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

621–630 of 750 posts

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

#621

Post by cloverich »

prmoustache wrote: post #615
gwill wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it isn't priority by vehicle type, but by time that you arrive at the stop sign. everyone has to follow the rules equally. approach the sign, come to a complete stop, whoever was there first goes. if the intersection is full, then opposite pairs alternate with whoever is going straight getting right of way, followed by whoever's turning.

That sounds like a complete shit show and a recipe for problems for anything but very low volume traffic.

It definitely hiccups in high traffic times, but in practice it works reasonably well around the country. Its generally not meant for high volume intersections, where you'd expect a light instead. For perspective, I'd imagined roundabout and other designs as better, but hadn't really considered an alternative algorithm for people to follow.

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

#622

Post by vertis »

ghaff wrote: post #607
vertis wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can drive in 12 minutes surely the walk itself isn't that long. Public transport is never going to be able to compete over a short distance. I used to commute 1.5 hours each way on the train from Wollongong to Sydney. The alternative drive takes the same or longer, depending on traffic. Hundreds and hundreds of people do this trip every day (and the equivalent from Newcastle). Another period of my life was liv…

So I'm a 7 minute drive to the nearest commuter rail station, but that's using an interstate. Google tells me it would be a 2 hour walk which included a section of dark country road without sidewalks and at least one set of interstate ramp crossings. So not practical. (I do drive to the train station and take the train into the city if I have a 9-5 type customer meeting.)

Yeah, I made the mistake of not quantifying that my comment was very city based where you can sit in traffic for 10 minutes and move nowhere. It's also based on the experience in Europe where the public transport, particularly in Western Europe is insanely good.

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

#623

Post by cloverich »

fmobus wrote: post #608
edgyquant wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being a better solution is your opinion and not one a large number of people agree with. I for one taking hate public transportation and avoid it at all costs.

It is more efficient though. But if you say you want to avoid at all costs, and assuming there are more people like you out there, maybe we should just start _charging that cost_.

What do you mean by efficient? When I lived in Austin, we lived in a neighborhood where the (only) train picked up, and it dropped me off 5 blocks from my office downtown. It was an extraordinarily pleasant period of my life. But even then, in ideal conditions, it still took longer than driving, and I had to time my departures to avoid waiting 15-30 minutes at the station.

I'm definitely in favor of re-designing our cities and infrastructure to support that kind of lifestyle; I believe most people would prefer it if they experienced it. It seems inevitable from a carbon stand point. But I'm skeptical it will ever be more efficient?

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

#624

Post by ghaff »

vertis wrote: post #622
ghaff wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm a 7 minute drive to the nearest commuter rail station, but that's using an interstate. Google tells me it would be a 2 hour walk which included a section of dark country road without sidewalks and at least one set of interstate ramp crossings. So not practical. (I do drive to the train station and take the train into the city if I have a 9-5 type customer meeting.)

Yeah, I made the mistake of not quantifying that my comment was very city based where you can sit in traffic for 10 minutes and move nowhere. It's also based on the experience in Europe where the public transport, particularly in Western Europe is insanely good.

It's rare I would consider driving my own car for 12 minutes in a city (would probably take twice that again to find parking) and I would normally not take an Uber unless I had a heavy load, was in a rush, etc.

There is a small regional small bus system that serves the train station and the Walmart about a mile away. No idea of the schedule--I'm sure it doesn't run late. But I'd still be taking my life in my hands to walk the mile to the Walmart.

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

#625

Post by mh- »

shiandow wrote: post #618
kurthr wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, if you come to a stop at the same time with two cars at right angles, the car on the right has the "right of way".

Over here I'm pretty sure that's the only rule. Having whoever came there first go sounds like it could get very confusing in even vaguely ambiguous cases.

It really isn't. When there's a "tie", one human waves the other to go.

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

#626

Post by HDThoreaun »

ChatGTP wrote: post #530
cm2187 wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unclear to me from the article who was turning, the cyclist or the car. I agree that whoever was turning is at fault.

As a cyclist and a driver I feel the one driving the killing machine is always at fault. Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.

As a cyclist and a driver I feel this is a horrible mentality, and sharing it openly gives all your fellow cyclists a poor reputation.

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

#627

Post by idopmstuff »

tpoacher wrote: post #507
TeMPOraL wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not misguided. They are not there yet, but progressing steadily. There is nothing misguided in switching out a human for a machine that can do a job better, while keeping the job unchanged. Iterative improvement is the only thing anything ever gets done, and yes, that means we might first need to get drivers out of the streets before we're able to make more substantial redesign of the transportation fabric.

"[...] that can to the job better " is the key phrase here though. It's probably a bit misguided in the sense that, if the end-result further down the line is the "more machines than humans driving in the streets" (let alone zero humans), then it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead, rather than have machines try to work under infrastructure that is designed to be good for human…

> it might have made more sense to iteratively change the infrastructure instead

Except iteratively changing the infrastructure requires political capital along with actual capital in the form of tax dollars. Self-driving cars can be built outside of existing infrastructure and paid for entirely with private funding.

Changing infrastructure is a nice idea in theory, but the practicality of getting anything done in SF means that if you want progress, you should look to other options.

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

#628

Post by kjkjadksj »

prmoustache wrote: post #585
billjings wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a low traffic 4 way stop sign intersection. Low speed, probably a 25mph speed limit? If you're cycling, this kind of intersection is only dangerous if you fail to yield/stop appropriately to auto traffic. Which seems like might be what happened here, from the description.

Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign. Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?

In California there is actually no requirement anymore for the bike to stop if its clear and bleed momentum.

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

#629

Post by kjkjadksj »

edgyquant wrote: post #593
a-french-anon wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public transportation > Safety Pick one. Danger doesn't come only from other vehicles.

No idea why the downvotes. In my city (Seattle) there has been a dozen violent attacks in the last few months ranging from a couple being beaten with a hammer, a stabbing to a gun shooting. You aren’t likely to be beaten with a hammer while driving your own car that’s for sure

In California chp has been dealing with a spat of road rage related shootings. Can’t get into one of those on the bus. These games don’t win arguments when you can cherry pick stories like this from both sides.

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

#630

Post by NetToolKit »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #628
prmoustache wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does 4 stop sign mean cars have priority over cyclists? Sounds weird reasoning. But not living in this country I don't understand who would have priority if everybody has a stop sign. Is it just a priority based on power? 18 wheeler > Buses > Cars > motorbikes > cyclists ?

In California there is actually no requirement anymore for the bike to stop if its clear and bleed momentum.

While there is an effort to make this so, it does not yet appear to be law: https://www.calbike.org/bicycle-safety-stop-faqs/
Post reply on HN