Waymo Driverless Car Strikes Bicyclist In San Francisco, Causes Minor Injuries (theverge.com) 115
One of Waymo's driverless vehicles struck a cyclist in San Francisco on February 6th, causing minor injuries. "It was the latest incident in the city at a time when tensions around autonomous vehicles are particularly high after a driverless Cruise vehicle injured a pedestrian," reports The Verge. From the report: The incident, which was first reported by Reuters, occurred at 3:02PM on February 6th at the intersection of 17th and Mississippi streets in the Potrero Hill neighborhood of San Francisco. A Google Maps Street View of the intersection shows a flat, well-lit area surrounded by warehouses with unprotected bike lanes on both streets. Police officers arriving at the scene found an autonomous vehicle had struck a cyclist, who only reported "non-life threatening injuries," according to Eve Laokwansathitaya, public information officer with SFPD.
A passenger in the Waymo vehicle at the time of the crash was uninjured. The incident remains under investigation, Laokwansathitaya noted. Waymo spokesperson Julia Ilina had more details to share. The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck.
"The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle's path," Ilina said. "When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision." After the incident, Waymo contacted the police, but the cyclist left on their own, reporting only "minor scratches," Ilina added.
A passenger in the Waymo vehicle at the time of the crash was uninjured. The incident remains under investigation, Laokwansathitaya noted. Waymo spokesperson Julia Ilina had more details to share. The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck.
"The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle's path," Ilina said. "When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision." After the incident, Waymo contacted the police, but the cyclist left on their own, reporting only "minor scratches," Ilina added.
But Who Got The Ticket? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, I would think this accident would merit a traffic ticket of some type.
So who got the ticket? The bicyclist? or the driverless car?
Re:But Who Got The Ticket? (Score:4, Insightful)
The bicyclist ran the stop sign, which is illegal, but is not something the cops usually issue tickets for. Bicyclists are almost never ticketed for anything.
Whether Waymo did anything illegal is unclear.
Re: (Score:3)
Fault in auto accidents typically falls on a continuum. But even when one vehicle does something clearly illegal, the other vehicle can and will still be found partially at fault if it's considered to have been an avoidable accident.
It's not like you have carte blanche to accelerate from a stop into the side of a vehicle that, just blew through a stop sign - especially if he was in the intersection ahead of you.
I will say I share your frustration with the apparent non-accountability afforded to bicycle ride
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, and we don't know a lot of the story. It may have been the case that the cyclist DID stop, then didn't wait for the driverless vehicle to go for whatever reason, including that the vehicle took too long. We don't know anything.
Not all cyclists show an utter disregard for traffic laws, some do. Some drivers also do. As you said, though, you are at least partially at fault if you fail to avoid an avoidable accident. It would honestly be surprising if this accident were unavoidable from Waymo's pe
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like he did suffer some natural consequences and I doubt very much the Waymo or it's passenger were endangered at all. But it does sound like the cyclist and not Waymo has the liability for whatever did happen and hopefully values his life and limb enough to be more careful in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like he did suffer some natural consequences and I doubt very much the Waymo or it's passenger were endangered at all.
This is the thing I can never wrap my head around, no matter how many times I see a bicyclist blowing through a stop sign or weaving between cars (and yes, I realize it's only a subset of cyclists - but I see it happen on a daily basis).
If there is an accident, the bicyclist is almost guaranteed to get the worst of it - and by a long shot. At most, the auto driver involved will suffer some psychological damage. The bicyclist could very well die or be permanently debilitated.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose we can only leave the more determined idiots to Darwin.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I have absolutely no sympathy for a bicyclist that runs a stop sign and causes an accident. Seriously, rules of the road apply to bikes too. I hope it hurts and bike-douche learned his lesson.
Re: But Who Got The Ticket? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love how people that say shit like this seem completely unaware of why the stop signs are there in the first place. Do you think there were four-way stops in 1900? That bicycles and pedestrians need stop signs? You can't spare the slightest deference for someone that has to actually push some pedals to re-accelerate rather than merely flex their ankle 10 degrees? I have absolutely no fucking sympathy for people that can't see themselves in someone else's shoes. Let's put in a 20mph speed limit everywhere on earth because, you know, there are some bicyclists, and then count how many car-douches never once act as if those rules apply to them nor learn their lesson.
