111–120 of 750 posts
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.
Cyclists can treat Stop signs as Yield signs in California.
> CITIZEN, you have been struck by an autonomous vehicle! I have reported the impact data to help us improve our platform. Thank you for your feedback.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most treat it as a yield (myself included) because it's a pain to start+stop at every stop sign. Sure. It's a pain for cars to start and stop at every stop sign too. So?
I drive and bike. It's more annoying on a bike to come to a complete stop.
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.
Yes, it totally makes sense for bike commuters to be run over and sent to the hospital by robotic driverless vehicles while billionaire entrepreneurs refine the AI models powering them — it’s a beta test after all, you can’t actually expect it to work on public streets. And I bet those cyclists weren’t even paying their road tax. The needs of the 95th percentile that the model was tuned for outweigh the needs of ever…
How many cyclists are hit per million Uber rides?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the Waymo description, the cyclist was behind a truck, and not visible to the Waymo car. If that's true, then a human driver likely would've done the same thing: take its turn at the stop sign.
In most of my defensive driving classes, they tell me that if I can't see it, that means there's probably a car there. So a safe human driver would not have entered the intersection while the truck was obstructing vision. That may have pissed off the people behind me, but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind.
We'll have to wait for more information to see if that description is accurate, but the car's action was a legal and safe thing to do based on the description given.
> but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind.
There is nothing in the article suggesting that the waymo was turning.
Edit: Nevermind I was visualizing the direction of cross traffic incorrectly. The cyclist's lane would have been to the left and closest to the Waymo, which means that the truck must have already been in the intersection when the Waymo started moving if it was obscuring the bike.
So either the Waymo got to the intersection later than the black truck and tried to sneak in a crossing, or they both got there at the same time but the Waymo came to a complete stop and then proceeded while the truck performed a rolling stop, or something similar.
That's a much fuzzier situation and will depend a lot more on details not being shared.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most treat it as a yield (myself included) because it's a pain to start+stop at every stop sign. Sure. It's a pain for cars to start and stop at every stop sign too. So?
I drive and bike. It's more annoying on a bike to come to a complete stop.
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 ul…
It sounds like you're making a deeply unreasonable assumption that no human could have detected or anticipated the cyclist faster than the computer did.
Given the current state of the art, those times are frequently not the same, and the difference cannot be answered without seeing the human-consumable video footage of a prospective human driver.