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

491–500 of 750 posts

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

#491

Post by spongebobstoes »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #478
smsm42 wrote: post #326

The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". And given how chaotic and unpredictable situation on the roads in a densely populated city without designated spaces for cyclists can be, 100% safety is impossible. Even if AI itself if perfec…

> The fundamental problem of self-driving cars in cities is that they are expected to be 100% safe. They could be 10 times as safe as regular cars, but it wouldn't save them from headlines of "robot car kills an innocent person". Well, yes, because all the proponents of self-driving cars tout the fact that computer driven cars are way safer than human drivers. And they're not. Those 10 times safer than humans have no…

It would be more reasonable to compare a self driving car to the median or average human driver, rather than a highly skilled one.

That's what we're dealing with today: humans (distracted, elderly, tired, bored) who routinely kill and maim each other with cars.

As long as self driving cars will reduce the number of deaths per mile driven (and I think the data shows that), I think they should be allowed on the roads.

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

#492

Post by _dain_ »

flakes wrote: post #350
teekert wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m happy that in the Netherlands it’s ALWAYS the car driver’s responsibility (she always pays).

I don't agree with most laws that impose absolutes. The courts exist to deal with grey areas. A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior. There's also the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon in China, where it can be fi…

>A large number of pedestrians struck by cars each year (at least in North America), are themselves intoxicated, and not fit to walk along roadways. There are many cases where the driver should not reasonably be at fault for a pedestrians erratic behavior.

Excuse me? How can someone be unfit to just walk somewhere just because they're drunk? You don't need a license to walk!

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

#493

Post by belorn »

CityOfThrowaway wrote: post #361
zx8080 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We can compare this statistically by looking at accidents per 1,000,000 miles driven of autonomous cars vs humans. Over long mileage, the rate of prevented accidents shows up in the data as a lower overall accident rate. I don't have the stats at hand but Waymo does great on this stat. Now, that's not to say that Waymo would avoid any specific accident better than a human. But from a public health standpoint, that's…

If we are going to use flawed statistics of autonomous cars vs humans, we should first look at even better examples then waymo. Im pretty sure Mercedes Level 3 driving automation for the Autobahn is safer, as well as autonomous cars that park cars at airports. Their accidents per 1,000,000 miles should be 0, a statistic which is hard for humans to beat.

The more restricted and environment controlled we can make it, the few accidents we see machine controlled cars do, and the worse a adaptive human driver does in comparison (barring extreme situations).

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

#494

Post by _dain_ »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #304
babl-yc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who bikes on 17th street regularly, cyclists rarely stop completely. Most treat it as a yield (myself included) because it's a pain to start+stop at every stop sign. But it's on the rider to make sure you're on the same page as the other drivers at the intersection, which some bikers don't and just blow through it without checking.

If you choose to blow through the stop sign because it "looks safe", you should bear the full responsibility for that decision. (I say this as an avid cyclist who sometimes blows through stop signs.)

>avid cyclist

Why do I only see this phrase when someone is blaming cyclists? I bike everywhere but I'm not an "avid cyclist", it's just a tool for getting around. What is there to be "avid" about?

I suspect it's from people who think of cycling primarily as a sport or pastime, not a practical mode of transport.

>If you choose to blow through the stop sign because it "looks safe", you should bear the full responsibility for that decision

This is the "you're holding it wrong" mindset, where something doesn't work right, and people are blamed for not contorting themselves around it. If it looks safe, but isn't safe, then that's a problem with the road, not the people who use it. It should be redesigned.

4-way stop signs are stupid, there are better alternatives like roundabouts. UK and Europe have hardly any stop signs.

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

#495

Post by agos »

hot_gril wrote: post #433
girvo wrote: 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?

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

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

#496

Post by ragazzina »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #471
godelski wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a bad idea. I doubt people will respond with proper context, especially given that it will still be lacking in information. We already see people here making assumptions without sufficient evidence. Anything with cars and cyclists is always heated and we just get a lot of biases. I think it is better that we distinguish that this type of event does not actually inform us about the safety of driverles…

> This sounds like a bad idea. I doubt people will respond with proper context, especially given that it will still be lacking in information. Waymo has 360 degrees cameras. There's absolutely no lack of context if the video starts 2-3 minutes before the incident and stops when everything was sorted out at the scene. Bonus points if it has audio also.

The video would be cut to only show the most dramatic moment a minute after released, and it would be the shorter version to become popular.

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

#497

Post by darkwater »

littlestymaar wrote: post #402
darkwater wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe in theory, but then you have a bigger social/psychological/economic problem because these populations are necessarily the ones that are going to be compatible with the business model for autonomous cars. And if you get a bigger proportion of “good drivers” in autonomous cars than there is in the overall population, you're on fact increasing the overall number of accidents.

I agree that a very probable outcome is that the real bad drivers will, for one reason or another, keep using non-self-driving cars way longer than good drivers. But also a good self-driving car should have faster reflexes than a good human driver, so it might mitigate anyway the damage done by a drunken driver.

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

#499

Post by Denvercoder9 »

sschueller wrote: post #479
aubanel wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the end goal of self driving cars is simply to let people do something else than drive. Safety is only a condition for this to happen.

There is a better solution for that: Public transportation.

Public transport solves an overlapping but distinct problem area, and it's not always a feasible solution. Think of e.g. cargo, disabled people that require door-to-door transport, or areas and times where operating public transport isn't viable.

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

#500

Post by a-french-anon »

sschueller wrote: post #479
aubanel wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the end goal of self driving cars is simply to let people do something else than drive. Safety is only a condition for this to happen.

There is a better solution for that: Public transportation.

> Public transportation

> Safety

Pick one. Danger doesn't come only from other vehicles.

Post reply on HN