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

341–350 of 750 posts

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

#341

Post by Aloisius »

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?

The law is a complete stop in California, not a 3 second stop.

And yeah, anyone rolling through stop signs shouldn't be driving. In cities that actually enforce traffic laws, you can get your license suspended for it.

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

#342

Post by manualdriver3 »

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.

Incorporating manual vehicle operation into the driving test could significantly alter driving habits, a change I've personally experienced after learning to drive a manual as an adult. As GP notes, the desire to conserve energy and avoid stopping and then starting again is common among cyclists, and this principle applies to manual vehicles as well. Having been raised in the U.S., I understand the potential chaos of having no stop signs or traffic lights at busy four-way intersections. However, this system functions effectively in major cities globally, where drivers, perhaps more accustomed to manual vehicles, approach and navigate intersections with greater awareness and negotiation skills.

I believe that mandating manual driving lessons for all learners could foster improved driving behaviors and heightened road awareness. This approach could encourage drivers to be more attentive and considerate of other road users, enhancing overall safety and efficiency on the roads.

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

#343

Post by gnicholas »

ehsankia wrote: post #225
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 think more impressively, even in this seemingly worst case scenario where everything lined up as poorly as it could have, the car was still able to react quite aggressively and the situation ended only with minor scratches it seems? Honestly, if anything, this is probably proof that self-driving is the future, as I would bet any human would've most definitely done much worse in the same scenario.

I wonder if a human driver would have (for better or worse) swerved to avoid hitting the cyclist. That is, the Waymo might be programmed to only execute certain types of evasive maneuvers, whereas a human would instinctively do other things as well. Of course, if there were someone in the vehicle's blind spot, it's possible this would have resulted in a worse accident, since there would have been no time for a human driver to double check.

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

#344

Post by [deleted] »

soraki_soladead wrote: post #204

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…

[deleted]

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

#345

Post by lolinder »

zone411 wrote: post #311
ra7 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Also people using edited footage out of context for nefarious purposes. Really zero benefit for Waymo to release footage, only things to lose.

And that's exactly why regulators must compel them to release the footage immediately if they wish to continue operating on public roads.

They will release the footage to the regulators, likely without having to be asked.

The regulators don't want the footage released to the general public any more than Waymo does—the last thing they need is a bunch of armchair traffic accident investigators telling them how to do their jobs.

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

#346

Post by zx8080 »

ehsankia wrote: post #225
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 think more impressively, even in this seemingly worst case scenario where everything lined up as poorly as it could have, the car was still able to react quite aggressively and the situation ended only with minor scratches it seems? Honestly, if anything, this is probably proof that self-driving is the future, as I would bet any human would've most definitely done much worse in the same scenario.

Thare's a, probably not very obvious, situation when human could have no such accident in the same scenario. At all. Preventing an accident does not leave any trace. No one knows about the scenario if there's no accident.

How many similar (and others) accidents are being prevented by human drivers daily, and no one knows about them, at all? We just don't know.

That's why I take any stats of "human vs AI" driving with a grain of salt.

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

#348

Post by rahimnathwani »

azinman2 wrote: post #339
rahimnathwani wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> There's a difference between stop and slow down.

Yes, that's exactly my point!

Going 2mph through a stop sign is materially different from stopping at the line. When you stop, you can confirm that the intersection is clear (and that there are no pedestrians about to cross).

> It's also a minority of the time.

If you had to guess, what would you say is the median speed of cars across the lines at stop signs in SF?

> 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.

I guess we drive in different parts of the city. I see this, but not often.

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

#349

Post by gnicholas »

Was there a passenger in the Waymo? I wonder if the vehicle is programmed to take that into account when hitting the brakes or engaging in other unexpected maneuvers. Does the vehicle consider whether a potential victim appears to be breaking the law? That is, would it not brake/swerve as harshly (potentially injuring an occupant) if the thing it is trying to avoid is breaking the law (not that I am saying that's what's happening here — I'm just setting up the hypothetical where there is a blameless passenger and a potential collision with another vehicle that is at fault).

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

#350

Post by flakes »

teekert wrote: post #334
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).

I don't agree with most laws that impose absolutes. The courts exist to deal with grey areas.

A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior.

There's also the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China, where it can be financially devastating to leave a person living with significant injuries, but affordable if you had simply killed them (50K USD vs 1M over a lifetime). In extremely sad circumstances, this has motivated people to hit the victim multiple times.

Post reply on HN