Live data from Hacker News

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

sfgate.com

301–310 of 750 posts

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

#301
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No doubt all of your excuses are at least partially true, however, at this point, literally after almost two decades of billions of people training these things to see bikes, it still needs a lot more work.

Recaptcha has not been used to train any neural network to detect anything in a very long time. In fact, visual challenges like this are a mostly solved problem, and the real magic is the classification that happens behind the scenes.

How many years or decades did we spend answering them before it got to where it today?

I’m all for optimism, but these problems are clearly much harder than the futurists would like the public to believe. Elon said Teslas would be driving across the country to pick up their owners by 2018. 6 years later and what does it do, drive across a parking lot?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/686279251293777920

Trains are also a solved problem, and seem like a much better solution to the problem. With rails, a vast majority of the complexity around driving goes away. They also remove traffic instead of keeping it the same or making it worse. Less traffic would likely mean fewer accidents, even if humans are still the ones driving. And batching transit together, with dozens of people in one vehicle is going to be far more energy efficient than everyone running their own vehicle. It also solves the issue of drunk driving, distracted driving, and bad drivers in general, as everyone is just a passenger.

So much money, time, talent, and energy has gone into this self driving stuff, and it seems like a massive misallocation of resources. They’re solving the wrong problem.

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There is no expectation of privacy with what happens on a public road. See all the dashcam videos on YouTube.

The question isn't about the cyclist asserting a right to privacy, it's about whether it's a decent thing for Waymo to do regardless. There are more downsides than upsides (to the company) if they did do a public release of footage.

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

#303

Agree that's not a great look for the supervisor. Cyclists have a bad rep in SF because many (not all) ride quite dangerously. It's a common sight to see cyclists running four-way stop signs and lights without even yielding. I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. Meanwhile, Waymo has millions of incident-free miles and of all the self-driving car compa…

> Cyclists have a bad rep in SF because many (not all) ride quite dangerously. Cycling in the US is almost by definition riding dangerously, since there are very few places with actual safe bicycle infrastructure. This is a self-selecting pressure, because it means that the only cyclists that actually dare to cycle in the city are risk-takers. > I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cycli…

It's simple selfishness. Cyclists don't want to lose their momentum. Coasting is fun and exertion is not; humans evolved to minimize their energy expenditure. To fix that, you'd need to redesign the bicycle to be completely battery powered. Even then, acceleration will be slower than not stopping. Cyclists will try to rationalize their behavior in all kinds of ways, but they're just lying to themselves (and you).

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

#304
post #25
post #5

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.

If you choose to blow through the stop sign because it "looks safe", you should bear the full responsibility for that decision. (I say this as an avid cyclist who sometimes blows through stop signs.)

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

#305
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"> I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You can blame the cyclist or perhaps a four-way stop with a nearly hourly cyclist incident needs to be redesigned." Or, bear with me here, just maybe the cyclists failing to yield is kind of the big issue here?

No it’s not. AB122 passed the legislature to legalize the California roll for cyclists, because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. Newsom vetoed it for stupid culture war reasons. It’s a law that doesn’t make sense so it’s not a big issue if it isn’t followed.

I'm a cyclist and support these types of laws. But I could imagine someone making the same case for a car (or a motorcycle?). You can have high visibility and come towards a 4-way stop in the middle of nowhere and there's not another car in sight. It doesn't really make sense. For cycling of course it's super annoying to lose your momentum.

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

#306
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"> I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You can blame the cyclist or perhaps a four-way stop with a nearly hourly cyclist incident needs to be redesigned." Or, bear with me here, just maybe the cyclists failing to yield is kind of the big issue here?

No it’s not. AB122 passed the legislature to legalize the California roll for cyclists, because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility. Newsom vetoed it for stupid culture war reasons. It’s a law that doesn’t make sense so it’s not a big issue if it isn’t followed.

> because coming to a full stop at a stop sign makes no sense for riders with high visibility.

For anyone wondering why I give an explanation here[0]. The tldr is you need to move to be safe and it is harder to get a bike moving than it is a car. It's best to contextualize any such arguments around the operations that go into operating the vehicle and cars and bikes have a lot of differences. Those differences are why cars are more popular (Sure, more energy but motor vs legs. If you want to make the argument that it is easier for a bike you better not get frustrated when a bike is slow to get to speed when you're behind them at a stoplight or stop-sign).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298376

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

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I live adjacent to a four-way stop and there's an incident where a cyclist fails to yield nearly hourly. You should try paying attention to the cars. I live near one (elsewhere) as well and I see cars driving straight through it all the time. Why have a double standard?

I think all of us agree that cars shouldn’t blow through intersections, neither should bicycles. It definitely raises my eyebrows more if cars do it (rare but sadly increasingly less rare) vs if bicycles do get it (fairly common).

> It definitely raises my eyebrows more if cars do it (rare but sadly increasingly less rare)

It is extremely common, the default really, for cars to roll through 4-way stops.

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

#309
post #132
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.

They have no reason to release it to the public. They don’t want to set a precedent. They will show the video to the regulators (CA DMV) and if they’re not happy, they will take action. It’s regulation working as intended.

Good, they should be forced to set a precedent.

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

#310
post #196
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s enough to establish public trust with their voluntary release of safety data and regulators closely overseeing their operations. Setting a precedent for releasing footage means fault is automatically assumed when they don’t voluntarily release it. It’s a problem if they’re not even releasing it to the regulators, but that’s not happening here.

Not to mention that no matter how compelling the footage, people will argue who is at fault.

So what? People can argue about many things, that's not a valid reason against it.
Post reply on HN