As a cyclist who always obeys traffic laws, including all legally required stops, this logic is "go fuck yourself" territory. It's not even the legal part that breaks my empathy centers. It's the logical part. A cyclist, including vehicle, water, snacks, and whatever else he/she may be packed with, weighs at most around 250-300 pounds, heavy loaded down. Risking crossing an intersection at speed because you "don't want to lose momentum" is one of the dumbest arguments in history. How do you think momentum i
Re:But Who Got The Ticket? (Score:4, Insightful)
When a driverless car gets into a collision, the news outlets almost universally leave that critical detail out of the headline, that the driverless car was driving legally and the other party in the collision broke a traffic law. Or even making it sound like the driverless car was at fault.
Grabs more headlines that way I suppose, a bit clickbait-ish.
Re: (Score:2)
When a driverless car gets into a collision, the news outlets almost universally leave that critical detail out of the headline, that the driverless car was driving legally and the other party in the collision broke a traffic law. Or even making it sound like the driverless car was at fault.
The most difficult part of the automated car initiative is right now, when a small number of robot cars has to evade a large number of stupid, inattentive drivers. Get over this hump, and the problem will get easier with time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Where is the evidence that the cyclist ran the stop sign? Where does it even say there was a stop sign? This is what was said:
"Waymo spokesperson Julia Ilina had more details to share. The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck."
Four way stop. No mention of stop signs. And
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A four way stop is an intersection with 4 stop signs. Mentioning stop signs at that point would be redundant.
The cyclist is noted as "traveling behind the truck" - That means that it was the cyclist who took their turn early, as the car's turn was apparently after the truck's.
No mention of how the cyclist entered the intersection? You quoted it: They were traveling behind the truck. IE the truck went, and they went with it.
Re: (Score:3)
4 way stop. I see the problem now. Install roundabouts. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
4 way stop. I see the problem now. Install roundabouts. Problem solved.
Roundabouts use more land than a 4-way stop.
Since this was in downtown San Francisco, the land would be prohibitively expensive and require several buildings to be demolished.
Re: (Score:2)
4 way stop. I see the problem now. Install roundabouts. Problem solved.
Roundabouts use more land than a 4-way stop.
Driving around England, I saw many ordinary intersections that had been converted into roundabouts by painting a circle in the middle and some arrows around the edges. They were kind of cramped, and probably wouldn't work well in intersections that see heavy traffic (but four-way stops don't work well for those, either), but they were actually fine in many areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mini roundabouts are ridiculous because they are imaginary. That makes them no better than the rules we have at 4-way stops, which also depend on drivers doing what they are supposed to do. Real roundabouts are often dumb as well (they only make sense where there is not too much traffic and where traffic from multiple directions is either equal, or greater in one direction at some times and greater in the other at others) but at least they have some infrastructure to try to force drivers to do something sen
Re: (Score:2)
Mini roundabouts are ridiculous because they are imaginary. That makes them no better than the rules we have at 4-way stops, which also depend on drivers doing what they are supposed to do.
From what I've seen, drivers are far more likely to correctly navigate a mini roundabout than a four-way stop. I'd agree that neither is perfect, but in my experience the roundabouts are clearly superior.
Re: (Score:3)
Roundabouts use more land than a 4-way stop.
Since this was in downtown San Francisco, the land would be prohibitively expensive and require several buildings to be demolished.
We have lots of them here in northern Arizona. Modern roundabouts use only a negligibly larger amount of land than a 4-way stop, with no need to "move several buildings." But in San Francisco you would have to move several bums, and in that city bums have precedence over every civic improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bicyclist ran the stop sign, which is illegal, but is not something the cops usually issue tickets for. Bicyclists are almost never ticketed for anything.
Whether Waymo did anything illegal is unclear.
The general toughs the cops have on bicyclist is that well they are only risking their own necks, why bother. Truth is that bicyclist do cause serious injuries and even deaths when striking pedestrians.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but they can cause serious injury or death to drivers also.
