171–180 of 456 posts
Why is it when they can't make software solve a problem, they then basically blame the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could fine them. And increase fine for each repetition so rich can't just pay to be jerks.
All the fines in the world won’t save you from getting mowed down by a distracted driver on their phone. Drinking and driving has heavy fine deterrents, yet people still do it anyway. You know what stops a drunk or distracted driver from killing someone? A cement barrier
Waymos don’t get distracted. Grade separation, ticketing and increasingly favoring AVs in cities is a simpler solution than erecting physical barriers, which have the downside of making cities less walkable.
Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault. Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff: 1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic…
> 1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic Yes, they should do that. The fact that others don't follow it is completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if it doesn't help them meet their quarterly targets, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a Company to follow the fucking law when it comes to human safety. And if they can't, they s…
This shouldn't even be a discussion. Because someone kills a person, everyone else now needs to kill someone otherwise it breaks expectations? Madness...
Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault. Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff: 1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic…
I’m pretty sure it went something like “so where are we allowed to pickup and drop off riders” and the city couldn’t answer. The problem isn’t really enforcement, the problem is that there are simply no alternatives, and the city shies away from enforcement because they know that. If they started enforcing the rules strictly, people would again ask questions that they aren’t prepared to answer. If you compare that to…
The problem is street-side parking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin. It depends on expectations. If the pitch is (and, let's face it - it is) that automs will be less violent, then this is a problem. If we're OK with them just adopting the existing levels of misery and death visited upon our communities by cars, then the up…
I want to hear how you equate "misery and death" with "unloading a passenger in the bike lane for 30 seconds". I can't tell if you intend this a real analogy or if you are overcome with rage when thinking about motor vehicles
I didn't say that.
I'm saying that the toll of traffic violence is unacceptable - tens of thousands of unanticipated and often gruesome fatalities, along with much larger numbers of injuries and traumatic experiences. So we look to autonomous vehicles to be better-behaved - particularly in terms of speed and attention, but also in the little things, like lawful/traditional engagement with lanes for smaller conveyances.
I'm an avid cyclist and I kinda hate bike lanes; I don't blame cars for not knowing how to treat them. I much prefer either a shared lane with a slow pace or a totally separated trail for bikes.
But at the end of the day, the standard for autonomous vehicles isn't parity with the negligence and aggression that cars currently foist upon society, it's much higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is well known that by stopping, the cyclist will burn and be consumed in flammes in mere seconds.
Why should cyclists be inconvenienced by taxis? They have just as much right to get to their destination.
It's the same with pedestrians : if an old person walks on a small sidewalk, I will stop or slow down. Or if I see two guys carrying a washing machine.
As a pedestrian, I don't see cyclists stopping often when they ride on the sidewalk, though.
How do other countries solve this? I have a fuzzy memory of lanes being shared in the UK. Overlapping bike, parking, bus stops, etc. Not claiming that's better, only that's what I recall. I don't recall what Amsterdam does, but the bike lanes were mostly separated, so I imagine they have dedicated short-term parking. They also have a good light rail system in the city, so much less need for taxis.
I live in a city with bike lanes. But some of them are one-lane (well, one vehicle lane, one bike lane), one-way streets. If a car or taxi or delivery vehicle or anything at all is going to pull over, it's necessarily going to be in the bike lane. (It's either that, or stop literally all traffic on the street.)
As a cyclist, I quickly stopped getting mad at it. I just, you know, go around it. Most streets don't have bike lanes. So turning into the regular lane is not a problem. Even when I drive a car, sometimes I'll have to drive around a car stopped in a regular lane. Such is life.
Obviously if Waymo is pulling over into a bike lane when there's no other place to pull over, it's fine. The highway code in the article literally says it's allowed when it is "unavoidable".
Without seeing examples of where Waymo is actually pulling over, and if there are safer alternatives it should be using instead, I can't judge whether it's misbehaving or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm asking you to back up your initial claim. If you had addressed it you'd have a point, and that would be a correct example of sealioning.
But you haven't, so don't accuse me of sealioning.
This isn't me arguing in bad faith. This is me asking you to back up the claim you made in your first comment. That's arguing in good faith, if you only you are willing to provide the other side of the argument.
Which you have avoided so far.
Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault. Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff: 1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic…
Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe. They’re even bad for drivers as they are more detrimental to traffic than personal car ownership. They take up space on the road even when they aren’t being used to transport anyone. I think we should spend less time worrying about ride share policy…
This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.