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

631–640 of 750 posts

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

#631

Post by badtomato »

vdaea wrote: post #557
billjings wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a low traffic 4 way stop sign intersection. Low speed, probably a 25mph speed limit? If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic. Which seems like might be what happened here, from the description.

Some will come and tell you that cyclists have an innate right to ignore all traffic laws and that if you were in Europe the car will always be at fault.

They do say that. Maybe the legal liability is on the driver, but that doesn't mean much. All behaviors together from everyone involved is what leads to accidents. If the cyclist feels that the law is all the protection they need to avoid being hit and enter an intersection without looking, or worse, assuming that someone will stop for them, then obviously the premise of their safety was flawed and they made a decision that lead to their death or injury. The accident happens no matter who gets the blame.

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

#632

Post by hot_gril »

lozenge wrote: post #449
hot_gril wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like roundabouts, but don't they require more space?

No, you can also have a mini roundabout, which is a white circle painted on the road. Maybe slightly raised but with no kerb so you can just drive over it. Yield to anybody in the junction and yield to the right (we drive on the left). Very common in the UK instead of stop signs at intersections. Stop signs are only in rare places where a hedge or other environment prevents you from being able to see and yield to app…

Interesting. We have a few of those in the US, but get this, they have stop signs too!

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

#633

Post by hot_gril »

agos wrote: post #495
hot_gril wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like roundabouts, but don't they require more space?

even it it were the case, it's not like American roads lack in space

They do in some places, like SF. Though even SF has more road than some Europe or Middle East cities.

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

#634

Post by kjkjadksj »

xianshou wrote: 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.

The public are not entitled to that video. Regulators and engineers, sure, but to release it to the armchair uninformed public because of their morbid curiosity does nothing to advance safety engineering.

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

#635

Post by [deleted] »

eurleif wrote: post #460
resolutebat wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you one of the 88% who know they are better than average, or one of the 12% who are worse? https://www.smithlawco.com/blog/2017/december/do-most-driver...

>Obviously, not everyone can be above average. Exactly half of all drivers have to be in the bottom half when it comes to driving skills and safety. This page is confused about the difference between mean and median. The 88% of drivers who think they are above average are not necessarily correct, but there would be nothing logically inconsistent about them being correct.

[deleted]

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

#636

Post by mh- »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #488
eurleif wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If GP's mother switches from driving for herself to having Waymo drive for her, her risk of injury will increase . Therefore, if her goal is to avoid injury, it would be counterproductive for her to make that switch. That conclusion does not require any is-ought fallacy.

All self driving > Reckless drivers only self-driving > current situation > small random population only self-driving > GGPs-mom-likes only self-driving. Unfortunately, identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways), and so would be predicting reckless driving behavior (approximately every driver is reckless at some…

> identifying people like GGP's mother and excluding them from requirement for self-driving is prohibitively expensive (and icky in all kinds of ways)

Not sure I follow the thinking here. We already have ability tests in driver's license exams.

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

#638

Post by blululu »

groggo wrote: post #305
shuckles wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see cars in the city roll through stop signs all the time, but I never heard of a bicyclist killing someone while blasting through a stop sign. The difference between bicycles and cars is based on the potential for harm.

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

#639

Post by LtWorf »

teekert wrote: post #579
LtWorf wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from a culture where mountains exist. Geography isn't a culture. Having said that. In Sweden this routinely happens: To clear the bike and car paths from snow, a mountain is of snow is made over the pedestrian path, then INEVITABLY bicyclists angry ring at pedestrians all the time… because pedestrians should walk in 1 meter high piled up snow of course? The same also happens if there is a digging in progress and…

You are an angry person. Most people are kind, something is not adding up here.

I am not angry until some person on the bicycle tells me to go to hellvete (hell, but it's more insulting in swedish than english) because I dared to walk on the cleared up bicycle path when there was no alternative.

After, I do tend get angry, yes.

You are probably just set in your own ways and refuse to internalize that there's more to the experience of the human race than your little bubble.

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

#640

Post by JohnFen »

shiandow wrote: post #618
kurthr wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if you come to a stop at the same time with two cars at right angles, the car on the right has the "right of way".

Over here I'm pretty sure that's the only rule. Having whoever came there first go sounds like it could get very confusing in even vaguely ambiguous cases.

In my observations in my state, the "who gets there first goes first" is very much not confusing. What seems to confuse people is that with ties, people forget if the rule is the person to the right goes first, or to the left. So in practice, this tends to be negotiated using hand signals.
Post reply on HN