311–320 of 750 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that no matter how compelling the footage, people will argue who is at fault.
Yup. Also people using edited footage out of context for nefarious purposes. Really zero benefit for Waymo to release footage, only things to lose.
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. It's a common sight to see cyclists running four-way stop signs and lights without even yielding. Pick any stop sign in SF. Watch it for an hour and count the number of cars that come to a complete stop. The denominator doesn't matter because the numerator will be ~0.
You’re conflating two different phenomena, perhaps purposefully.
California drivers do often fail to come to a technical stop at intersections, but they first slow to a near-zero speed that very nearly accomplishes the same purpose.
In contrast, a large number of cyclists do not slow at all, and blast through red lights at full speed.
Somehow I would have expected more from a supervisor.
Maybe she could have awaited the investigation? Does she have stats on miles driver per accident - for human drivers and autonomous vehicles? Does she have stats on how many cyclist are hit by car with human drivers? Is this an interesting intersection? ...
She probably did not ask herself any of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
This is a weird characterization of what's going on given you have an apt description. I've only been struck by cars (twice) when stopped at a stop sign. It's no question that an intersection is one of the most dangerous locations for a cyclist and it is also no question that an intersection can be cleared significantly faster when starting with __any__ amount of momentum vs a complete stop. Specifics will be necessary for making adequate conclusions here. Someone blindly blowing through an intersection certainly clears the intersection faster but that alone doesn't mean the behavior is appropriate or any less idiotic. And someone doing that is very different from someone slowing down and treating the stop sign like a yield sign. An over generalization is just going to lead to irrational conclusions because context is necessary.
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.
The public is allowing them to borrow govt-built roads to test their products and potentially endanger the public. That's more than enough reason for Waymo to be transparent here.
Clearly one of these two scenarios happened: 1. The waymo made a left turn into the space occluded by truck, seeing there was no vehicle behind the truck when committing to accelerating through the turn, but not seeing the bike in the adjacent bike line proceeding through the intersection. 2. The bike made a left turn from behind the truck into an occluded space, which would be suicidal. While we can’t rule out the l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
That's not fair to pedestrians or other cyclists who can be injured by your decision to break the law and ignore their safety.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Pick any stop sign in SF. Watch it for an hour and count the number of cars that come to a complete stop. The denominator doesn't matter because the numerator will be ~0.
> count the number of cars that come to a complete stop You’re conflating two different phenomena, perhaps purposefully. California drivers do often fail to come to a technical stop at intersections, but they first slow to a near-zero speed that very nearly accomplishes the same purpose. In contrast, a large number of cyclists do not slow at all, and blast through red lights at full speed.
Google “cyclist stop sign safety”