Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 166 posts

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#91

Post by loco5niner »

sgift wrote: post #60
umvi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction. I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.

So, you nearly rear-ended someone because you didn't hold proper distance? What's your point?

No. If they didn't have proper distance, they would have rear-ended. Instead, they had to slam on their brakes to avoid an accident. The leading driver caused a slam-on-brakes situation when they should not have.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#92

Post by gizmo686 »

cptskippy wrote: post #83
gizmo686 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe. Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that. At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have s…

So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?

Driving is a risky maneuver. The question is what is the less risky way of handling a stop light. The point of yellow lights is so that drivers can continue through the intersection after the light left the green state, because not green=stop is unsafe.

Running a yellow is less dangerous to the person driving then stopping for yellows. That is why we have yellow

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#93

Post by loco5niner »

Pxtl wrote: post #50
umvi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is just as true for a violation in the conservative direction as in the aggressive direction. I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. Instead, I nearly rear-ended them.

Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.

> It means "stop if it is safe to do so".

if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#94

Post by loco5niner »

cptskippy wrote: post #83
gizmo686 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe is relative. If he almost got rear ended, it probably wasn't safe. Of course, the other driver should have given ample distance himself and have been paying attention, but people often don't do that. At the margin, I think it is safer to err on the side of running a yellow then stopping abrubtly. I have never seen someone run a yellow and think they were being unsafe (even when the yellow turned red), but have s…

So what you're saying is that drivers should endanger themselves by taking risky maneuvers to spare the person driving behind, who are endangering them by following too closely, from an accident?

That's not what they are saying...

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#95

Post by cgriswald »

guiomie wrote: post #84
cgriswald wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been caught by surprise before when a conservative driver slammed on their brakes when the light turned yellow even though there was ample time for both of us to coast through the light. I witnessed an accident where a tiny little compact slammed on his brakes the second a light turned yellow. Unfortunately, he was being followed by a large SUV. The SUV hit him and pushed him into the intersection.[0] The very…

Well, technically he doesnt have anything to learn, because he is right. The person behind him should always keep enough distance to stop according to the speed he is driving. The person who rear-ended him is in wrong and is responsible for the damages.

Given that in California a yellow light has no meaning other than as an indicator of a pending red light, a competent lawyer could argue that he has partial liability in this case. The driver's handbook suggests stopping if it is safe to do so, otherwise proceeding with caution; but this is neither legally binding nor was it safe for him to stop by slamming on his brakes either time.

But the legality of it is orthogonal to whether his behavior was right. It wasn't. It was unexpected, reckless, and very unsafe.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#96

Post by daveFNbuck »

WorldMaker wrote: post #43
daveFNbuck wrote: post #5

> The anecdotes highlight how challenging it can be for self-driving cars, which are programmed to drive conservatively, to master situations that human drivers can handle with relative ease, like merging or finding a gap in traffic to make a turn. Human drivers are terrible at both of these. I'm regularly getting stuck behind people who won't make a right turn even as a line of people are making the left turn that s…

I'm assuming here that you mean an uncontrolled right turn, where the right turn is at a red light or stop sign. Is that Left Turn lane also uncontrolled in that moment that you are complaining about? That is, are you talking about the situation where people in the next lane are making a left turn at a green left turn only light or is it the uncontrolled stop sign (though rare to have a multi-lane stop sign) or more…

Yes, I'm talking about an uncontrolled right turn. The left turn I'm talking about isn't from the next landed, but the one you'd make if you made a U-turn immediately after your right and then a left to go back the way you came. If the road is clear enough for several people to make that left, it's clear enough to make your right turn.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#97

Post by reaperducer »

camjohnson26 wrote: post #66
rhacker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the truth here. I also try to follow the letter of the law. I always assume that a brick wall may suddenly shoot up in front of the car in front of me, stopping it instantly and killing everyone in it. So following closer than the recommended distance, is idiotic. How often will a brick wall shoot up in front of a car like life is a video game? Probably a really low percentage, but cats, deer, blown tires, tr…

You're a minority because following the letter of the law isn't always the safe decision. It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines, but if a car is pulled over on the shoulder then I'll cross the lines to give them more space. It's illegal but it increases safety for me and them.

It's illegal to cross the double yellow lines

No, that's just boolean programmer-think.

I my state, at least, the law makes specific exceptions for things like this.

Maybe the cars would do better if they were vetted against lawyers and not debuggers.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#98

Post by oldgradstudent »

ipunchghosts wrote: post #28

'I hate them': Locals reportedly frustrated with Ford's cars. ~ possibly said 100 years ago.

The difference is that Ford card actually existed.

All "self-driving cars" have drivers in them to take over each time it fails.

It's as if Ford cars had backup horses with them to take over every few miles.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#99

Post by zlynx »

loco5niner wrote: post #93
Pxtl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yellow doesn't mean "you can go through if you can beat the red". It means "stop if it is safe to do so". If it's just firm braking and not actual tires-squealing stop? The driver probably did the right thing.

> It means "stop if it is safe to do so". if you have to slam on your brakes, it is (arguably) not safe to stop.

Slamming the brakes means different things for a sports car vs a SUV.

In my Subaru STI I can stop faster than some Escalade with only 2/3rds the brake pedal pressure. I'm not even close to maximum braking force. It's even more true in a lighter car like a Porsche 911.

Just as if they were driving a large commercial truck it is the SUV driver's responsibility to not be too close to me.

Re: Locals reportedly frustrated with Waymo's self-driving cars

#100

Post by weaksauce »

Meekro wrote: post #56

I've been in situations where I'm waiting to make a tricky left turn safely while people behind me literally yell at me to go faster. Now those same people have to contend with cars that can't be intimidated into making risky turns by the driver behind them yelling, honking, or tailgating. I hope it plays out like this: 1. Driver tailgates at an intersection or stop sign to try to intimidate the driverless car in fro…

I think there may be a problem in step 5. Human nature is not that malleable and anyone that would be so dumb to rear end a car because it’s not turning soon enough will likely not change.
Post reply on HN