This. I've seen all of those walkable cities, green cities, etc... For the most part, I think that staying away from driving is a good idea. If we could have cities planned out so that anything would just be a few minutes walk away, that would solve so many problems. A car-independent society would have many improvements. Even for medium distance travel, we could have trains and such.
What you're describing is exactly how a large part of Japanese society lives today. It's one of the main reasons I moved here. I don't need a car, I walk or cycle or take trains wherever I need to go, including to other cities. Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. They don't like walking that much, and they like the isolation and feeling of superiority they get by driving around in an expensiv…
Based on waymos description, it seems pretty cut and dry that this was literally an “accident” where the biker maybe should have waited until the lane cleared and any car would have hit them in the same situation. If anything they can use this data to see how it maybe could be prevented in the future. Maybe waymo was still in the wrong for some reason? Sadly the article that goes in depth after we have more details a…
I'd like to see a video. If a car is turning, it would presumably be travelling slowly, and wouldn't be trying to cut right behind a passing truck when there's no visibility.
I believe based on the description that no one was turning. The truck and the waymo vehicle were traveling parallel to one another, and the cyclist was at 90 degrees. If this is correct the “behind the truck” would mean occluded by the truck rather than following the rear of the truck. If that is true the cyclist and the waymo vehicle couldn’t see one another due to the truck, and both began entering the intersection. My guess is the cyclist was also unable to come to a stop when they saw the waymo vehicle. I think we would need to know a lot more to assign fault though.
> damn I would not have been able to react that fast. i apply my own standard of driving to it: I wouldn't get in that position in the first place.
It seems to me that the best metric might be whether the average driver would get into that position or react faster if they did.
I don't know if i'd ever feel good enough to get in an autonomous car if they were just a bit better than the average driver... the average driver is not great.
Everybody here is discussing the car and the cyclist, but I don't see anybody considering the possibility that the intersection design is unsafe. That there is a stop sign is a pretty bad signal in itself, Not Just Bikes made a video explaining this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42oQN7fy_eM
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…
We can compare this statistically by looking at accidents per 1,000,000 miles driven of autonomous cars vs humans. Over long mileage, the rate of prevented accidents shows up in the data as a lower overall accident rate. I don't have the stats at hand but Waymo does great on this stat. Now, that's not to say that Waymo would avoid any specific accident better than a human. But from a public health standpoint, that's…
> We can compare this statistically by looking at accidents per 1,000,000 miles driven of autonomous cars vs humans.
This is extremely limited and really not relevant to the topic at hand. You've marginalized out the type of accidents. Most miles driven are on highways and this is a different environment than urban. The information you've marginalized out is essential for making reasonable conclusions about safety. It isn't important to just know the ratio of TP/TN/FP/FN but more specifically where and when these errors happen. The nuance is critical to this type of discussion and a simplification can actually cause you to make poor decisions that are in the wrong direction rather than naive decisions but in the correct direction.
This. I've seen all of those walkable cities, green cities, etc... For the most part, I think that staying away from driving is a good idea. If we could have cities planned out so that anything would just be a few minutes walk away, that would solve so many problems. A car-independent society would have many improvements. Even for medium distance travel, we could have trains and such.
What you're describing is exactly how a large part of Japanese society lives today. It's one of the main reasons I moved here. I don't need a car, I walk or cycle or take trains wherever I need to go, including to other cities. Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. They don't like walking that much, and they like the isolation and feeling of superiority they get by driving around in an expensiv…
It's not some perverse feeling of superiority or hatred of walking, but suburbs and cars are easier for families, especially large ones. The dense urban areas in the US tend to have more young and single people.
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 fi…
I call bullshit on "unfit to walk along roadways". This is victim blaming from people who want to go fast, fast, fast.
The one moving a ton of metal is the one to pay attention. And the US needs to build roadways actually usable by pedestrians.
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…
Maybe "so much for safety" refers to the cyclist turning left without looking.
What you're describing is exactly how a large part of Japanese society lives today. It's one of the main reasons I moved here. I don't need a car, I walk or cycle or take trains wherever I need to go, including to other cities. Americans really don't want to live in this kind of society. They don't like walking that much, and they like the isolation and feeling of superiority they get by driving around in an expensiv…
> 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…
We can compare this statistically by looking at accidents per 1,000,000 miles driven of autonomous cars vs humans. Over long mileage, the rate of prevented accidents shows up in the data as a lower overall accident rate. I don't have the stats at hand but Waymo does great on this stat. Now, that's not to say that Waymo would avoid any specific accident better than a human. But from a public health standpoint, that's…
IMO these are a slightly fake stat. You're comparing to overall stats, that include the drunk, the high, the sleep deprived, and the crazy wild aggressive wreckless. If you compare to my mother driving, the injuries per mile are higher in autonomous. You can argue that I'm making an unfair distinction since those people exist, but I'd say the people driving under those conditions are commiting a crime and shouldn't b…
You're in the write direction but I think you don't have the right words to describe what you're trying to describe. I made a sister comment, but if I correctly understand you, then it would be more accurate to say that the averaged statistic removes important variables for making accurate conclusions. We need not look at your mother, but we can consider different environments. I think most of us would say it would be silly to compare accidents on the highway to accidents to those in an urban street, but an "average by mile" is doing precisely this. We'd call this "marginalization" and it is why you should be suspicious when anyone discusses averages (or medians!). (On that note, the median and average are always within one standard deviation of another. It's useful because if you have both and they are far apart you know there's a lot of variance). I hope I accurately understood you and can help make a clearer message.