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

Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 642 posts

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#591

Post by Henchman21 »

lazide wrote: post #539
dbg31415 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging. For your system to work, there would actually need to be cops watching traffic. Since the pandemic, some cities just don't have as many police watching the streets as they used to. For example, there is virtually no traffic enforcement in Austin now. You see the results with h…

But why? Did they fire all the cops? Or did the cops just stop doing their jobs?

They’ve seemingly chosen, en masse, to simply do nothing anymore.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#592

Post by Henchman21 »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #328
ilamont wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic enforcement, which used to correct some bad driving, has basically evaporated in many parts of the U.S. This has been a long-term trend. A friend who's a cop told me that only when their department got specific state grants would they set up stings of drivers driving in a pedestrian walkway while someone was crossing the street. Here's an example of one such grant program, which is actually funded by the fede…

I grew up in a Texas city, lived abroad for over a decade, and recently moved back to the same city because my girlfriend randomly got a job here. The number of people who run red lights is giving me culture shock. You have to sit and wait at your own green light because 1-3 vehicles are still running their red light, and it's every time . As a teen, I saw cops everywhere camping out for traffic violations. I got a f…

I’m in Chicagoland and can report the same. The cops aren’t doing anything. Interestingly, it seems crime is going down while they do nothing. This leads me to believe we don’t actually need huge police forces.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#593

Post by nostrebored »

MisterMower wrote: post #579
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #527

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do you think taxes on gasoline are for? Paying for our highways circa 1993 [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta...

You realize states levy taxes on gas too, right? And that those taxes are remitted to city governments to build and maintain infrastructure?

What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax?

You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#594

Post by nostrebored »

MisterMower wrote: post #585
ben_w wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Road wear is fourth power of axel weight, so trucks/lorries are overwhelmingly the cause of what repair money gets spent on fixing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths.

No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park. By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less. Never mind that the park was created for dog owners , and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who…

It’s more like the cities have chosen to turn _every public space_ into a dog park that you have no ability to escape. For the pleasure of living in this inefficient landscape, you are charged in the form of taxes to maintain it. Dog owners remain convinced that because they pay sales tax on kibbles, that they have a right to this space. After all, it’s just how places naturally are!

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#595

Post by nostrebored »

MisterMower wrote: post #555
Mawr wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cyclists contribute to congestion How many cyclists can fit in a space of one car? Or, would you rather that every cyclist was in a car instead? Would that increase or decrease congestion? > occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits So roads get funded in full by motorists and cyclists can't possibly also own motorized vehicles and they don't pay tax that…

Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist. Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier…

Your takes are really, really ignorant.

Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.

Your “obvious” example is something that’s unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.

The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced. The idea that it’s a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput. Having separate rules is entirely consistent here. If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non problem.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#596

Post by genewitch »

globular-toast wrote: post #543
soupfordummies wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately I wouldn’t support this level of snitching (especially in our current political env) but I’ve had the idea of: A bounty program to submit dash cam video of egregious driving crimes. It gets reviewed, maybe even by AI initially and then gets escalated to formal ticket if legit. Once ticket is paid, the snitch gets a percentage. Again, I am fundamentally against something like this though, especially now.

Snitching... Please. We're not in the school playground any more. We're talking about taking responsibility when it comes to operating a vehicle in public. There's a huge imbalance of power when it comes to car use especially and we need to restore the balance. People need a recourse against irresponsible and bad drivers.

do you actually know every specific vehicle code and regulation everywhere you drive? I constantly remark to my dashcam about people breaking the law in my jurisdiction.

Would you be bothered if someone was following you all day, making recordings every time you didn't signal for exactly 5000ms before a lane change, or 300' before a turn? how about not stopping for a full three seconds, or driving an extra 100' in the left lane than necessary?

three felonies a day

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#597

Post by bryanlarsen »

potato3732842 wrote: post #443
bryanlarsen wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside: what's up with the traffic speed cameras in Sweden? It feels like they're not designed to catch anybody. In my recent drive there it seemed like most of the cameras were in an 80 zone just before it switch to 50 for a tiny town. They wouldn't catch a typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere -- they would likely have already started slowing down for the 50. In my city in Canada, that camera wou…

Because the point is to slow the traffic down, not to extract revenue from the peasantry. Same as the difference between an obvious speed trap and a "gotcha" speed trap.

But does it slow people down? I doubt it has significant effect. Very few people are going to be going over 80 a few meters in front of a 50 sign. You essentially are only catching people who are doing close to double the upcoming speed limit. Those who are willing to do that should be getting much more severe punishment than a speeding ticket.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#598

Post by MisterMower »

margalabargala wrote: post #561
MisterMower wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be more direct: because it’s legal for cyclists to run red lights, you think they should? I hope you can see what I am getting at now. You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement. You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is in…

Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights. Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bik…

There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair.

There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents.

The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists.

That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights.

The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated.

Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic.

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#599

Post by margalabargala »

MisterMower wrote: post #598
margalabargala wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights. Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bik…

There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair. There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents. The reality is that very few roads in America…

Plenty of roads were designed for horses. It's clearly unsafe to have paved those roads and allowed automobiles on them, the result of doing so was as you said increased traffic congestion and more accidents.

Why are you okay with the double standard of redistributing property to the motorists, but not redistributing property from the motorists?

I find your position immensely hypocritical.

What do you think is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45?

Re: Waymo granted permit to begin testing in New York City

#600

Post by MisterMower »

nostrebored wrote: post #595
MisterMower wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist. Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier…

Your takes are really, really ignorant. Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. Your “obvious” example is something that’s unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you. The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced. The id…

> Your takes are really, really ignorant.

Thank you for sharing that. I hope you feel better now.

> Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.

The second sentence of the abstract of this study would imply you're ignorant, but I won't stoop to name calling:

"Red light running violation of bicyclists is the major contributory factor to the crash involvement of bicyclists worldwide."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22143...

> Your "obvious" example is something that's unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.

If I'm following a cyclist who is going 20mph in a 30mph zone, they're contributing to congestion. This is obvious to every human, even those who have never even seen modern infrastructure or the vehicles that operate on it. It happens when walking in hallways or on stairways. When someone is slow and people can't get around them, you get congestion.

> The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced

I don't have any disdain for cyclists, only those dumb enough to try and coexist with motorists and arrogant enough to try and change traffic laws and infrastructure to fit their needs at the expense of everyone else.

I ride my bicycle at the park with my kids, and partly why I feel so passionately about this is because I don't want my kids riding in situations where they are very likely to get themselves injured or killed.

You're absolutely right, waiting at an intersection is one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. This is because riding on roads with motorists is the most dangerous moment for cyclists.

There is no way to make it safe for cyclists to coexist with motorists. Mixing the two results in more people getting injured and dying. This should be reason enough to ban them from roads with motor vehicles, putting aside every other issue I've raised.

Allowing them to run red lights is a recipe for disaster. Use your brain: motorists reasonably and rightfully expect to have the right of way when the light is green. Literally every other moving object yields to them at intersections with a signal. Making an exception for cyclists will result in more people running red lights, and more corresponding injuries and deaths.

> The idea that it's a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput.

Go look up what the phrase double standard means. It is by definition a double standard. You can defend the double standard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one.

> If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non-problem.

If by this you mean we should reduce the amount of subsidization to zero for both, I agree completely. Infrastructure should be paid for with use fees. If cyclists want to use it they should pay for it. If motorists want to use it, they should pay for it. Currently motorists contribute, while cyclists do not.

Post reply on HN