back to article Biker nerfed by robo Chevy in San Francisco now lobs sueball at GM

A motorcyclist is suing General Motors in the US after he was knocked off his motorbike by one of the automaker's self-driving cars. In a civil lawsuit [PDF] alleging negligence and demanding damages, photographer Oscar Nilsson claimed he was hit by an autonomous Chevrolet Bolt that had a human driver at the wheel. The driver …

  1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    So if the S/W thinks the other guy's doing something illegal it's OK to hit him? Surely accident avoidance shouldn't rely on what ought to be happening instead of what is.

    1. Martin 47

      .....except that, according to the article, the guy wasn’t doing anything illegal, the car however started a manoeuvre then changed ‘its’ mind. In reality it’s almost certainly a bit 6 and 2 threes.

      1. Shadow Systems Silver badge

        I think the cyclist is at fault.

        If a Human were driving the car, signaled to change lanes & then didn't complete the maneuver but instead returned to their own lane before completely leaving their lane, then anyone (car or motorcycle) that attempted to pass into their original lane (the one they never completely vacated) then the driver attempting to pass would be at fault.

        You're not supposed to attempt to occupy a lane until it's completely empty, otherwise you run the risk of causing an accident if the other driver has to make an emergency reaction that means they have to reoccupy the spot they never fully left.

        What if the car intended to change lanes, indicated that intention, & started to follow through with the move only to see an object (ladder, dog, a mangled Human body, whatever) & had to abort the maneuver to return to the safety of their original spot?

        If you saw their intention, waited for them to completely leave the lane & complete the maneuver, and then (and only then) move into the vacancy that's a different matter; not bothering to wait for the other driver to complete their lane change, "anticipating & being proactive" in this case means you weren't paying attention to the actual conditions at the time.

        Lane splitting is already a dangerous thing to do even in the best of conditions & at the best of times, doing it while another vehicle is in the middle of (but hasn't yet completed) a lane change is completely suicidal.

        If you gave the other driver plenty of room so you could react in a timely fashion to any "WTF?! ACK!" move they may make, then you wouldn't be in a dangerous position to get yourself sideswiped by the vehicle you were trying to pass before it was safe to do so.

        *Sighs & shakes head*

        I'm of two minds on this: on one hand I used to ride a bike myself, took multiple defensive driving courses, & know exactly the kind of stupid shit some folks get up to while riding; on the other hand my mum was an insurance agent & drilled into me the importance of never letting your guard down.

        It's already dangerous enough just riding in the first place, you don't need to ADD to the potential lethality by trying to pass a car *on the right* before it's well & truely safe to try.

        The biker is lucky he's still around to complain; even a low speed crash can prove fatal if it hits you just right (wrong).

        It doesn't take a 500Lb object to be moving very fast to land on your head & grind you into a slime patch.

        I think the cyclist will be found to be at fault & will hopefully lose his license; the roads are dangerous enough as it is without letting people proven to be "a few buckles short of a safety harness" loose on them.

        1. Lost it

          Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

          I ride bikes all the time in the good old UK. Been doing it since 1976 and I'm still going strong.

          I "Filter" that's what we call "Lane splitting" over here. I ride from the South coast of England to the centre of London every day, rain, shine, snow, high winds, whatever. Technically it's not against the law, to filter but you do need to be sensible. I did over 38,000 miles last year on my bikes. I've been known to "Filter with attitude" as my mate calls it, in fact I'm so regular on one of the routes I use I see the same vehicles most mornings and they usually make space for me to get past.

          What I do know is that I ride expecting cars/buses/truck/vans/cyclists/scooter riders AND pedestrians to make any crazy maneuver you care to think of. Stop dead, instant turns, drive where they are looking, step out, cross the road in front of buses (happens a lot in central London) open doors, you name it. And so I never get surprised by what they do, I'm expecting it. I ride a bike that is capable of 150mph, but can still, just about, stop far quicker than it can accelerate. So that's always the first option, stop or slow down.

          Yes, I agree this rider was at fault as far as I'm concerned because he should have been expecting this autonomous car to look after the occupants of the vehicle, not anyone over taking it without making sure it's safe to do so. It's pretty simple, me and my bike weigh about 320kg together. Most cars have much more mass than I have, they are not going to "bounce" off me. I'm not ever going to knock a Routemaster off it's intended course.

          A scooter I might be able to move, a cyclist is possible, a pedestrian might but anything heavier than I am gets enough space to keep me safe. Anything that I might be able to knock out of the way gets enough space as well. I always let buses out, if I see a car waiting to turn right in front of me especially in London I will wait until I know he has seen me or he has pulled out.

          It's called looking after No1. He wasn't doing that, even in the US surely there has to be some measure of taking responsibility for your own actions?

          1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble? Silver badge

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

            @ Lost it

            I agree entirely with this. When I first learned to drive, the best advice I was given was "Just work on the basis that anyone using the road around you can and will, and entirely without warning, do something stupid. You need to be ready to deal with that."

            Served me very well for the last 16 years or so of driving.

            1. Morrie Wyatt

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

              Or to paraphrase the way my father put it when I first started learning to drive:

              Drive with the presumption that every other road user is an idiot.

              1. Michael Thibault

                Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

                "Drive with the presumption that every other road user is an idiot."

                Likely the part dropped to dumb it down enough for the average road user is:

                "and every one of them is looking for confirming evidence that you are an idiot, too".

            2. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

              "Just work on the basis that anyone using the road around you can and will, and entirely without warning, do something stupid"

              And if you're a biker/cyclist, work on the basis that everyone is plotting to kill you and just waiting for the chance to do it. Being in the right won't hurt any less if you go under a bus.

          2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

            Yep. Long term biker here (since '69 ) and rode around 13K miles last year on a big bike.

            I was taught defensive riding by an ex Police Instructor in the mid 1970's. In traffic I still ride as he taught me. That skill has saved my life on many an occassion.

            Ride as if you expect Tin Cans (driven or driverless) to do stupid things and you will survive.

          3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

            "even in the US surely there has to be some measure of taking responsibility for your own actions?"

