Company tweaks software and admits fault – for what might be the first time – after Lexus tried to skirt sandbags, causing only minor damage
Google said on Monday it bore “some responsibility” after one of its self-driving cars struck a bus in a minor crash earlier this month.
As per the news found on their site, the accident may be the first case of one of its autonomous cars hitting another vehicle and the fault of the self-driving car. The Mountain View, California-based Internet search leader said it made changes to its software after the crash to avoid future incidents.
In a report filed with California regulators, Google said the crash took place in Mountain View on February 14 when a self-driving Lexus RX450h tried to skirt around some sandbags in a wide lane. Crashes with buses is one of the most common causes of car accidents around the world. Those who crashed their vehicle and damaged their windshield may need auto glass repair services.
Google said in the filing the autonomous vehicle was traveling at less than 2 miles per hour, while the bus was moving at about 15 miles per hour.
The vehicle and the test driver “believed the bus would slow or allow the Google (autonomous vehicle) to continue,” it said.
But three seconds later, as the Google car in autonomous mode re-entered the centre of the lane, it struck the side of the bus, causing damage to its left front bomper, front wheel and a driver side sensor. No-one was injured in the car or on the bus.
Google said in a statement on Monday that “we clearly bear some responsibility, because if our car hadn’t moved, there wouldn’t have been a collision. That said, our test driver believed the bus was going to slow or stop to allow us to merge into the traffic, and that there would be sufficient space to do that.”
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, outside of Google headquarters in Mountain View, California Photo: AP
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority will investigate the circumstances of the accident, Stacey Hendler Ross, spokeswoman for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, said on Monday.
She said the Google car caused minor damage to the bus, striking the “pivoting joint,” or flexible area in the middle of the articulated bus. After the crash, 15 passengers on the bus were transferred to another bus.
An investigation to determine liability is pending, she said.
John Simpson, privacy project director for advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said the crash “is more proof that robot car technology is not ready for auto pilot”.
A spokesman for the California Department of Motor Vehicles said on Monday it will speak to Google to gather additional information, but added “the DMV is not responsible for determining fault”.
I spoke to LTDA Chairman Steve McNamara on Wednesday and in that conversation he informed me (in his opinion) the argument over surcharges is irrelevant as rules governing CC transactions including surcharges, may well be change in 2017 due to an EU directive.
The information is actually contained in the results from TfL’s consultation on Credit Card Payments.
The actual wording states:
The current surcharge of up to 10 per cent is generally felt to be too high, but the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 already bans excessive surcharges and traders, including taxi drivers, may not charge more than it costs them to accept card payments.
This is pretty clear so far and quite understandable.
The report continues to say:
It is also expected that future legislation (Following adoption by the European Parliament of the Revised Directive on Payment Services), will remove most card payment surcharges when it comes into effect which is expected to be by end of 2017.
The statement is unspecific as to which “most card payments” are referred to.
Also, this may not happen,because by 2017, we may no longer be part of the EU.
So why are TfL pushing for something so strong, that may never happen?
Until this actually happens, why should we even consider passing CC payment surcharges over to the driver?
How would this 2017 European consumer rights regulation affect us here in the UK?
This will mean retailers will not be able to charge cc customers the surcharge or service charge.
This will include paying bills, booking theatre tickets, shop purchases and the like of us. But most retailers will build this into the retail price of the goods being sold.
TfL have offered us a 20p extra to the initial meter drop, but that was based on a CC surcharge capped at 3%.
Now we are told that the Card clearing companies have turned this down and TfL are going to let market forces set the rate.
Why is there such a lack of information from our orgs about what is coming in April, in regards to CC surcharge payments?
Is this another example from TfL’s spin doctors of while we are tearing into each other over this, something else more controversial is about to slip under the radar.
Perhaps TfL feel that if we are arguing about something that’s possibly inevitable, we won’t be resisting the unenforceable CC mandate -about to be tested in court I hear- or the unnecessary fitting of equipment in the rear.
The way TfL have tried to bulldoze this through based on their consultation is nothing short of scandalous.
This whole issue has been a complete mess from start to now and has been handled dreadfully by the Orgs/Unions, suppliers and TfL.
Too many vested interests looking at grabbing larger market share, stirring the already muddy waters.
A complete
The TfL consultation result recommendations should be based on majority of opinions from those who responded. It’s clear that this is not the case.
It’s alleged TfL are trying to manipulate the conclusions by making the results unclear.
We are told that there are 5,000 terrorists heading into the United Kingdom, or certainly to Europe and then, no doubt, on to us. Are our former partners in Europe not going to tell us?
Are they going to sit there mute while London is blown apart, or Glasgow, Manchester or Birmingham?