Example: Cyclist suddenly swerves in front of car. Car swerves to successfully avoid bike, but overcorrects and hits car travelling in opposite direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bicyclist ran the stop sign, which is illegal, but is not something the cops usually issue tickets for. Bicyclists are almost never ticketed for anything.
Whether Waymo did anything illegal is unclear.
Illegal is immaterial at this point. The larger issue would be fault as no serious injuries occurred and the police would have washed their hands of it, shoving it towards the insurance companies.
Yep, cyclist should not have run the stop sign (yes cyclists, they apply to you too) but the question remains, did the Waymo vehicle have sufficient time and warning to avoid the accident? Just because a suicyclist runs a stop sign (or red light, or just pulls out whenever they want to) is not license to mow the
Re: (Score:2)
I got ticketed for riding my bicycle on the UC Berkeley campus.
will the passenger / renter / rider get sued? tick (Score:2)
will the passenger / renter / rider get sued? ticketed?
As not knowing what the EULA is they may of taken on liability.
Re: (Score:2)
We can be certain liability around driverless cars are so legally complicated that the cyclists won't see a dime. (even if they weren't at fault, which they probably were)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone did a bunch of research on this. It actually makes things less safe if cyclists are required to stop for stop signs. They don't anyway, of course, because that would mean putting a foot down.
That doesn't mean they don't have to stop. They're allowed to treat the stop sign like a yield sign, not as if it doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that working in this particular case where it's a "four-way stop" which is kind of everybody/nobody yields?
Re: (Score:2)
Bikes are allowed to do a rolling stop. If it's not their turn, they have to fully stop and wait. If not, they can keep rolling.
Four way stops are not "everybody/nobody yields." There's a precisely prescribed precedence. IIRC here it's:
Mail trucks
Police
Fire
Ambulance
First to arrive
Vehicle on the right
Normally for a stop sign (of any kind) you are required to stop completely. In some places, bikes are officially allowed to perform rolling stops, but all the other rules remain in place.
Re: (Score:2)
For bicyclists the rule is supposed to be: "Stop if there is other traffic. If there is no other traffic, then treat it as a 'yield sign' and be prepared for other traffic to appear."
Re:But Who Got The Ticket? (Score:4, Interesting)
Amusingly enough, in San Francisco, bicycles are not required to stop for stop signs! The rider determines if it's safe to ignore them. Bad judgement, nothing illegal here (crazy maybe, but not illegal).
Even more amusingly there are some countries out there who consider an intersection which requires stop signs to be an example of poor city planning that created a dangerous condition. Most Europeans can't get their head around a 4-way stop, but that goes doubly for people in cities like Paris, a population of 17million people where the city has a single stop sign, ... or it would but it keeps getting stolen for how novel it is, or Amsterdam where there are also no stop signs anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get it (Score:2)
Why is that news? Are we expecting absolute perfect, no-accidents-ever driving from autonomous vehicles?
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
You will never get no-accidents-ever as long as SF cyclists continue to claim - and act like - traffic laws apply only to cars and pedestrians, but never them
Re: (Score:3)
Its not just SF cyclists. It happens in LA very very often, and with the new law passing allowing cyclists to act like pedestrians when at four way stop signs, its only just more annoying.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
4 way stops are one of the stupidest traffic systems every invented. Even the cops in Santa Fe do "rolling stops" which of course means not stopping because stopping is stupid. For cyclists they are particularly awful since a lot of drivers don't believe cyclists count and ignore them and plus you are under human, not fossil fuel power.
But maybe widening yet more roads at the cost of many billions each will finally solve the traffic problems this time!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"don't believe cyclists count"
Of course they count - they're worth 10 points apiece, and if it's a tandem bike, you get a 100 point bonus! >:-)
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Funny)
In defense of Waymo, they hit fewer cyclists and pedestrians than the MUNI.