            Don't be silly. "This coffee may be hot", "objects in the rear view mirror..." etc., etc., etc.

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

              Actually "objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear" is a pretty valid warning, it isn't so obvious

              1. IglooDude
                Joke

                Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

                Actually "objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear" is a pretty valid warning, it isn't so obvious

                In my Mustang GT, the warning says "objects in the rear view mirror are irrelevant".

                Also a big thumbs-up for the subtitle, best lyrical play I've seen here in a while.

              2. Tom 7 Silver badge

                Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

                Actually "objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear" is a pretty valid warning, it isn't so obvious - NO! I couldn't see the object because of the fucking warning!

          4. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

            As a young man, a long time ago, I rode a motor bike. Like you, I gave priority to looking after number one. I found one had to ride on the assumption that other road users simply did not see you.

            The optical laws of reflection seem to treat bikers as a special case, and remove a biker image from the mirror's field of view.

            1. peter_dtm

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

              If Bikers would only think - IF you can not see the drivers eyes in his mirror then he probably can not see you - get out of his blind spot

              And if he is a dick & hasn’t adjusted his mirrors so you can’t find that sweet spot; then you know he never uses his mirror anyway - so now you know & can take suitable avoiding action.

          5. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault#2

            What I do know is that I ride expecting cars/buses/truck/vans/cyclists/scooter riders AND pedestrians to make any crazy maneuver you care to think of

            Summarised by my bike instructor (many years ago) as:

            "Ride like everything on the road is trying to kill you. Because, at some point, it will be, oftem without realising it"

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Re: I think the cyclist is at fault.

          "If a Human were driving the car, signaled to change lanes & then didn't complete the maneuver but instead returned to their own lane before completely leaving their lane, then anyone (car or motorcycle) that attempted to pass into their original lane (the one they never completely vacated) then the driver attempting to pass would be at fault."

          But it isn't clear that that's what happened. "Lane splitting" was mentioned, and in the complaint the biker said he was on the middle lane. Was he, or was he lane-splitting? And if he was lane-splitting, was it between middle and outer lanes or between middle and inner lanes? As a biker myself I would say that splitting is more safely done between inner lane and next lane out, particularly at speed mentioned of 17mph. This should always be done with awarenss of cars around and making sure they know that you're there, converseley meaning, don't squeeze into a space you can't manoevre in.

          With my 'car driver' hat on, when merging into faster traffic I am not only looking at the gaps I can move into but also further ahead to see the situation AHEAD of the car that I want to merge BEHIND, exactly to avoid the situation described. I'm guessing that maybe robo-AI is not capable of accurately guaging this. I also know that as a biker, when driving a car I am more aware of bikes on the road, but many motorists aren't so aware. Is there the possibility that the robo-AI sensors are also more calibrated to see cars than smaller objects? (I should think not as it should be able to detect pedestrians). So did the robo-car not detect the biker at all, or did it somehow get into a position where it had to hit either the bike or one of the cars in the lane it was abortively merging into? In this latter case would be especially interesting to see the telemetry, as one of the most discussed topics on AI driving is, if collision is unavoidable either way, which collision is chosen?

          So while the biker is not blamesless, I would not say he is completely at fault either, both himself and the robo-AI displayed errors of judgement, awareness and execution.

          1. The First Dave

            Re: I think the cyclist is at fault.

            The trouble with "lane splitting" is that it is only legal in the UK "if it is safe", but it never is. If the surrounding traffic is stationery then you have no where to go to, and if the traffic is moving then (as others have already said) you _have_ to assume that the other vehicles are about to change lanes.

            No one ever has a "right to overtake" so I just don't get why bikers think that _they_ do.

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault.

              "The trouble with "lane splitting" is that it is only legal in the UK "if it is safe", but it never is. If the surrounding traffic is stationery then you have no where to go to, and if the traffic is moving then (as others have already said) you _have_ to assume that the other vehicles are about to change lanes."

              If traffic is stationary, there is still space between the lanes for a bike to pass through at a very low speed (20km/h or less). If a car is in the way, slow down or stop, but very often cars will move out of the way to allow a bike to lane-split. Even in stationary traffic, cars usually have space to manoevre a little bit.

              In slow-moving traffic, bikes can generally safely do up to 20km/h faster than surrounding traffic. In this type of traffic it is stupid for a car to try and change lane, and people changing lanes most probably won't go any faster in the new lane, and are just slowing the already slo traffic.

              In any case, bikers should be paying attention to everything hapening around them, and leave themselves room to manuevre, particularly so when lanesplitting. Keep in mind also that bikes generally can accelerate, brake and change direction much faster than a car, so as long as a biker is payng attention they can usually twist their way out.

              In this particular case, I can't comment on fault or blame without knowing very exact details, but it is quite likely that both car and biker could have acted differently to avoid collision.

              All the above based on >> 20 years' experience on 2 and 4 wheels

            2. peter_dtm
              WTF?

              Re: I think the cyclist is at fault.

              Especially when you watch cars ahead manoeuvring to ‘close the gate’ - sometimes quite late & aggressively; so that the poor sod on the bike suddenly as nowhere to go..

              On the other hand; why are there no ‘Bikers THINK Car’ (maybe the ‘Car’ is an overstatement). Don’t bloody well hide in my blind spot(s) - or tail gate me; etc etc - I suspect that the car drivers who ‘close the gate’ are just pee’d off with some of the more stupid bikers

          2. Shadow Systems Silver badge

            At JMCH...

            That's the rub: clearance. If a vehicle starts to change lanes but then has to abort & return to their original spot, another driver anticipating the vacancy & proactively moving to occupy that (not yet vacant) spot has failed to leave proper clearance.

            It really doesn't matter if either is a motorcycle or an autonomous vehicle, it only matters that the driver that did the anticipate/proactive bit failed to give the proper clearance for safe driving. The autonomous one probably would never do such a thing (it would detect that the lane isn't empty yet & thus refuse to move into it) but cyclists (filter/split) it all the time.