Those are, so the Europhiles say, our allies. They are friends; they are decent people. We do not dislike them. We love the Europeans. I am British and a European, and I am extremely proud of it. I want to be in Europe and to trade with Europe.
I want to enjoy their culture, their languages, their mountains, their seas, their more efficient trains, their wider and faster roads and their beautiful wine; I want to enjoy it all, as we all do. But, like millions of people in this country, I do not want to be ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee, which is a great privilege, under the most able chairmanship of my hon. Friend Sir William Cash. He might like to hear about the conversation I had with my taxi driver last night as I was heading home—I always talk with the drivers, because they are always fascinating men and women.
When he asked me who I was, I replied, “I’m an MP, but please don’t press the ejector button.” He promised not to. Then he said, “Tell me, guv, what do you think about the EU?” I said, “It’s simple. Do you want to control the future of this country, or do you want to hand it across to unelected bureaucrats and a political elite who are completely out of touch with the electorate?”
He said, “Guv, do you know William Cash?” I explained that I did and that he is a great friend of mine. He said, “He sat in my cab 25 years ago and said the same thing.” That story is absolutely true. My hon. Friend, who is far-sighted, was right then, and he is right now. Let us get our freedom back on 23 June.
A total of 69% of London adults oppose the use of surge pricing – the Uber policy of increasing prices when demand is high, according to a new study.
The independent YouGov survey released today (22 February) also found that 43% of London Uber users surveyed complained that the minicab drivers didn’t know any good shortcuts, suggesting they take busier, slower routes. Over a quarter (26%) also admitted they didn’t think drivers attempted to avoid traffic.
Joseph Seal-Driver, managing director of car sharing service DriveNow UK, commented: “Londoners are clearly fed up with being charged over the odds to get around town. We want to make it clear to everyone that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution; London is full of transport options that allow you to get to where you’re going quickly, and for a fair price.”
In response an Uber spokesperson said: “Dynamic pricing allows Uber to make more cars available in times of high demand, ensuring that the 1.5 million Londoners who use the app can always push a button and get a ride. The fare increases in a particular area only when the number of people trying to book a car is greater than the cars available. This real-time response encourages drivers to go to these areas and fares decrease when they do so. Fares are fully transparent in the app and users are required to confirm dynamic pricing before they can book a trip. However, you can choose not to accept the price and select ‘notify me when surge ends’ to be sent a text when fares are lower.”
Like most advanced digital societies, France faces “uberization.” This term, coined by Maurice Lévy, CEO of Publicis Groupe, refers to the fundamental disruption of traditional business models by digital trends—in Lévy’s words, the idea that “you suddenly wake up to find your legacy business gone.”
Thanks to Uber itself, as well as companies such as Airbnb, BlaBlaCar, Amazon and Google, the concept is widely recognized and understood by France’s internet users as well.
But what do they think of uberization? To find out, Elia Consulting commissioned a study by Harris Interactive, which polled 1,017 adult internet users in France in early February 2016. The results were published in the report, “Les Français et l’Ubérisation,” cited by L’Usine Digitale.
According to the web users sampled, uberization does have significant consequences. Some are clear benefits; 83% of respondents said it led to more competitive offerings, and 80% said it produced services better suited to consumer expectations in many areas. For more than half (58%) of web users it represented the sharing economy, in which individuals collaborate to achieve their goals. Overall, 64% of consumers said this kind of transformation was a good thing.
But there are major downsides, as well. Among working professionals, 47% said uberization was essentially a bad thing. In total, seven in 10 respondents acknowledged that the trend made employment more precarious for many people, and 66% agreed that it might destroy entire job sectors.
This disruption is large-scale, too, reaching many parts of the economy. Taxis and other transport providers may have grabbed most of the headlines in this regard, and 81% of web users said this was an industry very much affected by uberization. But 57% said the hotel business was impacted, and 42% mentioned retail. More than one-quarter of respondents also said banking and finance, telecoms and media firms stood to lose.
It’s not clear how traditional businesses can respond to the threat of nimble, digitally empowered competitors. In the UK, London’s black cab drivers have been struggling for some time to compete with Uber—with little success. But in February 2016 it was announced that all black taxis will be obliged to accept payment by credit card and contactless from October this year, a move in keeping with the rapid evolution of cashless payment options in this capital city.
To finance this innovation, the minimum fare in black cabs will rise 20p, but credit card firms will also cut the fees for drivers accepting cards by more than half, according to reports in The Guardian newspaper. This may not be enough to stop Uber in its tracks, but it’s a start—and a welcome change for passengers. For many of them, London cabbies’ reliance on cash has been a nuisance for years.
Recent Comments