Having actually ridden a bike in SF, once I get some momentum on the hills I don't really want to give it up. So I get the general lawlessness in that city. I don't know what LA's excuse is, maybe stopping on your bike is too much of an opportunity to get mugged.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never get no-accidents-ever as long as SF cyclists continue to claim - and act like - traffic laws apply only to cars and pedestrians, but never them
Are you talking about the cyclist not stopping at a stop sign? You realise they don't need to right? AB 122 scrapped the requirement for bicycles to stop.
Incidentally here we have a computer unable to stop despite detecting the situation, this implies poor field of vision both by the car which was required to stop, as well as the cyclist who was not. The cyclist was still in the wrong here, but that's the issue with shitty 4-way stop intersection. It all goes to shit when a large vehicle comes through and s
Re: (Score:2)
You will never get no-accidents-ever as long as SF cyclists continue to claim - and act like - traffic laws apply only to cars and pedestrians, but never them
Are you talking about the cyclist not stopping at a stop sign? You realise they don't need to right? AB 122 scrapped the requirement for bicycles to stop.
Did they pass it again? Looking, it appears that AB 122 was vetoed per: https://cal.streetsblog.org/20... [streetsblog.org]
Even if it was actually passed, looking at the text from the law as was proposed: https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
It would appear that if the Waymo car stopped before the bike entered the intersection the bike would have been required to stop and yield to the Waymo car under AB122 as was proposed, from the text of the bill:
(d) A person riding a bicycle approaching a stop sign at the entrance to, or within, an intersection shall, upon arriving at the sign, yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that have stopped at the entrance to the intersection, have entered the intersection, or that are approaching on the intersecting highway close enough to constitute an immediate hazard, and to pedestrians as required by Section 21950, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to those vehicles and pedestrians until it is reasonably safe to proceed.
As I read it, the law (as was proposed) would have allowed bikes to treat the sto
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that news? Are we expecting absolute perfect, no-accidents-ever driving from autonomous vehicles?
Yes. There's someone one here who repeatedly whines and moans about the number of people killed in car accidents each year and can't wait until everyone is forced to have a driverless vehicle. They believe technology will miraculously stop every car accident and that people are not allowed to have enjoyment driving a vehicle.
Robogeddon nerves (Score:3)
People love stories of bots screwing up for whatever reason. When a sentry bot fell face-first into a fish pond, people meme'd around with it for a weeks. I suspect it's a "revenge of the humans" flavor, as many feel nervous about the future.
Re: (Score:2)
"Are we expecting absolute perfect, no-accidents-ever driving from autonomous vehicles?"
Because that was the promise. Computers can not a mistake. Etc.
Yes I know it's unrealistic. To error is human, to really screw things up requires a computer.
And now we are adding Augmented Idiocy into the mix. No wonder Marvin was depressed.
I guess that cyclist... (Score:1)
Will be seeing Waymo money in his future.
YEAHHHHHHHHHH
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not against the law anymore in CA for cyclists to do that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Buried lede, it was 100% the cyclists fault (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck.
"The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle's path,"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed. Cyclist runs stop sign, gets hit. Happens every day.
Re:Buried lede, it was 100% the cyclists fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Cyclists have been hit by cars twice in the past week where I live. In both cases, the cyclists were instantly killed. But note the difference in this case: After the incident, Waymo contacted the police, but the cyclist left on their own, reporting only "minor scratches."
That Waymo vehicle instantly went into full braking mode as soon as the bike became visible to its sensors, far faster than any human could have reacted. That's probably what saved that cyclist's life. Had this been a human driver, we wouldn't be reading this story. Yet another cyclist killed by a human driver isn't the least bit newsworthy.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, maybe. The car was accelerating from a full stop, so most drivers / cars wouldn't be going all that fast. But your point is well taken that if the cyclist only had minor scratches, the car came pretty close to avoiding the accident. I still believe we're going to see a massive reduction in road deaths once most cars are driving autonomously.
Re: (Score:2)
> I still believe we're going to see a massive reduction in road deaths once most cars are driving autonomously. ...and even worse behaviour from non-autonomous drivers (ie. cyclists).