            As my defensive driving instructors always drilled into my head, "You & your bike might weigh a thousand pounds. That car alone weighs a ton or more. Who do you think wins in that contest? Here's a hint: it. ain't. you."

            I've often done the filter/split maneuver, but *only when I'm sure it's safe to do so*. Attempting it while the car I'm about to drive beside hasn't finished lane changes is outright suicidal; I don't know if the driver will change their mind, swerve back in, & turn me into a pap smear.

            Yes a Human driver aborting the maneuver *might* look back to make sure their lane is clear for them to abort into, but they shouldn't have to. If they haven't completely left it yet then any other driver trying to occupy that same space would be guilty of trying to sideswipe me.

            I agree you need to look out for number 1, but if you think that was a good time to try & pass another driver then you'll be reduced to a bunch of number 2.

            =-J

        3. This post has been deleted by its author

        4. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: I think the cyclist is at fault.

          "Lane splitting is already a dangerous thing to do even in the best of conditions & at the best of times"

          Pretty much THIS.

          There's a name for bikers who lane split in moving traffic - "Organ donor"

          (in stationary traffic it's a little different, but never do it with a speed difference that doesn't allow you to abort - for exactly the reason this guy ended up off his wheels.)

      2. John H Woods Silver badge

        Re: six and two threes....

        Interesting ... my initial thought is that the car is 100% at fault

    2. teknopaul Bronze badge

      Surely overtaking on the wrong side is a problem for wetware with one set of eyes but no different for a self-driving car?

      Or am I missing something?

      Perhaps it was British software?

      1. Jonathan 27 Bronze badge

        "Surely overtaking on the wrong side is a problem for wetware with one set of eyes but no different for a self-driving car?"

        No, that's not illegal in the USA. Failing to yield to faster traffic is illegal, it's basically the opposite. If someone can pass you on the right legally, you're breaking the law.

        1. kain preacher Silver badge

          Hun ?? Under no circumstance can you pass on the right in the US

          1. DougS Silver badge

            @kain preacher

            Passing on the right isn't illegal, but allowing yourself to be passed on the right (because you aren't moving to the right yourself when faster traffic is coming from behind) is illegal in some states.

            1. kain preacher Silver badge

              Re: @kain preacher

              Dough not if you are doing the speed limit

              1. DougS Silver badge

                Re: @kain preacher

                That's not true. In some states it is illegal not to move over to the right to allow faster traffic by even if you are doing the speed limit or greater. As it should be.

                Luckily you are wrong, if we had a combination of "you can stay in the left lane as long as you are driving the speed limit" and "it is illegal to pass on the right" some asshole could drive the speed limit in the left lane and hold up traffic for miles!

                http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @kain preacher

                  That happens here on the East coast of Canada, far too often.

                  1. kain preacher Silver badge

                    Re: @kain preacher

                    If driving the speed limit cause traffic jams then there is some thing else wrong such as the limit is way to slow. I've never had that problem in California because most people do at least 10 over. 85 on 65 free way is common.

                    Now for me when I'm doing 85 in the left lane and some comes up and is pissed that I'm driving that slow I tend to get over so that person can get away from me . Now the one thing that does tends to make irritate me ,is do to traffic I can only do 55 in 65 and some ass hat behind me gets mad as if I can magically drive faster or through the cars in front of me . you know the kind that starts honking his horn, flashing his lights.

                    The other silly issue I've had is being in the slow lane towing. Hey there are three other lanes to go around me.

                    1. John Geek

                      Re: @kain preacher

                      THIS WAS A CITY STREET, THREE LANES, ONE WAY.

                      street view of area of accident,

                      https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7739495,-122.4313417,3a,75y,75.14h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slVB1-aUcs5K1fWyTjBZtYg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

                    2. Kubla Cant Silver badge

                      Re: @kain preacher

                      If driving the speed limit cause traffic jams then there is some thing else wrong such as the limit is way to slow.

                      Not true. In heavy traffic conditions it's common for the speed limit to be reduced to prevent traffic jams. Urban motorways have variable speed limits for just this reason.

                2. kain preacher Silver badge

                  Re: @kain preacher

                  I never said you can stay in the left lane in every state. You can in California , but not in states like michgian . and yes you can stay in the left lane and only be doing the speed limit in California.

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    Re: @kain preacher

                    "yes you can stay in the left lane and only be doing the speed limit in California."

                    Not if somebody wants to pass. If you refuse to move over, you are impeding the flow of traffic, and subject to a moving violation (points on license, insurance goes up, etc.). Yes, EVEN IF the party wishing to pass would have to break the speed limit to do so. It's not up to you (a civilian) to decide the speed of other traffic.

                    The way I look at it, I just move over if someone wants to go faster than me. I still drive my drive, while allowing them to drive theirs. It's no big deal, I'll get to where I'm going. And if it's a ricer (or other twat) on I5 wanting to do 100MPH+, I'll follow safely behind at ~95MPH and allow them to get the ticket. When used judiciously, "cop plows" are gawd/ess's gift to the long-distance traveler ...

                    1. werdsmith Silver badge

                      Re: @kain preacher

                      As a part time motorcyclist in the UK, I use my two wheel privilege to filter through heavy slow moving traffic. However, I have to accept that it is a risk thing to do and remember that the drivers in the vehicles I'm passing are fallible humans. Just assuming that I should be OK to do something because it is legal is a road to pain. People will make mistakes. The common cyclists error (I am also a cyclist) is to insist on their "right of way" even when it is potentially dangerous. It's the wrong mindset, always yield where it will minimise risk. If you are filtering then you watch the cars like a hawk and if a vehicle is manouvering you give it space until you are sure that you know what the driver is going to do. I would not have got close to a car changing lanes in heavy traffic, even if it appeared to be going away from me.

                      I've have 1 injury accident in 23 years. Caused by a deer.

