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

Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

sfgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 750 posts

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#41

Post by [deleted] »

kevingadd wrote: post #10
artninja1988 wrote: post #2

> According to Waymo, the company’s vehicle fully stopped at a four-way intersection before proceeding into the intersection as a large truck was driving through in the opposite direction. “The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path,” the company said in a statement. “When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to…

It is pretty common to see people go from the opposite side of a stop sign since it's "safe", even if it happens to be against the rules. I can understand how the Waymo AI would end up being configured to do this. Hopefully they amend that based on this incident.

[deleted]

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#44

Post by muglug »

xianshou wrote: post #7

If Waymo is truly as much better than Cruise as the statistics claim, this is a perfect opportunity to release the full video of the incident. Most collisions are avoidable, but a few are the result of a perfect storm of conditions that would be difficult to navigate for even the most skilled human driver. To know whether the truck's occlusion of the cyclist is one of those cases requires the actual footage.

> this is a perfect opportunity to release the full video of the incident

I hope they’ve released the full video to investigators, but they’re in a tight spot — SF city government is looking for reasons to come down harshly on the company, and trying to sway public opinion ahead of the city’s verdict won’t help.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#45

Post by clbrmbr »

ugh123 wrote: post #20
km3r wrote: post #11

So the scenario (as described by waymo, surely with some spin): "Driving through a 4 way intersection, while a large truck is also going through the intersection. As you go through, a biker quickly passes behind the truck with minimal time to react once in sightlines." A human driver would take significantly longer to react, and could be deadly. Waymo managed to hit the breaks before the collision, potentially leadin…

>What I hope Waymo learbx for this, as well applies as similar scenarios: never cross through these zones of high bike traffic when the obstruction from another vehicle prevents a wide enough view to brake before this zone. I hope it's as simple as that, and that regulators will understand just how little fine-tuning could yield substantial safety increases not possible with human drivers.

I hope regulators watch video from the vehicle and think, “damn I would not have been able to react that fast. Sure we can make these things even safer but it would be immoral to block waymo’s operations as it would certainly increase harm.”

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#47

Post by lmz »

pests wrote: post #30
asah wrote: post #23

the cyclist left the scene “reporting only minor scratches.” I'd never considered it before, but perhaps the endgame is humans getting used to automated taxis like potholes, animals, nails and other road hazards ? And then learning to judge the risk and accepting occasional small crashes like this.

/s ? Did you just ask if the endgame is humans getting used to cars crashing into them? Thanks for the chuckle.

Accepting occasional small crashes? Is this not already the status quo?

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#48

Post by jtriangle »

xianshou wrote: post #7

If Waymo is truly as much better than Cruise as the statistics claim, this is a perfect opportunity to release the full video of the incident. Most collisions are avoidable, but a few are the result of a perfect storm of conditions that would be difficult to navigate for even the most skilled human driver. To know whether the truck's occlusion of the cyclist is one of those cases requires the actual footage.

Only way that happens is if the cyclist signs a boatload of paperwork to waive his right to litigation.

And on top of that, I'm far less interested in the footage than I am the telemetry. What was the state of the gas and brake, what was the steering angle, how long was it from detection to action. Those things concretely answer the question of "would a human have done better or worse in this situation?", which is ultimately the only question that matters.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#49

Post by pb7 »

nerdponx wrote: post #15
pb7 wrote: post #8

I wouldn’t be surprised if the cyclist blew through the stop sign as is incredibly common.

It's also arguably safer for the cyclist to do so. Bikes typically accelerate much slower than cars.

No, it's safer to follow the rules of the road. Stop at stop signs and red lights or risk winding up on someone's windshield without anyone's pity.

Re: Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say

#50

Post by weaksauce »

clbrmbr wrote: post #45
ugh123 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What I hope Waymo learbx for this, as well applies as similar scenarios: never cross through these zones of high bike traffic when the obstruction from another vehicle prevents a wide enough view to brake before this zone. I hope it's as simple as that, and that regulators will understand just how little fine-tuning could yield substantial safety increases not possible with human drivers.

I hope regulators watch video from the vehicle and think, “damn I would not have been able to react that fast. Sure we can make these things even safer but it would be immoral to block waymo’s operations as it would certainly increase harm.”

> damn I would not have been able to react that fast.

i apply my own standard of driving to it: I wouldn't get in that position in the first place.

Post reply on HN