When I used to cycle-commute around London I was amazed some people weren't snapped up by the Darwin Awards. How those people survive just one ride, never mind doing it regularly, I honestly don't know. Never mind the other people they pissed off along the way - mostly pedestrians exercising their right of way and having t
Re: Buried lede, it was 100% the cyclists fault (Score:2)
Nope, a human would anticipate someone tailgating a large vehicle. So they wouldn't need to brake in the first place, they'll just accelerate late.
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the fact that I don't WANT autonomous vehicles, you should be at +6 here. A very important point was made.
Re:Buried lede, it was 100% the cyclists fault (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
The Waymo vehicle was stopped at a four-way stop, as an oncoming large truck began to turn into the intersection. The vehicle waited until it was its turn and then also began to proceed through the intersection, failing to notice the cyclist who was traveling behind the truck.
"The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle's path,"
I'd throw that lede back in its hole, we don't have a clue who's at fault at this point.
Yes, cyclists often break the rules of the road, so do cars (minor speeding, rolling stops, forget signal, etc, etc), you need to drive safely according to the other users of the road you're likely to encounter, not some perfect fantasy driver/cyclist.
Did the cyclist run the stop sign? It sounds like it, but you don't get to run someone over just because they ran a stop sign.
The rest of the claim is odd:
"The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle's path," Ilina said. "When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision." After the incident, Waymo contacted the police, but the cyclist left on their own, reporting only "minor scratches," Ilina added.
Given that the Waymo vehicle was starting from a stop it's hard for me to see how they could have hit a cyclist who was partially occluded by the truck unless they started so quickly they were basically scraping the truck's bumper. That "fully visible" descriptor could also be doing a lot of work, just how much of the bike was visible for how long? And "fully visible" to a human in the driver seat or "fully visible" to the LIDAR? Note, the LIDAR is centred in the middle of the car, so would have a worse view than the driver.
This is one of those things where we really need to see a video to decide how reasonable the Waymo's actions were.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the cyclist run the stop sign? It sounds like it, but you don't get to run someone over just because they ran a stop sign.
Aside from the fact that cyclists are allowed to run stop signs in California they still were required to yield. You're right you don't get to run over someone on purpose just because they broke a rule, but likewise you don't need to shoulder any blame if your response to the situation was reasonable... such as stepping on the brake. Reasonableness includes a basic expectation that someone isn't just illegally going to cross in front of you. That's why fault is assigned the way it is in such cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the cyclist run the stop sign? It sounds like it, but you don't get to run someone over just because they ran a stop sign.
Aside from the fact that cyclists are allowed to run stop signs in California they still were required to yield. You're right you don't get to run over someone on purpose just because they broke a rule, but likewise you don't need to shoulder any blame if your response to the situation was reasonable... such as stepping on the brake. Reasonableness includes a basic expectation that someone isn't just illegally going to cross in front of you. That's why fault is assigned the way it is in such cases.
So a few years ago the light turned green, and I started to go, but being a newish standard driver I stalled and got rear-ended.
I definitely screwed up having stalled, but being rear-ended is usually considering the other persons fault, and the other person (driving a company truck) took full responsibility with zero discussion (it helped that it was actually their employer).
The point is that yeah, insurance wise I had 0% fault, driving wise, that was probably 80% my fault.
So it might be that the cyclist is
Re: (Score:2)
That "fully visible" descriptor could also be doing a lot of work
There's the rub. Human drivers are required to turn their heads. Can the car do the equivalent? I can see all around my vehicle except of course for blind spots. Shouldn't these self-driving vehicles have cameras that can see 360 degrees, including the places where a human driver can't? There's no excuse for them not doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those things where we really need to see a video to decide how reasonable the Waymo's actions were.
What are you on about? The cyclist was clearly at fault even without video. The Waymo car is a mechanical device. It tried to stop as soon as it saw the cyclist. A human would not have reacted as quickly. It is very clear that the cyclist ran a stop sign in such a way that a human would have killed them. (They were effectively hiding behind the truck)
Re: (Score:2)
The Waymo car is a mechanical device. It tried to stop as soon as it saw the cyclist. A human would not have reacted as quickly.