                      1. John H Woods Silver badge

                        Re: @kain preacher

                        Absolutely agree that the motorcyclist made a mistake... However: as far as UK insurance goes, which I would also consider to be fairly sensible rules, making a mistake does not always make you the one at fault. If you are driving along the road and you brake for a cat and the person (too close) behind hits you, yes you made a mistake: according to the Highway Code you should not brake for an animal without checking your rear view mirror ... but they will nearly always be found at fault: to do otherwise they would usually have to prove you deliberately attempted to cause a collision (because, e.g. you were annoyed at them tailgaiting you).

                        If the biker had hit the back of the car, this would be clear cut, his fault. But when a vehicle sideswipes another during a manouvre, the vehicle making the lateral movement will usually be considered at fault. Whether that manouvre is an 'undo' of an aborted manouvre is usually irrelevant, as whether the other vehicle should have been there or not: good luck avoiding being found at fault for hitting an illegally parked car solely on the basis it was illegally (not dangerously) parked.

                        If you drive out of a parking space, but realize you are about to impede another driver, and you reverse back injuring a pedestrian who thought you were committed to driving out, who is at fault? You don't get to say "oh, the space should be empty because I was in it, I drove out and then I had a reason to 'undo' my drive out." Well, you could say it, but I doubt it would carry much weight.

                        The vehicle is at fault IMHO because (a) it is the heavier entity and must always bear the greater responsibility, (b) because it was the one making a manouvre and possibly (c) because it shouldn't even have commenced making a manouvre that would have to be aborted for anything other than emergency reasons. (If, unlike me, you consider what happened "emergency reasons" I think the correct result would have been a low speed rear-end of the car in front rather than a sideswipe of a motorbike to the side, regardless of whether that vehicle was breaking any rules.

                        TL;DR: "That shouldn't have been there" is never considered a good reason for a collision in the UK. Trust me, I drove my Audi into a police car at a road block.

                      2. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                        Re: @kain preacher

                        I've have 1 injury accident in 23 years. Caused by a deer

                        Two injury accidents in 35 years:

                        1) On my magnificently powerful learner bike (125cc, 12bhp) - accellerated away from a junction behind a car - who then promptly put its brakes on to do a right turn. Bike ended up jammed under their rear bumper. I remember sliding down the road thinking "I'm glad I'm wearing leathers..". Injuries - a few bruises on my knees and a somewhat diminished pride in my motorbike-fu.

                        2) Coming out of go-karting on a cold winters night on my Fireblade 900. Taking it carefully because the road ran along the top of the hill and the ambient temperature was about -5C. Came to a small corner at about 20mph (with cold tyres), tipped the bike slightly into the corner then watched both tyres go very quickly sideways and the bike slide off down the road on its side. Main thought was "this is going to get expensive..". Injury - bruising to my backside and a wedge of cash extracted from my wallet to buy a new side panel.

                    2. tiggity Silver badge

                      Re: @kain preacher

                      Only the US would have a lunatic law that made it an offence to not give way to a breaking the speed limit (non emergency services) vehicle

                      1. jake Silver badge

                        Re: @kain preacher

                        tiggity, the US doesn't. Induhvidual states might, though.

                3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: @kain preacher

                  "That's not true. In some states it is illegal not to move over to the right to allow faster traffic by even if you are doing the speed limit or greater. As it should be."

                  Well, no, not really. Theoretically, if you move out of the way of someone wanting to speed, maybe you are "aiding and abetting"? Obviously, you should always return to the most left (or right depending on local driving rules) driving lane after passing, but are you sure there is a law stating you must get out of the way of someone breaking the speed limit?

                  1. Primus Secundus Tertius Silver badge

                    Re: @kain preacher

                    In Britain, the Highway Code specifically says to let people overtake if they want. The HC is not law, but can be cited in court.

                  2. werdsmith Silver badge

                    Re: @kain preacher

                    "but are you sure there is a law stating you must get out of the way of someone breaking the speed limit?"

                    Nothing that says that explicitly, but if the inside lane (first lane, whatever) is free then you should be in it even if you are breaking the speed limit yourself.

                    It's not the job of members of the public to enforce the speed limit, this only causes anger and makes things worse. It's common sense not to block the road for the sake of being a prig.

                  3. peter_dtm
                    Stop

                    Re: @kain preacher

                    In South Africa; if you didn’t move out of the way; you used to get done for ‘Depriving the State of Income’ and get hit for at least DOUBLE the speeding fine they thought they would have got if you hadn’t slowed the other car up !

                4. Alan Brown Silver badge

                  Re: @kain preacher

                  "That's not true. In some states it is illegal not to move over to the right to allow faster traffic by even if you are doing the speed limit or greater."

                  In some countries the rule is "Use the left/right lane unless passing"

                  Failing to keep left/right is a ticketable offence in many countries, but one that's seldom enforced.

          2. John Geek

            this was a city street, not a highway. 3 lane one way streets, quite frequently the left lane is full stopped because someone up ahead is making a left turn and waiting for pedestrians, are you saying the other two lanes have to stop and wait for the left lane to move before they can proceed? HAHAHAAHAHAHHA, right.

          3. jmch Silver badge

            "Under no circumstance can you pass on the right in the US"

            I'm not sure if it's LEGAL to pass on the right, but having driven there I assure you that not only can it be done, but is done with alarming frequency. Add to that 5 or 6-lane highways (when we Europeans are more used to 2 or at most 3 lanes), and the fact that USA-ians have the tendency to not only overtake on any lane, but also cut across multiple lanes at a time, AND do so mostly in gigantic 5-tonne vehicles that are far more truck than car, it can get pretty hairy

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "Failing to yield to faster traffic is illegal"

          The UK could do with a law like that. (Although it's legal to pass on the "slow" side, it's risky.)

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Surely overtaking on the wrong side is a problem for wetware with one set of eyes but no different for a self-driving car?

        No, driving in the land of hideous driving.

        Most of the world expects that the slow traffic is in the slow lane, faster next to it and the fastest in the fast lane (left to right in Britain, Japan, etc and opposite elsewhere). In most of the world overtaking on the wrong side in front of a cop is asking for 3 points on your license.

        It is only USA which has the grand idiocy of everyone driving in any lane at any speed they please and overtaking on both sides. Theoretically some states have restrictions regarding overtaking on the right. That is the most theoretical of all restrictions - one nobody ever complies with.

