81–90 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Where is it against the rules?
Is it not against the rules to drive into an area that you do not have proper visibility?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, so it's a real image but not of the incident? Edit: I still have my suspicions it's not even a real image but a composite, getty or not. The shadows from the cyclist don't match that from the cars.
the caption says it's a file photo from november 2023...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
California has Idaho stops, so cyclists not stopping at Stop signs IS following the rules of the road (if the Cyclist did yield and just also didn't see the Waymo car). Bicycles starting on the side of the road can ofter get side swiped because they're in car blind spots because they don't accelerate fast enough. Going faster makes them more visible for cars.
No it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bi...
>Waymo personnel called police. well at least the industry has learned something from the cruise incident.
Full paragraph. Interesting that the cyclist left? If they are determined to be at fault, then I assume that’s gonna be bad for them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not legally. There was a failed push for this to become law in the past.
huh I guess the Internet lied to me https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision. The "fully visible" part made me thinks humans can identify a bicycle and rider with just partial visibility, which means they would stop faster than the car.
Based on what? Humans run in to cyclists too and although I have know idea about Waymo's tech, in a research setting computers are better than humans at figuring out what objects are based on visual data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
Huh, the internet lied to me [1]. Should've checked wikipedia. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-stop-bi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on what? Humans run in to cyclists too and although I have know idea about Waymo's tech, in a research setting computers are better than humans at figuring out what objects are based on visual data.
If computers are so good at this, why am I (a human) asked to identify bicycles and motorcycles to train these computers when confronted with a captcha? A human needs far less training and can identify a person on a bike without ever seeing an actual bike. They can also infer what is likely to happen based on a lot of context clues. Even if an event doesn’t seem likely, I can still prepare. For example, if I see kids…
>I don’t need to wait for the kid to be in the street to start reacting and prepare for different possibilities.
Neither does a computer.
I looked up the cited street in street view- there are stop signs in all 4 directions. I look forward to the full accident report, but from the evidence available it sounds like the cyclist didn’t stop at the sign appropriately.
As someone who bikes on 17th street regularly, cyclists rarely stop completely. Most treat it as a yield (myself included) because it's a pain to start+stop at every stop sign. But it's on the rider to make sure you're on the same page as the other drivers at the intersection, which some bikers don't and just blow through it without checking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also arguably safer for the cyclist to do so. Bikes typically accelerate much slower than cars.
It can be safer, but it's definitely not safer to do this if you're right behind a big truck that blocks other cars from seeing you. There's a right way to Idaho stop, and this ain't it.
A cyclist confident to be able to keep up with the truck's acceleration might go not only for the physical slipstream, but also for the "traffic slipstream", remaining so close that he would never intersect paths with a regular driver. That would be breaking traffic rules, not arguing that, but it would not only be safe (-ish, truck might hit the brakes) but also not inconvenience any drivers who wouldn't pass behind the truck without leaving a sufficient gap anyways. Until a waymo shows up and ends that assumption (this is speculation, I don't know how waymos drive)
In any case, from a continental European perspective the American four-way stop just seems completely wrong, despite priority to the right being essentially the same when fully saturated.