Self-Driving Chevy Bolt Gets Ticketed In San Francisco

APR 1 2018 BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 30

A motorcycle police officer pulled over an autonomous Chevrolet Bolt and gave it a ticket, although Cruise Automation insists the car did nothing wrong.

We’ve read several stories inquiring about whether or not a self-driving car could be issued a ticket. This is really related to the future, when perhaps fully autonomous cars will be driving around without a human safety driver. However, what’s the case currently?GM Produces Self-Driving Chevy Bolt EV Test Vehicles

Read Also: GM Sued By Lane-Splitting Motorcyclist In Self-Driving Chevy Bolt Crash

Reportedly, the car didn’t yield to a pedestrian at a crosswalk. As soon as the self-driving Bolt began to accelerate, the police officer pulled it over and gave a ticket to the safety driver.

However, Cruise Automation collects data from the vehicle, and its logs show that the incident was not an issue. The company claims that the person crossing the street was nearly 11 feet away from the car when it began to accelerate. A statement issued by Cruise explains:

Safety is our priority in testing our self-driving vehicles. California law requires the vehicle to yield the right of way to pedestrians, allowing them to proceed undisturbed and unhurried without fear of interference of their safe passage through an intersection. Our data indicates that’s what happened here.

Basically, the autonomous Bolt was stopped and waiting while the pedestrian was a reasonable distance away. Once the car felt that it was safe to proceed, it began to accelerate. It’s assumed that the officer was concerned that the car was headed right for the person crossing, and that’s why the ticket was issued. The safety driver will be held fully responsible for the citation.

In the wake of the first known pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car (owned and developed by Uber), incidents will not be taken lightly. Just days after the tragic Uber accident, a Tesla Model X with Autopilot engaged drove into a concrete barrier. Sadly, the driver did not survive the catastrophe.

While it seemed that the reality of fully autonomous cars was approaching more quickly than previous estimates, these recent incidents may work to put the entire segment on hold.

14 photos
GM's Self-Driving Chevy Bolt (Photo by Steve Fecht for General Motors) The Chevrolet Bolt EV set a personal best for sales in June (shown here in autonomous drive testing trim) Chevrolet Bolt EV autonomous test vehicles are assembled at General Motors Orion Assembly in Orion Township, Michigan. (Photo by Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors) Chevrolet Bolt EV autonomous test vehicles are assembled at General Motors Orion Assembly in Orion Township, Michigan. (Photo by Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors) Chevrolet Bolt EV autonomous test vehicles are assembled at General Motors Orion Assembly in Orion Township, Michigan. (Photo by Jeffrey Sauger for General Motors) The large computer/hardware unit that fits in the Chevrolet Bolt's hatch. Autonomous Chevrolet Bolt General Motors Chairman and CEO Mary Barra shows autonomous Chevrolet Bolt outfitted by Cruise Automation. Autonomous Chevrolet Bolt EV Autonomous Chevrolet Bolt EV Autonomous Chevrolet Bolt out for a spin (via Glenn L) Autonomous Chevrolet Bolt out driving

Source: autoblog

Categories: Chevrolet

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

30 Comments on "Self-Driving Chevy Bolt Gets Ticketed In San Francisco"

newest oldest most voted

California police do these pedestrian crossing sting operations all the time. Few drivers realize that the pedestrian has to make it all the way to the other side of the street, or to a hard center median, before a vehicle is allowed to proceed forward through the crosswalk.

Hm. If that’s so, then the fault is with the automation programmers.
Which is totally weird considering that California is Ground Zero for these tests.
Bottom line, self-driving cars don’t eliminate human error, they only shift it to new and unexpected corners.

The cars would cause a lot of aggravation if they followed the law like that. Basically no one waits for pedestrians to cross all the way across the street.

It’s like the rolling stop. Technically you’re supposed to do a full stop. Almost nobody does. You can get a ticket for it, but that doesn’t change how most people actually drive.

Nor does it (generally) adversely affect safety – and surely that’s the point of having the legislation in the first place. If police are employing a ‘zero tolerance’ attitude to an incident where they could use their decretion (no danger: no ticket but ‘words of advice’ given, if anything) then people should be voting with their feet and making complaints/taking the ticket to court.

Does anyone happen to have a link to the California vehicle code stating stating as such? I have not been able to find much but came across https://patch.com/california/campbell/ask-a-cop-do-i-really-have-to-wait-until-a-pedestrian-is-completely-through-the-crosswalk and the Campbell Police Captain Charley Adams was quoted as saying “There is not specific vehicle code section that requires a driver to wait until the pedestrian has completely crossed the street and is on the opposite sidewalk.”

Note true. There is no vehicle code that states that a pedestrian “has to make it all the way to the other side of the street, or to a hard center median, before a vehicle is allowed to proceed forward through the crosswalk.” There are too many drivers who believe this and hold up traffic when the pedestrian who is crossing has already passed a safe enough distance away for the car to proceed. The only law is that your car is not allowed to HIT the pedestrian!

It will be a beautiful day when people stop posting unsubstantiated opinions and check for proof before posting nonsense that confuses everyone.

