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

121–130 of 750 posts

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

#121

Post by pclmulqdq »

deepfriedchokes wrote: post #6
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…

Sounds like the cyclist didn’t stop at the intersection or follow the rules of right of way.

I am usually one to bash cyclists for not following the rules, but I believe it's actually legal for them to do this at stop signs. They only have to slow down and check for crossing traffic before going through.

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

#122

Post by ghaff »

tobyjsullivan wrote: post #26
kevingadd wrote: post #10

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. I can understand how the Waymo AI would end up being configured to do this. Hopefully they amend that based on this incident.

I don’t know about California but that’s legal where I live. Vehicles on opposite sides of a 4-way stop can enter simultaneously if both are going straight.

I'm pretty distrusting of where people will use turn signals in general.

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

#123

Post by belltaco »

lokar wrote: post #104
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Seems like good driving means "don't drive in to places you cannot see". If you are just accelerating after a stop sign, there is no reason to have such high speed and urgency when making the turn.

Well, it sounds like the cyclist was doing the same while failing to stop or yield at a stop sign.

If the description is correct then the cyclist was going into the space that they could see in front of them, unlike the Waymo. Someone else said that stop signs are legally equivalent to yield signs for bicycles in California. They probably couldn't see the Waymo because it was occluded by the truck, so how could they yield to it.

This is why straight going traffic always has the right of way if the roads are similarly sized, and it's on the turning vehicle to stop and wait at the turn.

I would also hope that self driving cars are programmed to drive defensively and conservatively over trying to shave off a second or two of drive time.

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

#125

Post by data-ottawa »

al_borland wrote: post #86
roenxi wrote: post #60

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…

The captcha example isn't exactly fair, the images shown can be newly generatrd, repeated, or used as control images, and even if they are unclassifiable then you're not seeing the successes.

Without knowing the whole system there's too much hidden bias to claim the computer is more of less accurate than a commuter.

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

#126

Post by Ferret7446 »

Phrodo_00 wrote: post #66
pb7 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Even if that were legal in California, clearly in this case the cyclist did not check properly and should have fully stopped.

I must say, all of this doesn't help with the general perception of cyclists being extremely entitled with respect to ignoring traffic rules. Anecdotally, I see more cyclists breaking the rules (such as by riding on the sidewalk or pedestrian crossings or improper lane changes/turns) than not.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

vineyardmike wrote: post #110
jsyang00 wrote: post #22

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. This might be fair, but at some point, if you are applying this consistent level of caution, there isn't going to be anywhere in the real world left to actually drive

Let’s apply this same thing to humans. If a human engaged in this situation, no one would blink an eye. SF had a “zero motor deaths” goal for 2024 and there were human drivers in protest that any changes made to save lives would be inconvenient (eg removing parking spots to increase visibility). The ease at which people will negotiate a human life for parking is horrifying. And likely speaks to how they drive. We rea…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

belltaco wrote: post #68
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…

Looks like the Waymo vehicle was turning after an all-way stop sign? Is this a good representation with the blue car being the Waymo and the truck being the red car? https://taylorkinglaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/4-Way-S... Wonder why it was cutting so close to the large truck's back while accelerating during the turn that it couldn't see the cyclist till it was too late. Them saying the car braked only after t…

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by 1024core »

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.

What about the privacy of the bicyclist? What if it was his/her mistake and they don't want to be ridiculed by the entire world?

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

#130

Post by ganieldackle »

patrick451 wrote: post #109
ganieldackle wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A computer doesn't need a multi million dollar marketing campaign convincing it not to text while driving or drive drunk. >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.

> A computer doesn't need a multi million dollar marketing campaign convincing it not to text while driving or drive drunk. A human doesn't get random bugs every week from OTA updates. The human mind is not a viable target for hackers. The risks of human drivers are individual. The risks of computer drivers are systemic and massive. One bad bug or hack could kill millions if self driving cars become ubiquitous.

>A human doesn't get random bugs every week from OTA updates.

What bugs are you referencing exactly? Humans have something called emotions that are far more variable than bugs in a safety critical system and you're exposed to thousands of different flavors every time you get on the road.

>The human mind is not a viable target for hackers.

But it is, and not even sophisticated ones at that. One lane change and a middle finger from a fellow driver can induce a murderous road rage.

>The risks of computer drivers are systemic and massive.

Hypothesis. Reality: 45,000 people die every year in the US from human drivers. That is systemic and massive.

Post reply on HN