A human could have recognized a bicyclist by seeing just one wheel. The car, by Waymo's own statement, could not. It didn't perceive a cyclist until they were fully visible. That's trash! Self-driving cars need to be better than humans because they have so many advantages. They can have sensors and cameras pointing in every way, when our only sensors relevant to this task are our eyes and we can't look everywhere at once.
Obviously our big uh-brains are relevant here as well, but if our brains are that much
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is very clear that the cyclist ran a stop sign in such a way that a human would have killed them. (They were effectively hiding behind the truck)
I don't know about other drivers, but when I can't see behind something, I make the conservative assumption that there might be a vehicle there, rather than the optimistic assumption that "of course" that space is unoccupied. So I (and I hope, most other drivers) would not have hit the cyclist. If self-driving cars want to be safer than human drivers, they should implement similar logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprised.
I bicycle more often than I drive, so I am naturally inclined towards being protective of bicyclists... but a lot of people on bikes are stupid. They run stop lights/signs, turn across multiple lanes, abruptly move from street to sidewalk and back without warning, ride the wrong way in traffic (not along the curb against traffic to increase visibility -in the middle of a lane against the flow of traffic!) These people incite road rage and give the rest of us a bad name.
Riding a bicycle on th
Simplest answer often true (Score:5, Informative)
Having biked around San Francisco some, I am going to assume this is 100% the bicycle riders fault for doing something that would have caused a normal human to hit him also. Bike riders there are very aggressive and don't follow traffic laws.
FOLLOWUP: I decided to actually read the full summary, 100% the asshole bicycle riders fault, remember at a controlled intersection they are SUPPOSED TO STOP AS WELL. Instead he was drafting off the truck and had a Karma Collision. No way the car could see the bicycle being behind the truck - nor would a human have. It was expecting when the truck passed it was its turn.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
While it's possible, even likely, that the cyclist was at fault, we don't know that to be a fact based in the information provided and we CERTAINLY don't know that the cyclist did "something that would have caused a normal human to hit him also." Not that it matters at all. It's possible that the cyclist was totally at fault AND driverless vehicles are also unsafe.
"...remember at a controlled intersection they are SUPPOSED TO STOP AS WELL. Instead he was drafting off the truck and had a Karma Collision. N
never a vehicles 'turn' just because its expected? (Score:3)
That is rather PRECISELY the way a four-way-stop happens to work.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No, it's not. Any vehicle in an intersection HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY. You don't get right of way simply because you waited your turn and "expect" it, the intersection must also be clear of vehicles that ALREADY have right of way.
Perhaps the cyclist gained right of way illegally by running his stop. That doesn't mean another vehicle can hit him because they waited their turn and that's how "a four-way-stop happens to work."
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's not. Any vehicle in an intersection HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
Factually wrong. Breaking traffic laws does not grant you right of way just because you are in an intersection.
You don't get right of way simply because you waited your turn and "expect" it,
Factually wrong. You do get the right of way at a 4-way-stop by waiting your turn.
the intersection must also be clear of vehicles that ALREADY have right of way.
The first thing you say that's correct, the intersection must be clear of vehicles that already have right of way, which is exactly what happened. That's why the car waiting for the truck to exit the intersection before moving.
Perhaps the cyclist gained right of way illegally by running his stop.
Not possible. Illegally running the stop does not give right of way. It's called illega
Re:Simplest answer often true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simplest answer often true (Score:5, Interesting)
I live a couple blocks from that intersection. It's a high traffic intersection due to its proximity to the I280 on/off ramp, that's currently a construction zone (flower market construction), where an east-west street with unprotected cycle lanes (17th street) T's into a north-south street with unprotected cycle lanes (Mississippi). If you sat there and watched that intersection for 10 min in the late afternoon, you'd wonder why there aren't even more accidents there.
I'd wait to see the video from the Waymo car before making any conclusions on who's at fault. The cyclist may very well have stopped. I'm imaging the cyclist was hidden from view by the truck, and both were taking a left turn onto Mississippi at the same time (as there's both an auto lane and a bike lane if i recall correctly)
I've noticed that the Waymo's have become more aggressive in their driving, they'll start pushing their way into intersections before an intersection is cleared. I assume this is because if they don't and patiently wait their turn, human drivers keep cutting them off..... so they've had to adapt? All speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The cyclist may very well have stopped. I'm imaging the cyclist was hidden from view by the truck, and both were taking a left turn onto Mississippi at the same time (as there's both an auto lane and a bike lane if i recall correctly)
This is plausible.
