supposed to be doing it. Not unless it calculates little or no chance of killing or maiming humans if it does something surprising and goes where it shouldn't.

        That is, you don't swerve into the oncoming lane if there are cars coming, even if it is able to see "well there's only one car coming and I only see one occupant who will surely die, while if I stay in my lane I'll hit that car stopped in the road and kill more people". If staying in the road will kill five and mounting the sidewalk will kill one, it should stay in the road and kills five. Why should a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk where he belongs be killed by a car as if his one death is less of a tragedy than the deaths of multiple people on the road?

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: "numerous edge cases"

          "If a human was confronted with a situation where he has to steer one way and hit a single geriatric, or the other way and crash through the glass front of 'Anthrax R Us' do you think he'd do any better?"

          As a long term biker, I'd like to think so. I nearly always have an alternate track (or three) that I can switch to. Has got me out of trouble more times than I can count.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "numerous edge cases"

          @DougS this is exactly the problem with most of the discussion about autonomous vehicles and systems. Most of the Silicon Valley types have without questioning accepted the Consequentialist or Utilitarian framework of ethics, and think that they are awfully clever in doing so.

          What you have raised is the "trolley problem" and getting into "Trolleyology" which gets academic ethicists and philosophers tied up in knots if they are Utilitarian.

          The fundamental problem about Utilitarianism, and one which Jeremy Bentham skillfully dodged, is why is "happiness" in the case of Bentham the good which we must optimise. Utilitarians never provide a reason for their underlying calculus, and often they do not agree with each other: also, there is nothing in Utilitarianism which will necessarily prevent nasty things such as chemical warfare, ethnic cleansing or bad behaviour overall.

          Given the lack of coherence in the basis of decision making for the autonomous vehicles, this will be a fertile area for lawyers in the future.

      2. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: German Efficiency

        Sounds fine when expressed in general terms, but there are numerous edge cases where this behaviour is not desirable.

        @AC you missed the obvious edge case - horse with rider: does the robot see this as an animal or a human?

    3. DaLo

      Re: German Efficiency

      "Germany has already decreed that robot vehicles must be programmed to kill animals and destroy property before thinking of harming humans"

      But a small collision where the other party is to blame (truck reverses into you) and their insurance coughs up in full, including hire car costs etc turns into your car reversing back and hitting a house meaning that your insurance now has to foot the bill, you have to pay the excess, you have to hire a car out of your own pocket and you premiums go up, meanwhile mr truck drives off without a problem.

  2. wolfetone Silver badge
    Terminator

    I find this anti-human type of propaganda disturbing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The lorry struck the bus, but that doesn't automatically equate to the lorry driver being at fault. All it means is the bus got to the point of impact first and stopped there.

      1. d3vy

        "The lorry struck the bus, but that doesn't automatically equate to the lorry driver being at fault. All it means is the bus got to the point of impact first and stopped there."

        From what I have read the bus was stationary and impacted from the rear.

        In the UK this would be simple :

        If you run into the back of someone, you are to blame (You didn't leave enough room to stop)

        If you hit a stationary vehicle, you are to blame.

        Given that the article states that the truck driver was ticketed for the event I suspect that we can safely say that they were to blame.

        1. Not also known as SC

          What I read earlier today was that the bus was stopped, and the truck reversed into the bus. So the bus knew there was an object coming towards it but wasn't programmed to move away from that object (i.e. reverse).

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            > "What I read earlier today was that the bus was stopped, and the truck reversed into the bus."

            That makes it sound like the bus drove up into the truck's blind spot without the driver noticing, and then got reversed into. But one would think that the programmers would require the bus to leave a big cushion behind trucks, right? Like real drivers do? (if they're smart...)

            On the other hand, if the truck had been AI-controlled it would have had rear sensors to prevent the impact. Hmmm...

            1. sjritt00

              "But one would think that the programmers would require the bus to leave a big cushion behind trucks, right? Like real drivers do? (if they're smart...)"

              Or, sound their horn, flash lights, back up, lots of choices a human would consider.

              1. Wensleydale Cheese

                "But one would think that the programmers would require the bus to leave a big cushion behind trucks, right? Like real drivers do? (if they're smart...)"

