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

711–720 of 750 posts

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

#711

Post by Brananarchy »

fnfjfk wrote: post #163
elwebmaster wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists are just dangerous and until we look at statistics we can’t assume that AI does worse than humans in protecting cyclists. As a driver, it took me many years to get into the habit of shoulder checking when turning right from the right lane. I always have my turning signal but to cyclists it doesn’t mean much, they will always try to pass me on the right on the intersection. Cyclists sometimes behave as though…

If you are turning across a curbside bike lane then you need to yield. A bike lane is a traffic lane, you need to wait for it to be clear before turning, and yes, you need to check your shoulder on roads with bike lanes.

Bike lanes aside, if they aren't checking their shoulder they could also easily hit a person approaching the crosswalk.

GP is just a shitty driver, is my takeaway.

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

#712

Post by Terr_ »

godelski wrote: post #467
Terr_ wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, surprise and disappointment are different things. Hmmm... I think I gave it a honest try, but I'm still having trouble making that fit. I mean, both are when the unexpected occurs, one is just more-specific, where the unexpected leads to a negative emotional response. Perhaps shocked versus disappointed?

In a similar comment I gave an example and maybe that'll help. I can leave my food in the oven too long and I will not be surprised to find that it is burnt, but I will definitely be disappointment that I ruined my meal. I think this should clarify and why I was a bit snarky lol. While they often correlate they are not the same.

> I can leave my food in the oven too long and I will not be surprised to find that it is burnt, but I will definitely be disappointment that I ruined my meal.

Wading deep into the philosophical weeds here, my instinct is saying that's not an apples-to-apples scenario, because each term is being used in connection to different sets of events. For example, "when I realized my alarm hadn't gone off" versus "when I got home and opened the oven door."

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate that is to imagine the opposite scenario, where all discoveries and all self-analysis occur at the same moment in time:

1. You ask someone else to bake a pie, let it cool, and deliver the result to you later in the day.

2. A few hours later, an opaque and airtight box arrives, on time. (No clues, no warnings.) You still anticipate it contains your favorite pie.

3. You open the box to discover a blackened stinky mess!

4. At this moment you are experience both surprise (in general) and also a specific sub-type of surprise which is disappointed surprise.

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

#713

Post by ambichook »

scaryclam wrote: post #510
cm2187 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understood what happened, not in this case. When you drive through an intersection, you assume that the traffic coming in the opposite direction who wants to turn will give you priority, as I believe is the rule in every jurisdiction. It seems to me here that the cyclist made a turn without looking if cars were coming in the opposite direction.

I tend to assume they're going to be an idiot and turn. I'm not going to yield my right of way, but I'm going to prepare to stop. Just because something is a rule, doesn't mean people are thinking properly. In the UK we have to take a specific test for hazard perception to see if we're capable of thinking about this kind of situation, before we can take the practical test for a licence. The cyclist was in the wrong f…

100%, it doesn't matter if the crash wouldn't be "my fault", if i can see it coming and prevent it i should and will

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

#714

Post by lesuorac »

gwill wrote: post #586
prmoustache wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign. Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?

it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.

The alternating pairs is just convention and isn't actually law.

The actual law is that you need to complete stop first, yield to any vehicles already in the intersection, yield to the first car (tie goes to your right).

Which allows for an interesting scenario to occur.

1) East-bound truck arrives at intersection and stops first before proceeding into intersection.

2) South-bound bicyclist arrives at intersection and proceeds (illegally) without stopping.

3) West-bound Waymo arrives at intersection and stops but proceeds (now also illegally; as the cyclist is within the intersection) through the intersection.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-veh/divisi...

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

#715

Post by sporkland »

sschueller wrote: post #473
ruuda wrote: post #394

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

Self driving cars are a misguided attempt to make driving safer when the underlying issue isn't necessarily the driver.

Your comment is a misguided attempt to point out that even if we have safe cars we still have cars with all of their challenges around noise and other inherent dangers and problems. Hope you do better next time.

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

#716

Post by al_borland »

roenxi wrote: post #390
al_borland wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they though? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37160744

You're linking to discussion of an article that explains bots are solving CAPTCHA and reCAPTCHA faster and more accurately than humans. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think it aligns with the evidence you're providing.

You mentioned…

>The captchas are just solved problems being used to slow down bots and spammers these days.

If bot are solving these problems faster and more accurately than humans, it’s not really slowing down the bots and spammers anymore. That is also a solved problem.

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

#717

Post by roenxi »

al_borland wrote: post #716
roenxi wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're linking to discussion of an article that explains bots are solving CAPTCHA and reCAPTCHA faster and more accurately than humans. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I don't think it aligns with the evidence you're providing.

You mentioned… >The captchas are just solved problems being used to slow down bots and spammers these days. If bot are solving these problems faster and more accurately than humans, it’s not really slowing down the bots and spammers anymore. That is also a solved problem.

Well, if it is solving CAPTCHA better and faster than humans, that is a useful signal. Maybe they monitor how often an IP address figures something out and if it gets too many right they +1 a suspicion counter. I dunno. Implementing the CAPTCHA solving bot also takes time and expertise; it'd filter out some low-ability spammers.

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

#718

Post by ChatGTP »

lostmsu wrote: post #570
ChatGTP wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules. Like no shit, I never said cyclists shouldn't obey the rules, but motorists should be held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective because of the insane amounts of damage that can be inflicted by jerking around on Instagram while drivin…

> is always at fault > held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective Get yourself a consistent worldview. Anything else is susceptible to the principle of explosion.

Well it is the law. A cyclists will never go to jail for running into a car. So I think my world view is pretty consistent.

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

#719

Post by ChatGTP »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #626
ChatGTP wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist and a driver I feel the one driving the killing machine is always at fault. Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.

As a cyclist and a driver I feel this is a horrible mentality, and sharing it openly gives all your fellow cyclists a poor reputation.

Ok when driving a car, especially in a very populated area, you don't have to be extra careful?

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

#720

Post by lmm »

genocidicbunny wrote: post #247
maxwellg wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists act like cyclists, and are more or less predictable when treated as such. Cyclists are not vehicles, and it doesn't make sense to insist they behave like vehicles. The theory of vehicular cycling was one of the worst things to happen to the development of a safe cycling community in America. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/4/28/why-john-fores...

> Cyclists act like cyclists, and are more or less predictable when treated as such. Except when they ignore stop signs and blow through an intersection when it's not their turn, causing a car that has the right of way and is already in the intersection to slam on their brakes to try to avoid killing the cyclist, resulting in the car losing traction due to the weather conditions and to slide into a tree. Saw it happe…

Cyclists are no less predictable than motorists if you pay attention. I could give a litany of bad behaviour I've seen too, and the best available statistics say that motorists both break the law more often and cause vastly more deaths and serious injuries.

A shared space doesn't mean you're entitled to bringing an armoured, deadly machine into that space and expect others to take equal responsibility for the danger your machine is imposing.

Post reply on HN