Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

road.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 456 posts

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#361

Post by watwut »

SR2Z wrote: post #140
watwut wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Plenty of drives dont use bike lanes. So, no, this is false issue. Waymo can simply act like literal majority of the drivers.

...I don't know why you think that a majority of drivers respect bike lanes. They don't. Nearly every driver has parked a car in a bike lane at some point. At least in the US it's uncontroversial - the bike lanes tend to be so poorly designed and thought out that it's much easier for cars to use them than cyclists.

I think majority respect them, because I drive bike in a city that is not exactly friendly to that. The situation is, some people break into them regularly, most dont.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#362

Post by atoav »

Saline9515 wrote: post #126
avidiax wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get doored on either side of the car, and when you are forced to pass, you have to enter the traffic lane, which pressures you to maintain speed. Whereas in the bike lane, you can slow down a bit anticipating that a door may open. Waymo does at least warn the occupants if there's a vehicle or bicycle approaching.

It is well known that by stopping, the cyclist will burn and be consumed in flammes in mere seconds.

Cyclists, other than motorists (1) build that momentum up with their legmuscles and (2) speed is required for stability on two-wheeled vehicles, meaning stopping with a bicycle is more exhausting and annoying than, say with a car.

I am not saying stopping isn't the right option in many situations, what I am saying is that a good bicycle infrastructure is planned in a way that understands that a person on a bicycle having to stop is not the same as a person in a car having to stop (unless you use a car where you have to pedal with your legs).

Building traffic infrastructure in a way that avoids (potentially dangerous and thus costly to society) conflicts between different participants should be a no-brainer. It is not secret knowledge how to do that, you just put a barrier and space inbetween each mode of transportation: Road, curbstone up, small pedestrian platform, curbstone down, bicycle path, curbstone up, actual pedestrian area. This way the waymo can stop on the road, where cars belong, guests can exit safely and without pressure into a pedestrian area and have s curb-shaped reminder they enter a bicycle path when they cross over. Additionally both pedestrians and motorists can be reasonably sure cyclists won't suffenly cross over into their domain.

Why is this not the norm? One of the main reasons is space. In most existing infrastructure this would likely mean one or two car lanes have to get either narrower or be sacrificed. It would also mean taking bicycling (and other vehicles using that infrastructure) as a mode of transportation seriously, which a certain group of people appears to be deeply allergic to. You know, the type of person who nearly commits vehicular manslaughter and then does as if the cyclist had it coming by merely existing.

In the end everybody would profit from better infrastructure, especially since good bicycle infrastructure is also usable for children and older people. And that is the test good bicycle infrastructure needs to pass: Would you send your 9 year old kid down that path. If not, than it has been done incorrectly at the cost of cyclists.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#363

Post by tomhow »

xscott wrote: post #149
messe wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Please don't do this on HN. It's against the guidelines to post “internet tropes”, and the purpose of HN is for curious conversation, whereas a link to this kind of URL is low-effort snark.

Also, your comment upthread breaks several guidelines; particularly the lines “some weird role-play poser fetish I guess” and “But be honest - you don't really care about evidence”.

Please make an effort to observe the guidelines if you want to participate here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#364

Post by RandomGerm4n »

This statement should be grounds for immediately banning Waymo from operating. If a driver says they can’t follow traffic rules they should lose their driver’s license until they’ve proven they’re fit to drive again. I can’t think of any reason why it should be any different for autonomous systems. If they can’t follow traffic rules they shouldn’t be allowed to drive.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#365

Post by tomhow »

messe wrote: post #179
xscott wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This isn't an example of that. You claimed something in your initial comment. You did not back it up. 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…

The “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches:

> Back up your fucking claim.

> Really? Do you actually want to argue your point or is negative attention your fetish?

> ^this kind of argument is not fucking productive.

> So CITE YOUR SOURCES.

Please don't fulminate or post flamebait on HN, or use capitalization for emphasis. The entire purpose of HN is to engage in curious conversation about topics we find interesting, and to avoid furious battle like this.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#366

Post by tpm »

dualvariable wrote: post #154
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One question the city probably can't answer is what disabled persons in the taxi are supposed to do. If you strictly enforce bike lanes the result is probably the rider needing to walk a few blocks. If the rider is disabled, that could actually be a huge burden. Since I've got an 80+ year old disabled parent with a walker this is an issue for me that does compete pretty aggressively with my support for bikes.

The car can stop in the car lane to drop off. Especially with a disabled person on board. Is that not legal in your city?

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#367

Post by messe »

tomhow wrote: post #365
messe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't an example of that. You claimed something in your initial comment. You did not back it up. 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…

The “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches: > Back up your fucking claim. > Really? Do you actually want to argue your point or is negative attention your fetish? > ^this kind of argument is not fucking productive. > So CITE YOUR SOURCES. Please don't fulminate or…

Apologies, and noted. I wasn't my usual self, which is honestly what prompted me to give in to replying to them. I usually try to do better, and will do in future.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#368

Post by tomhow »

messe wrote: post #367
tomhow wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “sealion” link and the abusive parts of their earlier comment are unacceptable and I've replied to their comment to make that known. However, these lines in your comment are also clear breaches: > Back up your fucking claim. > Really? Do you actually want to argue your point or is negative attention your fetish? > ^this kind of argument is not fucking productive. > So CITE YOUR SOURCES. Please don't fulminate or…

Apologies, and noted. I wasn't my usual self, which is honestly what prompted me to give in to replying to them. I usually try to do better, and will do in future.

Great, thanks for the reply, looking forward to seeing better from you in future.

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#369

Post by tsss »

moomin wrote: post #250
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities who want to keep cars out of bike lanes should stop offering “mom says we have bike lanes at home” repainting of streets. Create a curb and raise the bike lanes. It’s the only safe solution. I understand this is not realistic in a lot of scenarios but it is basically the only way you can achieve actual safety short of cement separators at the road level, which is basically a curb anyway. There’s just no realit…

People undoubtedly said this was not realistic in many car-clogged European cities before some actually did it. “Realism” here is just a measure of the current number of votes you have for making things better.

[flagged]

Re: Waymo says can't avoid bike lanes because riders want to be dropped off in them

#370

Post by Saline9515 »

derwiki wrote: post #324
Saline9515 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because taxis and cyclists are road users like others, car drivers also have to stop if a taxi has to drop off someone as long as it's quick. Same with buses, also. Or trams. 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 often do you see two guys carrying a washing machine?

It depends how lively/busy the street is, but in towns like Paris, every day I would have to accommodate fellow pedestrians unloading trucks or doing deliveries in the street. The macha lattes doesn't appear magically in your favorite coffee shop.
Post reply on HN