                As any truck driver knows, a large number of car drivers simply don't understand the lack of manoeuverability of a truck, its stopping distances etc.

                A trained bus driver, on the other hand, will be able to anticipate the potential problems and leave ample space for the truck driver to complete the manoeuvre.

            2. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Wensleydale Cheese

            "What I read earlier today was that the bus was stopped, and the truck reversed into the bus. So the bus knew there was an object coming towards it but wasn't programmed to move away from that object (i.e. reverse)."

            If the bus had a real driver, he would have surely hit the horn.

        2. Jtom

          "If you hit a stationary vehicle, you are to blame. Not completely true, at least in some of the states in the US. I drive a car with manual transmission. If stopped while going ip a hill, no one with such a transmission can avoid rolling backward a foot or two when moving again. The car in back of you MUST be stopped far enough behind you to allow for the normal operation of your vehicle. So if someone stops an inch off my bumper, when I hit him trying to drive forward, he gets the citation (failure to maintain a safe distance). I know that as a fact. So does the guy who was behind me and got the ticket.

          1. d3vy

            "If stopped while going ip a hill, no one with such a transmission can avoid rolling backward a foot or two when moving again"

            Ummmm... Every car I have even owned has been a manual (with the exception of the newest one) and I can say with certainty that I can do a hill start without rolling backwards AT ALL.. it's part of the driving test to be able to do this. You really need to consider swapping your car.

            1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

              Every car I have even owned has been a manual ... and I can say with certainty that I can do a hill start without rolling backwards AT ALL.. ... You really need to consider swapping your car.

              I was thinking that there's probably nothing wrong with the car that can't be solved by installing a competent driver.

              But sadly, many drivers seem to believe a hill start requires some sort of black art worthy of being taught at Hogwarts.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        "All it means is the bus got to the point of impact first and stopped there."

        I have to agree with all of the comments on this point (so far). I also wonder what other options a human bus driver might have tried other then simply stopping/staying in place while the impact was impending. I also would certainly have tried something to avoid it, eg sounding horn, flashing lights, taking evasive action.

        Of course, we don't have the full details of what precisely happened and probably won't unless the complete accident report is published.

        1. the Kris

          The details are available, didn't mark the link though.

          The truck was already reversing onto a (factory?) terrain, the bus should've stopped earlier, it stopped so close to the tractor it was on the part of the road the tractor and/or the front (!) of the trailer would pass over.

          A human driver would've left the required space.

          1. d3vy

            @kris

            And yet it was the truck driver who got the ticket.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Will self driving busses come in threes?

    1. A K Stiles

      re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

      Probably, depending on their programming for passenger loading.

      There was some interesting research into why this happens, but essentially, loading and unloading people takes time, people all want to get on the first bus so it has to wait longest at the stop sorting them out, so next bus catches up some, rinse and repeat.

      Better explanations available in books like this *not affiliated, but avoiding the obvious large companies

      1. Lee D Silver badge

        Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

        Gosh, if only you could intelligently manage the buses via some sort of traffic control such that the following ones can catch up and pass the full one because they're picking up nobody, rather than expect vehicles on a road controlled by people, loading people to stay perfectly spaced throughout the day.

        The bit that bugs me more is "We're holding this vehicle" for whatever traffic-management gap they think they need, thus making us late too, because the bus in front was full of people also worried about being late.

        Start them out at 10 minute intervals, sure. Then just let them run. Because if there's a queue, they're all going to get stuck in it anyway, and if they bunch up, slowly them down mid-route doesn't actually help the situation at all.

        Let them pass each other and the empty buses get to the next stop and fill up while the "full" buses lag behind, etc.

        If anything, I'd literally just have a "you can depart in X minutes" timer at the bus depot for each route, and that's it.

        I'm a mathematician. I perfectly believe people have analysed this, the same way they've analysed the "traffic joining a motorway causes traffic waves on the motorway" phenomenon. Rather than analyse it and pretend that it's inevitable, fix it. In that case, you fix it by having longer sliproads for traffic to join from and ENFORCING lane management (i.e. fine middle-lane hoggers). Because the problem is caused by people hogging the middle lane, who then stop the left-lane people making room for the joining-people, which slows down the main route for the sake of a handful of cars joining at one of dozens of intersections.

