Live data from Hacker News

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

sfgate.com

441–450 of 750 posts

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

#441
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think more impressively, even in this seemingly worst case scenario where everything lined up as poorly as it could have, the car was still able to react quite aggressively and the situation ended only with minor scratches it seems? Honestly, if anything, this is probably proof that self-driving is the future, as I would bet any human would've most definitely done much worse in the same scenario.

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…

On the other hand there are many human drivers who will endanger cyclists on purpose because they either don't like them or are inconsiderable aaaholes in general and engage in dangerous behaviours like speeding, overtaking when there is incoming traffic from that other direction (cause they think it's safe to squeeze in as cyclists are small) or not paying attention to right of way signs.

Speeding alone is a huge problem. I would take self driving cars even if far from perfect just because of it. It will be safer if they don't speed even if they sometimes randomly drive into other vehicles. Everything is secondary when it comes to safety. It really is obvious when you move from a place where people don't respect speed limits to one where they do. I think not speeding solves 95%+ of serious safety problems.

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

#442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if a human driver would have (for better or worse) swerved to avoid hitting the cyclist. That is, the Waymo might be programmed to only execute certain types of evasive maneuvers, whereas a human would instinctively do other things as well. Of course, if there were someone in the vehicle's blind spot, it's possible this would have resulted in a worse accident, since there would have been no time for a human…

Broadly speaking (and this is a very broad brush, details may differ), autonomous vehicles will resolve collision avoidance by doing something legal. Swerving is not legal and it's not legal because you might hit something you can't see. On the other hand, an autonomous vehicle maintains perpetual 360° situational awareness so it already knows whether it's safe to swerve.

Can you provide a source that swerving to prevent a collision is not legal?

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

#443
post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is absolute bullshit. So so often, it is obviously the reckless cyclist's fault.

That's a US perspective you have a car-first culture. If you have a bike first infrastructure you wouldn't talk like that. Here Bikes and cars are often even on different roads, where they need to cross, it's made very clear how that will work (traffic lights, clear lanes).

I mostly go on foot and… I'd go for a bicycle is always at fault law to be honest. Meek with cars and assholes with pedestrians is how cyclists mostly are.

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

#444
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you should bear the full responsibility for that decision That's not fair to pedestrians or other cyclists who can be injured by your decision to break the law and ignore their safety.

To clarify, the cyclist is the one breaking the law here.

I understand that. That's why I said they're a danger to pedestrians and cyclists, not cars.

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

#445
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have no reason to release it to the public. The public is allowing them to borrow govt-built roads to test their products and potentially endanger the public. That's more than enough reason for Waymo to be transparent here.

No, the regulators (who are indirectly appointed through the public) are allowing them to use govt-built roads to test their products. They don't have a direct obligation to you or any other citizen. I'd like them to release the video, but just be clear what you want, and best not to act like it is required of them.

The roads belong to taxpayers, not regulators. The regulators are supposed to work for us.

Anyway, I'm talking about a moral or PR obligation, not a legal one. Waymo is using roads that taxpayers pay for, and that raises the bar for transparency for them.

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

#446
post #412

Just teleport all the cars into the sun and be done with it. It's the only way to be sure.

The bicycles as well, please. Signed, a cyclist and walker who's annoyed to no end by other cyclists' behaviour

I say throw in pedestrians too... Removes most of the issues left.

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

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars can be parked right up to the ped crossings, potentially obscuring what is happening. Looks like a death trap to me. California recently made it illegal to park within 20 feet of a crosswalk: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-highlights-... SF hasn't started enforcing the law yet, and I suspect that 99% of drivers don't know about the law.

They haven't started enforcing it because you can only issue warnings if people park close to the crosswalk until next year - specifically because most drivers don't know about the law. And the law actually states that local authorities can come up with their own distance rules instead.

They don't have the "you're required to know the law, 15 days after it exists" law? Odd.

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

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Where do Americans like to vacation? Walkable places. No, only some Americans vacation there. It's not like 80% of Americans all travel to European cities every year. In my observation, many Americans prefer to go to various US cities and rent cars, or to go to beach resorts, or spend their time on cruise ships drinking all day long. >Americans will say that cars give them freedom to go anywhere, then complain all t…

> No, only some Americans vacation there. It's not like 80% of Americans all travel to European cities every year. In my observation, many Americans prefer to go to various US cities and rent cars, or to go to beach resorts, or spend their time on cruise ships drinking all day long. Of course it's not everyone , but it's more than just those that go to Europe. There are walkable pockets in America, and people go to t…

>I don't know all the history of Japan, of course, but I assume there some chicken-egg situation. If there is better transit, it'll encourage people to choose greater density

No, the history is exactly the same as those walkable European cities. The cities were built and grew (usually organically) long before the automobile was invented, or even before trains existed, back when people got around by walking and horse. Eventually, trains and subways were invented and installed in places. Cars came later, but by then the city was already there and quite large so there was no easy way to retrofit tons of parking spaces for everyone to drive everywhere. Subways weren't even built in Tokyo until well after the war, for instance; they're relatively recent. It's probably the same for most European cities.

American cities mostly grew after WWII and the popularization of the car, so they were designed for cars (outside very small downtown areas that predate the car, when the city had a small fraction of its later population).

Spending billions to build more train transit in American cities now doesn't work that well, because people still need cars to get from the train station to wherever they're going, because the density is so low. There's no real way to fix this, other than to change the policies to push for higher density, build a bunch of transit at taxpayer expense, and then wait a few decades for it to not be an economic black hole, all while voters are mad that they're paying SO much money for a transit system that has low ridership and continues to cost them dearly.

>(2) proactively build transit to suburban towns, to provide alternative transit options for commutes.

That only works well if 1) you build lots of parking at the suburban train stations for everyone to park in, and 2) everyone is generally going to a very small number of destinations (e.g. downtown). These days, though, the workplaces are usually in more suburban areas away from the city center.

>When I visited Japan, I noticed that beyond the typical subways of Tokyo, there are lots of regional trains that get to smaller cities outside of the megalopolis.

Yes, but those smaller cities themselves are generally walkable and dense too. They're not like American suburbs.

>We have commuter rail in our biggest cities (eg. NYC)

Right, because so many jobs are actually in NYC, so people need to commute there, and driving into (central) NYC is infeasible because there's no parking and the roads aren't that large. This is totally abnormal for American cities. NYC is extremely unusual. It's a very old city built mostly long before the car was invented, just like those European cities. The only other places in America like that are now just small downtown districts, such as the French Quarter in New Orleans, or the boarded-up downtown districts of dying rust belt cities like Gary, Indiana.

>Maybe I should learn Japanese first :) But a tempting proposition.

The companies recruiting foreigners usually have English as their working language. Learning some Japanese certainly helps, and makes it much easier to live daily life outside work here, but for those companies it's not a requirement.

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

#449
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are stop signs in all 4 directions This is a complete aside, but woah, is this common in SF? They simply aren't used here where I am (roundabouts are used instead) Like they're uncommon enough that theres a news article on it in a different state: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/fourw... A four way stop sign seems like an absolute downgrade compared to a roundabout, but thats my local b…

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 approaching traffic while approaching the junction. Even in that case there would never be a four way stop.

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

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But one of the points of self-driving cars is to remove those bad drivers from the driving seat.

I have never once heard self-driving cars sold with the argument "they're great for sleep deprived and alcoholics". Maybe they should be.

I have always wanted a self-driving car so there's no more "designated driver" hassle with going out.
Post reply on HN