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

331–340 of 750 posts

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

#331

Post by vineyardmike »

shiroiuma wrote: post #272
vineyardmike wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. What's crazy is I don't think this is true. I think Americans think they want a car-centric society, and we've structured so much of society to reduce our freedom to chose the alternative. Where do Americans like to vacation? Walkable places. What cities and suburbs are regularly the most expensive and desirable in their area? Walkable ones. We built mall…

>Where do Americans like to vacation? Walkable places. No, only some Americans vacation there. It's not like 80% of Americans all travel to European cities every year. In my observation, many Americans prefer to go to various US cities and rent cars, or to go to beach resorts, or spend their time on cruise ships drinking all day long. >Americans will say that cars give them freedom to go anywhere, then complain all t…

> No, only some Americans vacation there. It's not like 80% of Americans all travel to European cities every year. In my observation, many Americans prefer to go to various US cities and rent cars, or to go to beach resorts, or spend their time on cruise ships drinking all day long.

Of course it's not everyone, but it's more than just those that go to Europe. There are walkable pockets in America, and people go to them. Cruise ships are really mini walkable cities. Many beachy resort towns have a walkable commercial district. Disney is a giant walkable area, complete with a transit system.

I don't know all the history of Japan, of course, but I assume there some chicken-egg situation. If there is better transit, it'll encourage people to choose greater density (presuming it's legal to build). I would love the existing cities we have to (1) encourage dense, walkable buildings (eg. dense, w/ activated sidewalks) and (2) proactively build transit to suburban towns, to provide alternative transit options for commutes.

When I visited Japan, I noticed that beyond the typical subways of Tokyo, there are lots of regional trains that get to smaller cities outside of the megalopolis. I think that could be a great first step that America is equipped to do today. We have commuter rail in our biggest cities (eg. NYC), but we could continue to build that out to more places, to normalize using trains.

> If you want to live in Japan and have tech skills, there's plenty of companies hiring here.

Maybe I should learn Japanese first :) But a tempting proposition.

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

#332

Post by rahimnathwani »

anon373839 wrote: post #312
rahimnathwani wrote: post #298

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.

I've lived in San Francisco for over 4 years. I cycle, walk, drive, and take public transport. If I were about to cross at an intersection with a stop sign, the sight of an approaching car would create more fear and caution in me, than would the sight of an approaching bicycle.

> 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.

It very nearly accomplishes the same purpose only from the point of view of other drivers. When a driver in SF approaches an intersection, they're looking out for other cars, working out whether they'll be able to slow down and continue, or they'll need to stop. If they don't see another car that will have priority, they won't stop. So:

- they may not see the pedestrian that's just reached the intersection, and/or

- the pedestrian that's just reached the intersection won't know whether the car is going to stop, so they won't attempt to cross

When I drive, I'm sometimes frustrated when I stop at an intersection, wait for a pedestrian to start crossing, and they're slow to get started. Then I remember it's the behavior of drivers that has conditioned pedestrians to yield even when they have right of way.

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

#333

Post by 7e »

0xfaded wrote: post #321
7e wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

The fix is really quite simple, develop separate routes for cyclists and motor vehicles. Where those routes unavoidably cross have proper intersections. The person you are replying to is right, four-way-stops are a travesty, both for cyclists and cars.

Sure, have fewer stops. But even if you separate the routes, cyclists will eventually have to stop somewhere (even for other cyclists), and they won’t want to.

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

#334

Post by teekert »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #185

I'm disappointed in all the folks immediately blaming the cyclist without further information, and I'm similarly disappointed in all the folks blaming Waymo for the same reason. But, unless they somehow have extra information we're not privy to, I'm much more disappointed in the S.F. Supervisor quoted in the article, Shamann Walton, for immediately going online to say "so much for safety." Us internet weenies are alw…

I’m happy that in the Netherlands it’s ALWAYS the car driver’s responsibility (she always pays).

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

#335

Post by 7e »

philistine wrote: post #325
godelski wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simple selfishness. 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…

Don't give them the time of day. I never understood why cyclists acted the way they act until I started commuting to work. I felt unsafe at intersections when stopped. I felt unsafe at intersections when starting slowly. I read online about some road rules making my trips more dangerous for ME, not the cars. Now I know what I can do that's totally illegal that's keeping me safer.

Cycling is dangerous when mixed with cars, for sure. But blazing through at an intersection full of cars which are expecting you to stop is even more dangerous. Stop sign rules exist for a reason (to slow vehicles down enough that everyone can see and negotiate everyone else) and it's safer for all if you obey them. This is an example of the rationalization I alluded to earlier. Cyclists lie to themselves.

Next you will be telling me that changing lanes without signaling or looking, swerving through traffic, ignoring stop signs on bike paths, riding while looking at one's phone, riding the wrong way, riding without a helmet, or at night without lights (all of which I observe all the time from cyclists) are evolved safety behaviors.

This is not to excuse drivers, who do lazy and selfish things all the time, like looking at their phones. The root cause is the same--human nature. It just so happens that the incentives are worse when cycling.