        I find it quite entertaining that GM pulled that restriction out of the hat. While it is in theory legally in the right, if this ever goes in front of a jury convincing 12 people all of which overtake on the right all the time that overtaking on the right is somehow illegal is a very tough call.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. kain preacher Silver badge

          People get tickets for Passing in the right. Most states in the US the left lane is for passing only. Yes it would be easy for a jurry to find the bike at fault. I don;t know if you have every been to the US but no it's not common to pass on the right

        3. Tim99 Silver badge

          It is only USA which has the grand idiocy of everyone driving in any lane at any speed they please and overtaking on both sides. You can do this in Western Australia. I was "surprised" the first time it happened to me as I was used to checking the offside lane for overtaking traffic...

          1. gz3zbz

            You have to keep left in Western Australia at 90km/h or above, with some exceptions - http://www.roadrules.rsc.wa.gov.au/road-rules/keeping-left.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Actually it's Australia that allows you to overtake on either side - provided there are at least 2 lanes.

          Whilst that isn't really approved on Motorways/Tollways it's perfectly legal on normal roads.

          1. jmch Silver badge
            Trollface

            "Actually it's Australia that allows you to overtake on either side - provided there are at least 2 lanes."

            So if there are 2 lanes it's still OK to be overtaken on either side?? Wow, the Australian traffic must be as wild as the local fauna :)

            1. Puuru

              From the New Zealand Road Code:

              "You can only pass on the left when:

              "there are two or more lanes on your side of the centre line and you are able to pass safely by using the left-hand lane

              "you are directed to by a police officer

              "the vehicle you are passing:

              "has stopped, or

              "is signalling a right turn, or

              "is turning right."

              So, "undertaking" on a motorway is legal in drive-on-the-left NZ (but they are thinking of stopping that).

        5. Ian Entwistle

          Filtering is perfectly legal here in the UK, in fact during a bike test if you fail to filter when its safe to do so you fail for lack of confidence in your ability. As per original comment though even if said biker was doing something he shouldn't that doesn't give self driving cars the right to hit him... it is in situations like this where the gap it was going for is no longer a safe option yet abandoning the move leads to an accident that is the hard bit of programming as you have to now make a difficult choice, if in the case both would end up with a casualty which one do you want the computer to choose?

        6. Richard Plinston Silver badge

          > It is only USA which has the grand idiocy of everyone driving in any lane at any speed they please and overtaking on both sides.

          No. That statement is not true at all.

          It is not "only USA". Other countries, such as the that I live in, does not ban passing in any lane where they are marked. This does not lead to any particular problems.

          Most countries, especially the USA, certainly do not allow 'driving at any speed they please'.

        7. Kernel

          "It is only USA which has the grand idiocy of everyone driving in any lane at any speed they please and overtaking on both sides. "

          Perfectly legal to overtake on either side in NZ as well where there is more than one marked lane - the crucial point being that the lanes must be marked as separate lanes, not just a single lane that is wide enough to squeeze through on the left.

    3. DougS Silver badge

      @Doctor Syntax

      The software didn't "think" the guy was doing anything illegal. It wanted to switch lanes, but the lead car in the lane it wanted to switch to slowed down so it had to abandon the lane change halfway through and return to its original lane. The motorcyclist prematurely tried to get past, was knocked on his ass for his trouble, and is now suing because he (or the ambulance chaser representing him) knows autonomous cars are a deep pocketed target.

      1. jmch Silver badge

        Re: @Doctor Syntax

        "The motorcyclist prematurely tried to get past"

        If the biker was following the robocar at a constant speed, the car started changing lane, then the car in front slowed down, so it decided to abort the manoever, presumably in this case the robocar braked at the same time as aborting the lane change. It's not a given that the biker accelerated into the space. I also suspect that the safety threshold for aborting the lane change is much hgher for the robocar than for a normal driver, ie it could be that the biker expected that the robocar woud complete the lane change manoever because a real driver would have squeezed their way in. (Also, was the biker aware at the time that it was a robocar not a human driver? How well are these cars marked?)

        As a small aside, reported speed at impact was 17mph (27km/h) which is very slow-moving traffic. This type of traffic is slowed up even more by idiots changing lanes because they think the next kane is going at 2km/h faster than theirs (hint: it probably isn't)

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Alien

          Car markings

          An article elsewhere had a pic of that robo-car, and they're easily identified as such, or at the very least something out of the ordinary, by a roof rack fitted with cameras and other sensors.

          They appear to not have further markings such as "BEWARE - ROTM - KEEP YOUR DISTANCE"

    4. vir

      As some other people have mentioned, the concept of "right of way" takes less precedence over avoiding a collision. As stated in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea:

      In construing and complying with these rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.

      This is a real thorny part of the "self driving" problem: when to throw the rules out the door. In this case, I believe the self-driving car should have intentionally hit the car ahead if the speed of collision was low (as it appears to have been) since the more robust safety mechanisms in cars as compared to the non-existent safety mechanisms in motorcycles mean that everyone would have had a better chance of walking away unharmed.

      1. airdrummer

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_clear_chance means u can't plow into someone out of spite for cutting u off

  2. vir

    The Real Moral of The Story

    Always count on the minivan to slam on the brakes for no reason.

    1. Michael Thibault
      Facepalm

      Re: The Real Moral of The Story

      "Always count on the minivan to slam on the brakes for no reason."

      The much-misunderstood principle "stop and think" in action.

  3. Jonathan 27 Bronze badge

    If my memory serves me correctly, IF the biker was lane-splitting, then GM's account is totally legit because lane-splitting is only legal if it's safe. Otherwise the biker is in the right.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "IF the biker was lane-splitting, then GM's account is totally legit because lane-splitting is only legal if it's safe."

      There's a circular argument at play here. If the car had completed its initial manoeuvre it would have been safe. It could be (and was) made unsafe by an action outside the motorcyclist's control. That could describe just about any movement, including continued movement forward within a lane, in heavy traffic.