Surely you also have a law (as there is here in the UK) that, on a 2 or more lane road (in the same direction), prohibits one vehicle from passing another one stopped at a crossing? Otherwise, the moving car would be collecting pedestrians walking out into the second lane because the moving car’s driver’s view of the pedestrian would be blocked by the stationary vehicle….!

Distance to the pedestrian is irrelevant, as far as i know, if the pedestrian sets foot on the crossing even from the opposite side of the street you as a driver have no right of way, you need to wait until the pedestrian crosses and steps on the sidewalk. Not sure if this is what happened here.

There’s Barney Fife legal, and there’s real world legal. Drivers routinely move ahead when people are “far enough away”. I’ve seen cops doing it all the time.

“There’s Barney Fife legal, and there’s real world legal. Drivers routinely move ahead when people are “far enough away”.

Spot on. People bitch about AVs adhering to the law too closely being problematic and now they are being cited because they are driving as real people do.

This seems more about being first to ticket an AV than protecting public safety.

It’s usually in your lane, or adjacent. So if someone is just stepping into the crosswalk on the left side of the street and I’m on the right side of the street I don’t have to stop if there are more than two lanes
an intersection is upon the lane, or within one lane approaching the lane, which the vehicle is traveling or turning onto.

Absolutely not in CA! You will get fined if you do that…and the department needs extra funds to raise.

This confirms my suspicion that people should be taken out of the road for automation. There’s a reason why people are not allowed in all automated factories I’ve been to. People just slow things down.

People are never going to be banned from roads. If that became a requirement, autonomous cars will simply end up getting themselves banned from cities and get restricted to highways.

In the USA, pedestrians have been legally banned from many roads such as interstate and freeways and the degree varies among states.

Pedestrians have had access to roads long before cars were around. There is a reason that pedestrians, bikes, trains, and boats have right-of-way over cars; it’s because their respective right to the road predated cars.

*”People are never going to be banned from roads. If that became a requirement, autonomous cars will simply end up getting themselves banned from cities and get restricted to highways.”*

That’s actually not a bad idea. Allow automation on freeways and highways, but no where else. Once automation improves and proves itself, then maybe expand into the urban areas. I feel like there is a rush on to force AVs on the public just to make some big bucks for a few people.

Yup. This technology is being oversold. It’s really not ready for all-weather, all road conditions use.
And it will be many years before it is. In the meantime, AVs will work within set condition envelopes. These will expand over time.

Let’s stop looking at the trees and examine the forest. One of the main use cases of vehicles are to bring people from one place to another, whether it’s commuters in private vehicles or in public transportation vehicles, or it’s service people traveling to deliver themselves to locations where they work. (The other use case is delivering goods.) It’s NOT about moving the cars, but rather about moving the people inside them. Your vision of roads full of automated vehicles driving with no humans around is great for transporting goods, but misses the point when it comes to moving people. Unless every home is equipped with the equivalent of a jetway to embark and disembark passengers into the building, then there will ALWAYS be humans walking around next to vehicles, just as has been happening since the dog was first domesticated to pull a sled through and between one tribal campsite and another. It’s the vehicles that must learn to give way, NOT the humans whom those vehicles are meant to be serving.

Apparently, you’ve never seen highways. People are banned from those roads. Same can be done to remove human drivers on roads.

According to protesters that’s not true.

Yes, I’ve seen highways. But I don’t see people getting into and out of their cars on the side of highways very often. I DO see people getting in and out of cars in parking lots and at sidewalks all of the time. And if autonomous vehicles (AVs) are going to be carrying passengers, then they will have to let those passengers in and out, and so they must also successfully be able to maneuver around pedestrians in parking lots and at curbsides, without treating them like poor Elaine Herzberg, RIP.

A crosswalk is even easier than a parking lot, because there are painted lines telling the AI where to expect the people to walk. If the AI can’t handle a crosswalk, it shouldn’t be trusted with driving through a crowded parking lot where people are walking every which way. And if passengers can’t embark and disembark an AV in a crowded parking lot, then the AV is not handling an important use case required of it.

Interesting. In Australia we have to wait until the pedestrian is out of the way, but not totally off the crossing. Eg, once the pedestrian has moved to the opposite side of the road we can drive past them.
Except for school crossings, then you have to wait until there is no-one on the crossing at all.
It must hold up traffic quite a lot if you have to wait for them to be completely off all the way, especially on wide streets. I wonder how many accidents we have with our version compared to your version of this rule.

Not in CA. Here so few people actually walk the sidewalk (except turist and downtown areas) that you rarely have to wait for anyone.

The cop is still high fiving his buddies. I;m a first the cop told the reporter. He will make the talk show circuit soon.

I hope they fight it. This is nothing but revenue generation.

Should make future ticketing/accident cases more clear. The car has all the data of what was where and when. far more accurate than any officers testimony.

I suspect this is an April Fool’s story…

Nein. Actual story was published couple of days ago in other sites. April fools is Tesla going bankrupt, which I don’t know why IEV did not cover.

https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/980566101124722688

I wouldn’t want to be the “safety driver” in a situation like this, especially if the cop claims that the AI made a “furtive movement.”