Google Inc agrees to release car crash data, but company says all incidents minor and due to human error

vonhelmet wrote:

Would a driverless car have done the same? No, so bring it fucking on.

I was thinking about the very same thing on Sunday when a few impatient idiots wheezed past me just because they think they are about to loose a few seconds. Computers - in theory - would want to drive over me just because they are in a hurry.

forcrz6 wrote:

As a cyclist that puts 2 to 3k of miles a year it is the tools like these that give cyclists a bad name. Not to mention the idiots that try to justify it. Look at the data, the idiots were in the wrong lane on the turn and in the wrong lane period. I can care less how you try to justify it. They were salmon and ignorant. All cyclists need to start following the law and rules of the road. Stop justifying the action of the idiots. We need to improve our name. And sooner or later they will approve licensing and reg for cyclists because of evidence that shows it is our fault and not the cars.

Was it a slow day over on the daily mail web site so you come here with some rob liddle bile. Motors need to improve there name, there the ones kill and injuring thousand of people year.

forcrz6 wrote:

As a cyclist that puts 2 to 3k of miles a year it is the tools like these that give cyclists a bad name. Not to mention the idiots that try to justify it. Look at the data, the idiots were in the wrong lane on the turn and in the wrong lane period. I can care less how you try to justify it. They were salmon and ignorant. All cyclists need to start following the law and rules of the road. Stop justifying the action of the idiots. We need to improve our name. And sooner or later they will approve licensing and reg for cyclists because of evidence that shows it is our fault and not the cars.

OK I'll take the bait. th

How and where has licencing and registration stopped drivers behaving like complete tools? It hasn't drivers still drive like tools.

How would licencing and registration prove someone was at fault?it doesn't

80% of adults ridding a bike have a current driving license. Regular cycling probably makes most of them more alert driversdrivers. It does me. Do you think cycling is so demanding it needs extra tested skills over and above driving? If then you are doing it wrong.

Doubtless you will be in favour of all children receiving cycling training at school and practical cycling to be an essential part of the driving test.

Please go back to the daily mail

gazza_d wrote:

How and where has licencing and registration stopped drivers behaving like complete tools? It hasn't drivers still drive like tools.

How would licencing and registration prove someone was at fault?it doesn't

80% of adults ridding a bike have a current driving license. Regular cycling probably makes most of them more alert driversdrivers. It does me. Do you think cycling is so demanding it needs extra tested skills over and above driving? If then you are doing it wrong.

Problem is that cyclists are an out group, and I believe there are enough moaners who would put the effort into campaigning, that driving licences don't stop stupid behaviour isn't actually relevant to the argument. You are talking about people who simply do not want cyclists on the road, who do not want anything to get in their way. These are the "perfect" drivers, the ones who never speed unless it is safe, never ignore traffic lights, unless it is safe etc etc.

As a cyclist that puts 2 to 3k of miles a year it is the tools like these that give cyclists a bad name. Not to mention the idiots that try to justify it. Look at the data, the idiots were in the wrong lane on the turn and in the wrong lane period. I can care less how you try to justify it. They were salmon and ignorant. All cyclists need to start following the law and rules of the road. Stop justifying the action of the idiots. We need to improve our name. And sooner or later they will approve licensing and reg for cyclists because of evidence that shows it is our fault and school and practical cycling to be an essential part of the driving test.

forcrz6 wrote:

And sooner or later they will approve licensing and reg for cyclists because of evidence that shows it is our fault and not the cars.

What evidence would that be? Your confirmation bias filtered anecdotes do not count as evidence.
This does, and shows that three out of four bike/car collisions are down to the driver. It is from the Transport Research Laboratory, and was reported on this site.

"Bike riders tearing through red lights, wearing dark clothing or riding at night without lights are to blame for less than 7% of accidents that result in a cyclist being seriously injured, according to research commissioned by the Department for Transport.

The study, carried out by the Transport Research Laboratory – which has also published a report on helmet-wearing that we have covered separately today – found that one in four accidents resulting in death or serious injury to a cyclist was due to the bicycle being struck by a vehicle from behind."

Meanwhile, according to police reports studied as part of the research, wearing dark clothing at night was thought to be a possible cause of just 2.5% of accidents resulting in serious injury to the cyclist, with not using lights or jumping red lights each blamed in 2% of cases. Those percentages rose slightly in instances when the cyclist was killed, although in those circumstances police could only rely on evidence from the driver and other witnesses.

"The report’s findings show clearly that far from being the danger to other road users that certain elements of the media have portrayed them as in recent months, cyclists are themselves put at risk by the actions of motorists, with the police attributing blame to the driver in up to three quarters of collisions between a bicycle and other vehicle in accidents involving adult bike riders."

http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclist...

Beaufort wrote:

Automated cars are the slippery slope - Automated bikes anyone ? Way too dangerous and controlled by humans, who are fallible.

I think Wallace and Gromit were on the right track. Automated techno trousers for everyone, it's the only way to be safe.

Quote:

Not entirely sure I buy Googles reading of the incident given.
Cyclist 1 suddenly jinks right to continue through the junction?
Cyclist 2 attempts to commit suicide?

Are we sure that the Google Car was not just had a glitch and that
Cyclist 1 was always in the lane to go straight-on, and
Cyclist 2 is on the footpath.

Without more information which scenario is more believable?

I think id trust 10,000 times a second laser scanning over erratic city cyclists.

Cyclist 1, took the wrong lane, swerved back into original lane, tell me youve not seen that a million times from road users, be it cars, motorbikes or cyclists.

Look where cyclist 2 came from, the left hand lane of the road, riding against the flow (probably in the margin/gutter), the google car applied a possible path of travel for the cyclist which might intersect and therefore stopped.

levermonkey wrote:

Not entirely sure I buy Googles reading of the incident given.
Cyclist 1 suddenly jinks right to continue through the junction?
Cyclist 2 attempts to commit suicide?

Are we sure that the Google Car was not just had a glitch and that
Cyclist 1 was always in the lane to go straight-on, and
Cyclist 2 is on the footpath.

Without more information which scenario is more believable?

Option one.