        In the bus case, just send buses on regular intervals and allow them to overtake.

        1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip Silver badge

          Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

          That works provided the buses can intelligently re-route missing out stops in the case of a large jam. There are a limited number of buses on the ten minute route, so if they're all sent out and stuck in the jam for hours, rather than missing out stops the entire route (and probably others) is broken in that time.

          There's also no point in sticking overcapacity on the route if it won't actually reduce travel time significantly.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

          > following ones can catch up and pass the full one

          Will no-one think of the poor sods wanting to get off?

          A classic example of algorithm-speak where reality just doesn't want to play the game...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

            Not to mention the people waiting at the stop when the first bus fills up and the driver cant let any more on.

            In my experience the last thing you need with buses is to give them an excuse to skip a stop.

        3. jmch Silver badge

          Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

          "allow them to overtake."

          the overtaking opportunity is at the stop, but at peak hours there will be people wanting to get off a bus at pretty much every stop. So all buses have to stop at all stops, leaving no overtaking opportunities

          1. m0rt

            Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

            Why is Will Self driving busses now? And why has he been cloned?

          2. Orv Silver badge

            Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

            Also trolly busses (aka electric trams) are incapable of overtaking, due to having to share the overhead wire...

          3. Wensleydale Cheese

            Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

            "the overtaking opportunity is at the stop, but at peak hours there will be people wanting to get off a bus at pretty much every stop. So all buses have to stop at all stops, leaving no overtaking opportunities"

            That wasn't true on my school bus run (a long time ago). Between home and school was mostly residential, so buses only needed to stop for passengers waiting to board.

            Once past my school, and all the way into the city centre, your observation was correct.

        4. Blotto Silver badge
          IT Angle

          Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

          @Lee D

          the same way they've analysed the "traffic joining a motorway causes traffic waves on the motorway" phenomenon. Rather than analyse it and pretend that it's inevitable, fix it. In that case, you fix it by having longer sliproads for traffic to join from and ENFORCING lane management (i.e. fine middle-lane hoggers). Because the problem is caused by people hogging the middle lane, who then stop the left-lane people making room for the joining-people, which slows down the main route for the sake of a handful of cars joining at one of dozens of intersections.

          the problem isn't just middle lane hoggers but also slow lane hoggers who don't want to give way to or move to the next lane for joining traffic.

          A lot of new motorway updates have now turned the emergency lane into a giant slip road, enabling joining traffic to effectively have their own lane till the next junction.

          enables joining traffic to enter without stopping and ensures a good flow for existing traffic, while providing an extended distance for joining traffic to get to speed and the faster ones to move into faster lanes sooner.

          1. tiggity Silver badge

            Re: re: Will self driving busses come in threes?

            A big issue on UK motorways is difficulty of changing lanes due to quite high speed differentials between traffic in those lanes

            e.g. HGV filled inside lane doing 50something MPH.

            Middle lane, when not having HGVs cut in, running at 70 ish

            Outside lane, full of folk doing 90+ irrespective of conditions

            (Assumes no speed cameras and not a "gridlock" scenario)

            If you have a vehicle with crap acceleration (e.g. small engine and / or heavy vehicle) then lane change is awkward (and outside lane possibly beyond speed capability of vehicle!) - because it is virtually impossible to get a gap on the road in front of you to allow you to accelerate in your lane, to speed suitable for next lane, before actually switching lane, so option is to change lane at speed slower than traffic in lane you are moving into and hope other vehicles in that lane brake rather than hit your feebly accelerating crap vehicle frantically trying to reach the "cruising speed" of that lane.

            Unsurprisingly, some people in dismal 0-60 stat vehicles will lane hog" as it's safer for them than lane changes taht require other drivers to be paying decent attention.

            .. My motorway driving style is totally different depending on acceleration capabilities of vehicle I am in

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why is this news?

    I thought what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas!

    1. Tom 7

      Re: Why is this news?

      I'd advise telling your doctor about the lesions though.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why is this news?

      That only applies to strippers and bumsex.

    3. kain preacher

      Re: Why is this news?

      Last time I was in Vegas we streamed it live. That was till the hotel complained about the band with usage.

      1. David Nash Silver badge

        Re: Why is this news?