      I believe that in this case the car driver attempted to take over but was too late. If that's so then he thought that the collision was avoidable. And yet we're assured the autonomous vehicle will be so much safer.

  4. Curly4
    Meh

    Here in America most everyone is on the lookout how to make a buck the easy way. If the driver sues GM he is hoping that GM would rather settle out of court for a few thousands of dollars rather than the cost of many times that amount for them to take it to court even if they win. So take this with a grain of salt it will make this crap taste better.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "Here in America most everyone is on the lookout how to make a buck the easy way."

      I was once told by a sales guy that the money in the other guys wallet is yours, he just doesn't know it yet. Capitalism at it's most ugly.

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      I've always just assumed that in the US it's easier to sue someone than it is to take responsibility for your own actions.

      It's certainly more common.

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      " If the driver sues GM he is hoping that GM would rather settle out of court "

      That's a long bet.

      GM (or any other robocar developer) will fight this tooth and nail. The Last thing they want is any kind of legal precedent - even an out of court settlement tips the scales.

      It doesn't matter if the biker was lane splitting or in the lane. He moved prematurely into a gap that wasn't available yet and got twatted as a result. The human driver trying to intervene _too late_ shows that a meatsack wouldn't have done any better.

  5. James 63
    FAIL

    Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem. Just because one party has right of way they should still be doing everything possible to avoid a collision with someone in the wrong - saying "I have right of way" and then ploughing into the side of another vehicle isn't clever.

    No matter how this one turns out I hope GM are looking closely at their code...

    1. bemos

      My understanding is that "right of way" has to do more with who can proceed in a conflict, but loses value when a collision occurs.

      Consider a vehicle that slows to make an illegal u-turn and is struck from behind -- Both drivers are fault, one for impeding the lane for an illegal maneuver and the other for failing to stop.

      No "right of way" entitles one vehicle to impact another if the impact can be avoided, if either driver misses the opportunity to avoid a collision then they bare some fault which is why so many vehicle collisions end in "50/50" fault decisions.

      1. dew3

        RE: My understanding

        "Consider a vehicle that slows to make an illegal u-turn and is struck from behind -- Both drivers are fault,..."

        Not in the four US states I have lived in, the car behind is (almost) always 100% at fault for any rear-end collision. No 50/50 for liability unless you could not reasonably have avoided the collision - like black ice or no brake lights in the front car. The U-turn car is also separately guilty of a traffic violation (and might get cited for that).

        But, contrary to claims from some rather confused commentards here, US traffic laws do vary somewhat by state (in the state I currently live in you can legally pass on the right, but only on freeways or if the car being passed is making a left turn), and it is possible what you say is true in some states.

        That said, I'll guess if you can make a legal left turn on that road, then your claim of contributory negligence (that the car in front is legally partially at fault for being rear-ended) won't fly in most of the US, as any car behind should reasonably expect a car in front of them might slow down to turn regardless of the reasons for that turn.

      2. John Robson Silver badge

        “My understanding is that "right of way" has to do more with who can proceed in a conflict, but loses value when a collision occurs.”

        NO

        Right of way is who has the legal right pass over a specific place.

        You are thinking of priority. If people stopped calling it a ‘right’ and called it priority then we might see a slightly more rational attitude on the roads...

        Ah, who am I kidding - might is right, bigger vehicle always has priority in the eyes of its operator and anyone vulnerable is screwed by the lack of enforcement, prosecution and penalty :(

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem."

      That was my point exactly. And immediately it turns into an argument of what's illegal in whatever state - about which, as a UK driver I know nothing.

      If the car doesn't make best efforts to avoid an accident and its maker thinks that's OK because the other driver was in the wrong then we can forget about all those arguments about how they're safer and their proponents can stop going on about "meatsacks", gain some respect and start addressing drivers politely.

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      "Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem."

      Should read:

      ""Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem."

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem."

        The extra twist with a self driving car is that it's repeatable.

    4. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem.

      I don't agree on this. This may well become a test case for the manufacturers. If GM pursues it and wins, then it will set a precedent. Assuming they have sufficient telemetry I think they'll happily go to court over this.

      Developers must continue teaching cars to drive defensively but, as the numerous "what if…" questions demonstrate, you cannot anticipate and prepare for every possible eventuality and there will, inevitably, be accidents. In such situations the law must be the same for people and computer drivers.

      Insurance companies and legislators will be watching this carefully.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "Assuming they have sufficient telemetry I think they'll happily go to court over this."

        Being a test vehicle in the R&D programme, they must surely have full 360o video, accurately time stamped. Even as a production car, I'd expect it to have a full sensor record of everything around it. All around proximity detection in an AV car is a pre-requisite so the telemetry should show the precise sequence of events.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        @Charlie Clark

        There are two separate issues here. One is the the legal liability for the particular accident. The other is the implication that the self-driving car may have failed to take sufficient action to avoid a collision. GM might be pleased from a liability point of view if they win on the first. If that leaves them pleased with the outcome of the second then it's bad news for all of us.

    5. localzuk

      "Regardless of who's legally in the right or wrong, a self driving car hitting another vehicle is a problem."

      Problem is, in this case, the self driving car ended up with 2 choices - 1. drive into the minivan that slowed in the other lane, completing the lane change maneuver, or 2. return to its original spot, which someone had illegally ridden into.

      From any point of view I can tell, this seems clear cut - the software did the right thing... You can't always prevent an accident, but you can choose which accident to have.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "Problem is, in this case, the self driving car ended up with 2 choices"

        Is this the case? Did it have an option to move over a bit, straddle both lanes and leave room for both the minivan and the bike? Did the car's S/W overvalue being completely within a lane? Did it have the option to brake within the minivan lane and avoid a collision there? Did the S/W overvalue the lane that it was leaving relative to the lane it was entering? Or steering over braking?

        I've said here, on this topic, that accidents are the results of corner cases and that humans are usually better at handling those than computers. Was this a corner case that a human driver would have handled better than the car?

        1. John Robson Silver badge

          > Was this a corner case that a human driver would have handled better than the car?

