Self-driving cars vs. bikes

On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:26:23 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like.. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws.. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

I am working on a line of radar reflective cycling clothes. It's the wave of the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzdoz94dus Transponder helmets, too. They send a signal to lurking self-driving cars.

-- Jay Beattie.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look
like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they
supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic
marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have
some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the
automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away
for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the
bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is
there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were
having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving
cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving
car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the
bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it
guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And
does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a
bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not
have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket
for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet
laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of
course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury
statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road
users. They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers,
joggers, horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside,
etc.

Don't forget turtles. I hate seeing them smashed all over the road.

Not to mention the odd infant crawling across the road; imagine the
outcry the first time one is crushed by a self-driving juggernaut.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets:
"He'd be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He
would have survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a
bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing
the hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been
legal use of the road.

Agreed 100%. I can imagine limited access freeways limited to
self-driving cars, assuming they eventually work reasonably well. Being
turfed out of our other highways and byways would be another thing
altogether.
--

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:37:33 PM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look
like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they
supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic
marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have
some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the
automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away
for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the
bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is
there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were
having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving
cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving
car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the
bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it
guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And
does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a
bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not
have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket
for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet
laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of
course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury
statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road
users. They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers,
joggers, horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside,
etc.

Don't forget turtles. I hate seeing them smashed all over the road.

Not to mention the odd infant crawling across the road; imagine the
outcry the first time one is crushed by a self-driving juggernaut.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets:
"He'd be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He
would have survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a
bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing
the hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been
legal use of the road.

Agreed 100%. I can imagine limited access freeways limited to
self-driving cars, assuming they eventually work reasonably well. Being
turfed out of our other highways and byways would be another thing
altogether.
--

How will Spike Bike handle self-driving cars, I wonder

http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~m...ke.html#spike5

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like.. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws.. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this. So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse. The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:35:40 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users..
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this. So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse. The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

In fact you must have someone run ahead waving a red flag and hollering

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 5:25:30 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:35:40 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this. So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse. The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.

In fact you must have someone run ahead waving a red flag and hollering

.... a bicycle would be good for this

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:35:39 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 2:26:23 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/2/2017 3:05 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 11:06:12 AM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/1/2017 3:36 PM, wrote:
I can understand the problem with recognizing what bicycles look like. And trying to predict their movement. But couldn't they supplement the visual detection with some kind of electronic marker? Make a new law that all bikes sold in the US must have some imbedded homing device or electronic signal device that the automatic car can detect. Also make them for sale or give away for all the bikes on the road now. A sticker you put on the bottom bracket that the car can detect and then know a bike is there.

Regarding adding a device to a bike: This is being promoted, with the
usual philosophy: "It's so dangerous. Buy our protection!"
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...ion-prevention

Here's a critique:
http://john-s-allen.com/blog/?p=7020

I certainly wouldn't want to start mandating yet another "safety" item
for bikes. We've been through that. Such a law would be unenforceable
at best. It certainly wouldn't pass Andrew's "necessary" test!


--
- Frank Krygowski

From the original article, it seemed that the self driving cars were having a hard time reliably identifying bicycles. If self driving cars are the future, then it makes sense to be sure the self driving car can identify a bicycle. Adding a chip, sticker, etc. to the bottom of the bottom bracket would not be much of a problem. If it guarantees that the self driving car knows a bicycle is there. And does not hit him. Nothing required about it I suppose. If a bicyclist wants to killed by a self driving car then he does not have to put the sticker, chip on the bottom of his bottom bracket for the self driving car to identify. Similar to motorcycle helmet laws. Some states allow you to ride without a helmet. Freedom! Of course those states have a much higher motorcycle death and injury statistic. But they have freedom to die on their motorcycle.

I am in favor of freedom. And I'd say that it's incumbent on the
designers of self-driving systems to make sure that they do detect
bicyclists. Sorry if it's difficult, but cyclists are legal road users.
They must be part of the design criteria. Ditto for walkers, joggers,
horses with or without buggies, kids playing at the roadside, etc.

If the idea gains traction that every cyclist should buy a transponder
(or whatever), it won't be long before we'll get the same
blame-the-victim nonsense as we sometimes get with bike helmets: "He'd
be alive today if only he had a transponder." Just like "He would have
survived that robbery attack if only he'd worn a bulletproof vest."

IMO, the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

100 plus years ago all the roads were built for horses and wagons. Then a new device came along. The car and truck. Roads changed to be less accommodating of the horse. Which can still be ridden and driven along the side of roads in most of the US. Maybe on the road too.

Your quote "the requirements should be placed on the agent that's bringing the
hazard, not on the person who's exercising what has always been legal
use of the road"

The horse was around a hell of a lot longer than the car. In case you did not know this. So by your thinking the car must be made safe to accommodate the horse. The car must not go faster than about 10 mph which is the speed of the horse.


Ah but this was exactly what did happen when horses were commonly used
on the roads, and even today.

The current law in New Hampshire, for example, states that : "Every
person having control or charge of a vehicle shall, whenever upon any
way and approaching any horse, drive, manage, and control such vehicle
in such a manner as to exercise every reasonable precaution to prevent
the frightening of such horse, and to insure the safety and protection
of any person riding or driving the same".

At one time Washington D.C. banned automobiles inside the city as
"they might scare horses". Pennsylvania legislators unanimously
passed a bill through both houses of the state legislature, which
would require all motorists piloting their "horseless carriages", upon
chance encounters with cattle or livestock to (1) immediately stop the
vehicle, (2) "immediately and as rapidly as possible ... disassemble
the automobile", and (3) "conceal the various components out of sight,
behind nearby bushes" until equestrian or livestock is sufficiently
pacified.

The point is that when such laws were deemed necessary they did exist.


Apparently you don't know it, but the world changes. If self driving cars are the future, then making them work with bikes is important. If having an identify device on all bikes works best, then do it.
--
Cheers,

John B.