        "Last time I was in Vegas we streamed it live. That was till the hotel complained about the band with usage."

        What was wrong with the band?

  5. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
    Terminator

    One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

    None of the reports I've read made clear whether the bus had room to reverse out of the way, if it had been smarter. (Avoiding a collision being the correct thing to do, even if you're in the right.)

    1. Alister

      Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

      Or even if the bus sounded its horn to alert the meatsack to the impending collision.

      That might have been enough.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

        Or if the truck driver intended to pull out immediately behind the bus but the automated system panicked.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

        From The Grauniad:

        Jenny Wong, a passenger on the shuttle at the time of the crash, told local news station KSNV: “The shuttle just stayed still. And we were like, it’s going to hit us, it’s going to hit us. And then it hit us.

        “The shuttle didn’t have the ability to move back. The shuttle just stayed still.”

        Las Vegas police officer Aden Ocampo-Gomez said the truck’s driver was at fault for the crash and was cited for illegal backing.

        So it seems the truck was reversing slowly out, and the shuttle just "safely" stopped and sat there waiting to be hit. Failure on both sides, I'd say.

        1. Orv Silver badge

          Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

          I think this will be a growing problem -- accidents where an automated vehicle doesn't react in an expected way, because it's unaware of the unofficial conventions that human drivers use when interacting with each other. These accidents will be *technically* the human's fault under the law, but wouldn't have occurred without the automated vehicle.

        2. d3vy

          Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

          "So it seems the truck was reversing slowly out, and the shuttle just "safely" stopped and sat there waiting to be hit. Failure on both sides, I'd say."

          Im fairly sure that if you reverse into a stationary vehicle its your fault (Even if they could get out of the way)... Given that its a bloody bus they should be insisting that the guy gets his sight checked too.

        3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

          So it seems the truck was reversing slowly out, and the shuttle just "safely" stopped and sat there waiting to be hit. Failure on both sides, I'd say.

          And public policy is always to blame a driver. If there's only one it becomes easy to choose.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

      If it's a human they go to prison but what about a large corporate? Isn't it more likely they'll hide behind a barrage of expensive lawyers (is that the correct collective noun?)? I can see any court case going on for years and no-one being held to account.

      I'd like to know if it switches on its screen wipers when it works out that collision with a human is unavoidable.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: One thing's for sure: we're gonna need more mechanics.

      According to this rather detailed article, the bus had maybe 20 feet of clear space behind it, so there was plenty of room to back up. Plus, apparently the whole incident occurred pretty much in slow motion, so there would have also been plenty of time for the bus to get out of harm's way if it had had a human driver.

      https://www.yahoo.com/news/self-driving-bus-crashed-vegas-173438911.html

      This is a typical type of AI failure, BTW - it appears to be remarkably smart up until the point that it does something remarkably stupid!

  6. Gomez Adams

    Could be the police ticketed the meatsack as they did not know how to ticket a tin can?

  7. BebopWeBop
    Joke

    Not the bus in question...

    Phew.....

  8. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    plus ca change indeed...

    "Volvo said a few years ago that it would “accept full liability” for crashes involving its autonomous cars."

    All well and good I assume until you actually need to pursue Volvo for settlement of that liability; at which point no doubt you'll need all the legal protection insurance you can get your hands on to pierce through their shield of lawyered up scumbags... just like current insurance company practice.

    Plus ca change indeed!!!!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: plus ca change indeed...

      "Volvo said a few years ago that it would “accept full liability” for crashes involving its autonomous cars."

      IIRC, they also came back a short while later and stated that they weren't actually going to do the above until the laws in the U.S. got changed! I imagine that in the interim they'd taken a closer look at typical liability lawsuits in this country and had a "Holy sh*t!" moment.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Speed.

    If these things are going to do mad stuff like obeying the laws then the laws will have to let them go a bit faster.

  10. petur

    auto auto

    I see what you did there

  11. Lt.Kije

    Why is this even news redux

    What has this to do with the Self Driving Vehicle (SDV®)?

    May as well report every fender bender

    (At least the news would be less depressing to read)

  12. Baldy1138

    Someday, somewhere, a robot is going to face the Trolley Problem. As the trolley.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Program says "Stop" situation says "move".