          Probably not - most humans would swerve 'back' across their lane if their overtake had to be aborted (assuming they didn't just plough into the minivan and spin through the m/cyclist).

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "accidents are the results of corner cases"

          Genuine accidents perhaps.

          Most road crashes are the result of at least 2 major errors of judgement (usually 3 or more) on the part of one or more people.

          The vast majority of crashes I've seen were avoidable in the first instance.

          It's unlikely a human would have coped any better. All things being equal and the laws of phsyics being thwt they are, it's usually better to sideswipe something and exchange paint than than to run into the back of something else and suffer an abrupt change of velocity for both vehicles (Did I hear you say "whiplash claim"?)

    6. KSM-AZ

      All the "code" in the world, cannot prevent some idiot from driving into you. Dash cams.

  6. bemos

    Are self driving cars deaf?

    I assume there is video of the accident?

    The Bolt started to change lanes, then decided it didn't want to, so went back. One question is at what point is your lane change maneuver complete? Conservatively I think it would be an easy argument so that once both sides of tires are over the lane marker you have changed lanes, but one might argue that once you have mostly cleared the lane marker (maybe 50%?) you've fully committed to the lane change and to veer back over would be yet another lane change.

    The more important thing though is, why did the Bolt feel it was OK to head back to center? Shouldn't it be aware of all objects around it and their vectors? This bike was accelerating into the space the Bolt wanted to be in, the Bolt should have recognized that.

    ...a third consideration--We've probably all heard the excuse that "loud pipes" on motorcycles save lives by making drivers VERY aware of the bikes nearby and based on the pitch/loudness you can tell if they are speeding up quickly, letting off accelerators, etc...

    ...it raises the question to me of whether self driving cars are "deaf" or not? I know that I certainly become more attentive when I hear the doppler-effect modified sound of a motorcycle racing up behind me... does the Bolt have this same capability?

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  7. DougS Silver badge

    The car will have video of the incident

    So if the motorcyclist tried to split lanes past the car before it had completely left the center lane, then he's at fault. Gonna be a bit harder to win these sorts of cases against autonomous cars since they will always have a video record from multiple angles.

    1. kain preacher Silver badge

      Re: The car will have video of the incident

      Lane spiting should not be done at more than 25 mph and should only be done if traffic is slow moving, close to a stop.

      1. Old Used Programmer

        Re: The car will have video of the incident

        According to the article, the collision took place at 17 MPH.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: The car will have video of the incident

      "So if the motorcyclist tried to split lanes past the car before it had completely left the center lane, then he's at fault."

      And are you then saying that the car was in the right to continue regaining its lane and side-swipe him?

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: The car will have video of the incident

        Absolutely, because the car never needed to "regain" its lane, it hadn't fully moved out of the lane. The motorcyclist was impatient, and his injuries were 100% his own damn fault.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: The car will have video of the incident

        And are you then saying that the car was in the right to continue regaining its lane and side-swipe him?

        No, the conclusion is that the motorcyclist acted dangerously and tried to overtake before it was safe to do so. In this interpretation it was the bike that did the swiping. But IANAL and would expect this go to trial to get a precedent juddgement.

  8. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Question?

    Was GM car still partially in the original lane? If so, the motorcyclist is a candidate for honorary mention for a Darwin Award. Do not pass a vehicle until it has finished its lane change.

  9. unwarranted triumphalism

    I hope that General Motors will be defending itself robustly against these malicious lies.

  10. tfewster Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Hmmm

    If the biker was lane-splitting on the line between "fast" and centre lanes, the GM car would have had to have completed its manoeuvre, or the bike would have gone into the back of it.

    And there's a difference between overtaking on the wrong side, and maintaining a steady speed when traffic in the overtaking lane slows down, else an accident in the overtaking lane would mean the other lanes had to stop. I'll happily sit at 60 in the "slow" lane with the trucks while the centre and "fast" lanes go 0->90->0->90->0

    Closing the gap between the bike and next vehicle ahead would also seem reasonable, even if the "fast" lane slows down.

    1. David Roberts Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm - lane splitting

      Late to the party, but if the motorbike had been lane splitting then the car should have been able to regain the lane without impeding the bike.

      That is, after all, what lane splitting is about.

  11. DanceMan
    Thumb Down

    Lane Splitting

    This would be why most jurisdictions don't allow lane splitting. And I say that as someone who rode a motorcycle year round for commuting for about 8 years.

  12. EveryTime Silver badge

    Not all of the readers will be aware of the California driving habits.

    The excuse for lane splitting is that motorcycles (used to) need to keep moving for air cooling. But the reality is that lane splitting is really about driving faster than moving traffic, including heavy traffic that is already moving at the speed limit.

    I'm guessing the lawyer and motorcyclist are hoping for an quick deep-pocket payout. Failing that, a sympathetic jury. But I don't see GM settling, especially after the PR damage has been done. Instead they now need to win. Ideally with a precedent that their software isn't at issue, only the legality of the situation.

    1. tony trolle
      FAIL

      Californians in general can't drive

      On average in a 60 min freeway journey expect to see one near big miss and a couple of minor misses.

      Double that for morning freeway commutes. Most drivers tend to drive as if the car or truck ends at their ears and most biker riders think their bike is as wide as their ears.

      Add fact that uninsured motorists is at the minimum 10% you can see why the road to Las Vegas is busy at weekends.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    AVs are being rushed to market for financial gains

    That being said, GM may not be at fault in this incident from what is being reported.

    Siren chasers will ALWAYS sue a big company and get a sympathy judgment from technically clueless juries. In America you can become an instant millionaire from Jackpot Justice. All you need to do is pour hot coffee on your crotch and claim McD's is responsible for your failure to act responsibly when traveling in a vehicle with a hot cup of coffee. The siren chasers have destroyed the judicial system in America due to their financial greed.

    Understand that there will be thousands of lawsuits for AVs in the future as there is zero government oversight for safety, hardened communication, redundant failsafe operating systems, etc. It's like the Wild West world wide as entities strive to be the first to have a commercially viable AV. As such no government entity has mandated reasonable safety, security, design and maintenance protocols. As people die or are injured we will see kneejerk legislation instead of proper engineering being mandated for AVs. Then the paid liars can fight over who died because the software had to make a decision in an unavoidable collision. It's so irresponsible to operate this way...

