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

211–220 of 750 posts

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

#211

Post by genocidicbunny »

lmm wrote: post #195
elwebmaster wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists are just dangerous and until we look at statistics we can’t assume that AI does worse than humans in protecting cyclists. As a driver, it took me many years to get into the habit of shoulder checking when turning right from the right lane. I always have my turning signal but to cyclists it doesn’t mean much, they will always try to pass me on the right on the intersection. Cyclists sometimes behave as though…

> Cyclists are just dangerous Nope. The numbers of people killed or seriously injured in road collisions that don't involve motor vehicles are absolutely tiny. Motorists are dangerous, cyclists are not. > Cyclists sometimes behave as though they are pedestrians and other times they behave as vehicles, depending on what is convenient. And? Is that somehow bad? This seems to be a common motorist talking point, but I've…

> And? Is that somehow bad? This seems to be a common motorist talking point, but I've never understood what it's supposed to imply.

Yes, it can be very bad. Drivers not being predictable is a big cause of car crashes. I was always taught that when driving, don't be nice, be predictable. It's also a large part of defensive driving. A cyclist that is sometimes acting like a vehicle, and at other times as a pedestrian is not nearly as predictable.

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

#212

Post by minhazm »

itake wrote: post #51
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…

> 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.

Even if a human sees the bike slightly sooner, the reaction time is so much slower that it's either a wash or the self driving car is likely still faster. Median braking reaction time for humans is ~500ms[1].

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26376036/

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

#213

Post by adrr »

belltaco wrote: post #155
tfehring wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my reading was that the bike ran the stop sign and then attempted to make a left turn in front of the Waymo as it was going straight through the intersection.

My reading was that the Waymo was turning left. Remember, the description is from Waymo's PR, so that's why it's vague on purpose and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. According to another comment bikes can treat stop signs as yield signs in California. If the bike illegally ran a stop sign I would think Waymo would say or imply that.

Did a quick google and DMV states they must stop at all stop signs.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed....

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

jeromegv wrote: post #138
babelfish wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone can't follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be on the road (regardless of mode of transportation)

I see quite a bit of cars not coming to a 3 second stop, they mostly roll at slow speed and never actually stop the vehicle completely. Do you advocate for 70% of the drivers to be taken off the road?

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by petesergeant »

lex-lightning wrote: post #167
whyenot wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I appreciate the political reasons for wanting zero accidents, but fewer, less deadly accidents than if a human were behind the wheel is what the goal really should be.

That’s such a low bar though. Zero is achievable. Part of it is to slow cars down and take more cars off the road rather than changing who drives. Invest in public transit, redesign problematic infrastructure, and create mixed use urban areas so people don’t feel the need to travel through a city. A city should be a safe place. More deaths in a slower zone than on freeways is preposterous. I understand the reasons wh…

> A city should be a safe place

Is that a fundamental attribute of a city?

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

#216

Post by thaumasiotes »

fortran77 wrote: post #175
yellow_postit wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#217

Post by tdeck »

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…

Waymo probably has cameras from every angle here, so it seems kind of odd that we have to rely on a textual description.

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

#218

Post by cozzyd »

websap wrote: post #145
dharmab wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience with motorcycling and bicycling as a primary mode of transport I'm happy if the human drivers attempt to stop at all

Cyclists are supposed to stop at stop signs, if not stop at least yield. At least in this case (if true), the cyclist followed the truck through a 4 way intersection (assuming it's a 4-way stop), that would put them in the wrong. Hope waymo releases the footage.

Note that there are bike lanes on the likely street where this occurred. The cyclist was not necessarily following the truck but could have been parallel (and overtaken).

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

#219

Post by maxwellg »

babelfish wrote: post #117
babl-yc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drive and bike. It's more annoying on a bike to come to a complete stop.

If someone can't follow traffic laws, they shouldn't be on the road (regardless of mode of transportation)

Insisting that a bicycle needs to follow the same procedures as a 3000lb internal combustion engine driven vehicle is madness. The vast majority of car laws are completely inappropriate for bicycles. Bicycles are much smaller, go much slower, can stop much faster, etc.

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

#220

Post by tfehring »

belltaco wrote: post #155
tfehring wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my reading was that the bike ran the stop sign and then attempted to make a left turn in front of the Waymo as it was going straight through the intersection.

My reading was that the Waymo was turning left. Remember, the description is from Waymo's PR, so that's why it's vague on purpose and needs to be taken with a grain of salt. According to another comment bikes can treat stop signs as yield signs in California. If the bike illegally ran a stop sign I would think Waymo would say or imply that.

I agree that there's still lots of ambiguity and Waymo's PR comment provides limited and one-sided detail. I stand by my previous comment as the most likely course of events, but we won't know for sure until video is released.

The comment that claims bikes can treat stop signs as yield signs in California is incorrect. From the CA DMV website [0]:

> Bicyclists must obey STOP signs and red signal lights, and follow basic right-of-way rules.

There was an attempt to change this a few years ago, but it didn't pass.

[0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/driver-education-and-safety/ed...

Post reply on HN