    That incident is exactly why autonomous driving is difficult. It isn't good enough to act like the majority of human drivers who slow down or just give up driving and stop when they are in conditions beyond their ability. Driving correctly is responding to a dynamic situation, not as 2D frozen in time photograph, but as the 4 dimensional situation it is.

    New drivers, poor experienced drivers, drive as though slowing or stopping will slow and stop everything around them, software has do better than that.

    At least when a poor human driver slows and expects the world to slow for them that poor human driver will sometimes pay the ultimate price. With autonomous vehicles those that force people to sit in a vehicle while being slowly crushed to death by a lorry because there was a threat and the vehicle stopped will be safe and sound and blaming the lorry driver, the passengers, the manufacturer, anyone but themselves.

    1. Toltec

      Re: Program says "Stop" situation says "move".

      I think four, or is it three given the vertical is not that important, dimensions is still too simplistic. By the time you add in probability scenarios for all of the actors and how they might interact it is more like a branching many worlds scenario.

      1. Orv Silver badge

        Re: Program says "Stop" situation says "move".

        See, discounting the vertical is exactly what causes problems like vehicles that can't accurately gauge the range of kangaroos. ;)

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Program says "Stop" situation says "move".

        "I think four, or is it three given the vertical is not that important"

        There seem to be a good number of human drivers who think their vehicle will fit under a low bridge. Will autonomous vehicles do better?

    2. Blotto Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Program says "Stop" situation says "move".

      @Haefen

      New drivers, poor experienced drivers, drive as though slowing or stopping will slow and stop everything around them, software has do better than that.

      I always try and read the situation several cars ahead, i've been in numerous scenarios where i've stopped appropriately early to give the several cars ahead room to reverse to permit oncoming traffic through where had i pulled up to the car ahead we'd be all trying to slowly reverse or people would get abusive and it and would take ages.

      A computer can't comprehend other peoples intentions or actions and will just sit there and play dumb. As people we can have the extra smarts to read the situation and come up with a plan that even if it breaks the rules of the road, in that specific instance it may just be the correct thing to do, i.e reversing out the way of an oncoming lorry, beep your horn so the lorry driver knew to stop, get out the car and assist a reversing driver etc.

      There is a place for autonomous vehicles, but having a machine rigidly working to a set of amongst humans that know where and when the should not always be interpreted literally and strictly will create chaos. Iti'll be narrow streets where the autonomous vehicle has the right of way but could give way to oncoming traffic but doesn't that'll be the most obvious shortcoming. Prob not so much of an issue in the US but will be more problematic in the UK and rest of Europe.

  14. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    I say ...

    ... we need to start setting traps for autonomous vehicles. Before we are overrun by the vermin.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Megaphone

    Beeeeeeep! Beep! Beep! Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep!

    Having read the description of the accident, the one fault I see with the bus is that it failed to do what any of us would do and that is Lean On The Horn. Which raises the question: does it even have a horn and, if not, why not?

  16. Milton

    Sigh ...

    And, as a matter of interest, did a single news outlet today use the headline—

    "Self driving bus bumped by careless human after just two hours in service"?

    —or does every single site have to say "Self driving bus CRASHED", thereby (a) exaggerating what was a mere ding, and (b) leaving the clear impression that the bus did indeed itself crash, rather than just being dented by a clown who wasn't looking in his mirrors?

    If this is how blameless fender benders are reported, it's going to be a long road to any kind of realistic public perception of automated vehicles.

    Perhaps we should have a rule that requires every report of a particular type of event to include comparative stats for similar ones.

    So, we'd have—

    "Three minor blameless collisions involving automated vehicles in the UK today. Plus five deaths, 27 injuries and 165 writeoffs caused by human drivers."

    —and—

    "Seven suspected deaths from hideous awful terrifying evil drugs in the UK today. Plus 317 people died of alcohol-related illness and accidents."

    Pity the poor headline writers and their infantile scaremongering.

    1. the Kris

      Re: Sigh ...

      The CRASHED annoyed me as well.

      On the other hand, the bus did not get 'dented by a clown who wasn't looking in his mirrors?'.

      The bus approached a semi that was already reversing onto a terrain, the bus should've left enough room for the tractor to manouver while backing up. The bus was dented by the tractor, not the trailer, says enough.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like