  14. Nifty

    It'll be interesting to see how much 360% footage was recorded by the AV for the forensic analysis of who/what was to blame.

  15. Paul Mitchell
    Unhappy

    By car drivers for car drivers

    Leaving aside the legal issues on "lane splitting" in California, about which I'm neither qualified nor experienced to comment on....

    Presumably the GM self-driving software (and hardware) was written by car drivers, for car drivers. Is it possible that it simply didn't recognise the much smaller motorcycle as another vehicle, as it never occurred to the developers that vehicles could be that small? Therefore it didn't make an allowance fo its presence, perhaps.

  16. jmcc

    Any here actually drive Oak St?

    Well as it seems no one posting so far a) has driven Oak St for many years, b) driven in SF and Cal for decades c) knows the Cal Codes 21000+ and the current ticket tariffs (it shuts up scofflaw cyclists very quickly) let me explain.

    The car was completely and totally in the wrong. The accident was at Oak / Fillmore. The flat crest of the hill before if goes down the hill to what used to be the Central Freeway onramp. It was at the end of rush hour when traffic is still heavy. As the speed was 17mph and Oak St is an arterial with lights synchronized for 35mphs that tell me that traffic was full three lanes and heavily bunched. In that section of Oak only dangerous assholes try to change lane in heavy traffic. Unless you are caught in an intersection when lights change. There are normally very few lane changes around there in those traffic conditions. All lanes move at about same speed in stop and go traffic. Due to the incompetent road engineering for the right turn on Octavia the far right lane on the down slope has quite a few people pulling out into the center lane once they realize they are heading for the new freeway onramp but not at Fillmore.

    As for the motorcyclist. It sounds like he was riding exactly like every other responsible motorcyclist I have seen on the Oak/Fell corridor since I first drove it in 1988. Lane spitting is legal and spit center lane left / right is the only responsible way of riding on those streets. Unlike pretty much all cyclists in SF I have almost never seen a motorcyclist do anything dangerous or stupid over the years. SF is very unforgiving for that kind of stupidity. When driving Oak / Fell I always keep an eye out for motorcyclists and move over slightly in the lane to let them pass. Safer for everyone.

    As for the Cruise/GM technology? Well if the Goggle self drive tech is mostly safe but impractical and Teslas self drive tech is vastly over hyped and often dangerous then the stuff GM bough last year is outright dangerous and should be let no where near a public road. Sooner or later GM will realize that they bough demo ware tech which can never be turned into any kind of safe consumer product technology and will write off their $1B sucker buy. One of the GM cars will sooner or later seriously injure / kill someone and when it does the discovery phase of the inevitable criminal liability lawsuit will turn up some very interesting facts about just what kind of "technology" GM bought. And if its a particular nasty accident(s) then GM maybe looking at a legal bill in the Chevy Malibu exploding gas tank territory.

    The Cruise buy will turn into a fiasco one way or another for GM. If they are lucky it will only cost them the $1B acquisition cost. If they are unlucky it could prove to be an Autonomy sized financial disaster.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You wanted more women in IT.

    And now we get cars that change their minds.

  18. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Two final thoughts on this.

    If the car was so close to the van as to be compromised by the van's braking then it was too close, shouldn't have got itself into that position. If being that close was a consequence of the arrangement of vehicles when it started to change lane then it did so either too soon or into too small a gap.

    Secondly, whatever the arrangement was ascribed to: proving, data gathering, testing, experimental this was an item clearly still under development. Allowing, for sake of argument, for a need for it to be on public roads putting it there elevated the risk to other road users. The cost of developing the product would be collateral damage to other road users when that risk materialised. In such circumstances GM should have made financial provision for compensating victims and been proactive in offering such compensation rather than not only waiting to be sued but defending the suit when it came.

  19. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    yet another reason why I read The Register

    You learn something new every day. I had always been told it was illegal to pass on the right, at least in my state. After reading this article and comment thread, I decided to look it up for myself. Turns out that it IS legal to pass on the right, under certain circumstances, since at least 2011.

    https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title32/rs32-74/

  20. DCFusor Silver badge

    Only in the USA?

    Obviously you've not been watching any Russian Dashcam videos....There are stupid drivers everywhere, no need to get parochial about it.

    Only in California is absolutely everything "someone else's fault", and well, most of the US seems to be "a lawsuit is your ticket to retiring soon and rich" but Kalifornia leads the nation in many things like that.

    In a way, the blowback from those attitudes is why we have the orange one at the helm just now.

    Careful what you wish for.

    To me it doesn't matter all that much who was at fault - it's better to just not have the wreck. Defensive driving, like mentioned above, seems to be the rule that keeps you alive and doesn't ruin your day. Does getting there 10 seconds earlier really rate that high? If so, you're stupid, and no I won't apologize - grow the fsck up - or leave 10 sec earlier.

    1. jmcc

      Re: Only in the USA?

      As a matter of interest you have lived and driven in California for how long? And when did you get you first California drivers license?

      Me, first California drivers license in 1987 and have driven around 300K plus accident free miles since then. About 250K in state, about another 50k all along the West Coast all the way to the Canadian border. And across too. Into B.C.

      Why do I get the distinct impression you don't have the slightest clue about the subject. Every statement you made is either factually untrue, gross rhetorical overreach based on some random crap you read on the internet, or else irrelevant to the original story.

      As I said in a previous posting, the GM car was completely at fault in this accident. Based on knowing both the location of the accident and the technology used in that car. Come this July I will have been taking the right turn onto Fillmore from Oak exactly 30 years. Down hill to the Lower Haight. One thing that has not changed over the decades. Head for Dog Shit Park if you want to find parking.

  21. Paratrooping Parrot
    Paris Hilton

    Evidence

    I hope that all self driving vehicles have dash cams that are automatically recording and have no way of editing the contents. This way if there is a claim, the camera footage can show the evidence.

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019