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

#336

Post by Fricken »

slg wrote: post #257
Fricken wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm drawing the conclusion that this is a non-issue, or would be if autonomous vehicles hadn't got to be so political over the last year in San Fransisco. There are many people out for blood, they want a follow-up to the Cruise scandal. One fact of the matter is that the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt, and Waymo has had many minor contact events in its 10 million+ miles of driving on public roads. We're hearing about…

You are just proving my point. You are pro-autonomous vehicle so you are interpreting the few facts we know in way that benefits your side of the debate. Referencing the cyclist not being seriously hurt is the most obvious example. It doesn't take much for a car to seriously injure a cyclist. It often just comes down to luck of the cyclists physical position and where they fall. Onto the hood of the car is safest, bu…

I'm not pro-autonomous vehicles. Under the hypothesis that they worked well enough that they proliferated widely and people came to rely on them, they would be the most enshittifiable service ever.

Also I ride a bicycle everywhere, I don't own a car. I've had many crashes while cycling, a handful of which involved another moving vehicle.

Speed is a good predictor of how much harm a moving vehicle can cause to a cyclist or pedestrian, and given that the Waymo was turning left off a 4-way stop, it couldn't have been going that fast, and even if it was, the waymo stopped soon enough to avoid doing serious damage. Maybe the cyclist veered into the Waymo, we don't know. Maybe we'll get video and then we can really pick it apart.

There is a battle going on right now between the Governor of California and SF city council over the city's inability to regulate the existence of autonomous vehicles on their streets after the fast proliferation of Cruise's AVs led to all kinds of traffic snarls and general irritation amongst the public.

Cruise has been operating in SF since 2019 and has had many incidents more severe than the one we're discussing now, but they got little attention because it wasn't so political then. Nowdays SF is looking for any excuse they can find to get AVs out of their city.

In legal terms I doubt the city will find what they need with this incident. With regards to public sentiment, the headline "Waymo hits cyclist in SF" is about as much as most people will read, and the details of the crash don't matter.

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

#337

Post by girvo »

School-Cotton wrote: post #198
girvo wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are stop signs in all 4 directions This is a complete aside, but woah, is this common in SF? They simply aren't used here where I am (roundabouts are used instead) Like they're uncommon enough that theres a news article on it in a different state: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/fourw... A four way stop sign seems like an absolute downgrade compared to a roundabout, but thats my local b…

Roundabouts are rare in the US. Four-way stops are far more common. If the authorities find a particular one to be too dangerous, they would normally install traffic lights rather than replace it with a roundabout.

Fascinating. I wonder what the cultural difference is that caused us to go in different directions on that?

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

#338

Post by darkwizard42 »

smt88 wrote: post #315
ra7 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They have no reason to release it to the public. 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.

No, the regulators (who are indirectly appointed through the public) are allowing them to use govt-built roads to test their products. They don't have a direct obligation to you or any other citizen.

I'd like them to release the video, but just be clear what you want, and best not to act like it is required of them.

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

#339

Post by azinman2 »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #332
anon373839 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've lived in San Francisco for over 4 years. I cycle, walk, drive, and take public transport. If I were about to cross at an intersection with a stop sign, the sight of an approaching car would create more fear and caution in me, than would the sight of an approaching bicycle. > 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 ac…

> If they don't see another car that will have priority, they won't stop.

There's a difference between stop and slow down. There are some people who barely slow down and that's totally illegal and blatantly bad. It's also a minority of the time. Most people do significantly slow if not stop at intersections, regardless if there's another car with the right of way or not.

This is a big mischaracterization. That said, I do see cyclists blowing through stop signs ALL THE TIME, often totally dangerously with other cars (including me) at the intersection with them.

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

#340

Post by wyre »

slg wrote: post #257
Fricken wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm drawing the conclusion that this is a non-issue, or would be if autonomous vehicles hadn't got to be so political over the last year in San Fransisco. There are many people out for blood, they want a follow-up to the Cruise scandal. One fact of the matter is that the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt, and Waymo has had many minor contact events in its 10 million+ miles of driving on public roads. We're hearing about…

You are just proving my point. You are pro-autonomous vehicle so you are interpreting the few facts we know in way that benefits your side of the debate. Referencing the cyclist not being seriously hurt is the most obvious example. It doesn't take much for a car to seriously injure a cyclist. It often just comes down to luck of the cyclists physical position and where they fall. Onto the hood of the car is safest, bu…

I think at the very least we can interpret the situation as car hits cyclist in a blind spot and the cyclist was not seriously injured. Sources say there were 49,000 vehicle-cyclist injuries and 846 fatalities [1] and there were 3.2 trillion vehicle miles traveled [2] in 2019. So my math comes to around .015 injuries and .00003 fatalities per 1 million vehicle miles traveled. Waymo’s traveled 20 millions miles by 2020, so more by now but Im not finding a more recent number. This is the first time I’ve heard of a Waymo-cyclist injury (maybe it’s not; I’m not able to google around this new headline) and would put their injury rate at .05 per million miles significantly higher than the other statistic but to get away with minor scratches is nonnegligible since it’s easy for injuries to be worse. At 20 million miles Waymos this rate doesn’t make them look good. I want to be optimistic about their injury rate getting better as they program around blind spots safer.

[1]https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

[2]https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

Post reply on HN