As a bicyclist, I can say that in many situations like this it is common to turn thru the intersection at the same time as the vehicle, using it as a big, visible, shield for yourself as you pass thru the intersection. Otherwise cars may not see you trying to turn and you will never get a turn.
Re: (Score:2)
No way the car could see the bicycle being behind the truck - nor would a human have. It was expecting when the truck passed it was its turn.
Uh, I hate to be that guy to bring up the painfully obvious here, but humans certainly aren’t equipped with half a dozen “eyes” that can see and sense in all directions, along with LIDAR, RADAR, and whatever else they’re shoving into a $10,000 car bumper.
Isn’t all of that faster-than-human technology, supposed to be the fucking point here?
No, I don’t expect a human to have caught that. But I sure as shit expect the replacement should. So should we all.
Re: (Score:2)
The key difference here is once on car has experienced this and learnt to
Re: (Score:2)
remember at a controlled intersection they are SUPPOSED TO STOP AS WELL.
No they aren't. They should yield. Big difference. Cyclist is still at fault, but if you're going to claim to be an expert on the law you may do well to actually read it. AB 122, specifically carves out cyclists as *not* needing to stop.
How Can This Be? (Score:2)
Bicyclist's fault but learning experience still? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would be great if there was footage of this but sure seems like the cyclist tried to sneak around waiting at the stop by drifting the truck which as someone who enjoys cycling that is a risky move, I am already super wary around any type of commercial truck.
Even knowing the car wasn't at fault I have to imagine at Waymo they try and put this scenario in anyway, like in that circumstance where a truck of a certain size to slow or wait to confirm it's clear at a 4 way stop? I have to imagine with all the miles driven they are really getting down to the edge cases now as that's where the hard work seems to be.
Re: Bicyclist's fault but learning experience stil (Score:2)
like in that circumstance where a truck of a certain size to slow or wait to confirm itâ(TM)s clear at a 4 way stop?
We don't always have to wait until an intersection is clear?
I can picture a cyclist or car tailing the vehicle in front of them through a left turn in front of me, we've all had that happen. I can picture that second person being hidden behind a large truck, I'm having a hard time imagining how I could hit that person unseen.
Something following it unexpectedly out of turn sure would be surprising, but why would I be in the intersection fast enough to hit something I couldn't see at all behind the turning tr
Headline is wrong (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the cyclist immediately rode away says everything. If someone hits me, and I know it's their fault, I'm not going anywhere until I get their license and insurance information.
But if I hit them, and I know I'm at fault? I'm not going to hang around and make an issue of it, especially if I'm the one who is uninsured.
I would really like (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
True, and the roads are the property of the people, yet representatives of the people seem to think the roads are for the exploitation of corporations, in particular corporations run by sociopathic billionaires.
In reality, though, as an individual it is hard to point to exactly what the problem is. As a driver, you have a duty to operate your car safely and to avoid collisions if at all possible. Doesn't matter what others do. Is a driverless car any more inherently unsafe that other drivers or vehicles?
Re: (Score:3)
The last time I was in San Francisco for work, a colleague and I were disinterested in waiting in the rain that was about to begin, so we grabbed some Lime scooters that were right in front of us for the 10-block ride back to the hotel. We were at a red light, standing in the bike lane on Folsom St. when a Waymo car came up in the right lane, with it's right turn signal blinking.
We both got onto the sidewalk as fast as possible, having absolutely no trust that it wouldn't run us down and leave us maimed an
I smacked into a cyclist once. (Score:5, Insightful)
...I stopped at the light, looked both ways, started to move out of the intersection for a right-hand turn and then felt a bump. The cyclist hit my front bumper and was wobbling, trying to regain balance. Eventually they did gain balance and continued on their way without even looking back, still hauling ass. I suspect they were late for work (as was I).
Seems I was rattled more than they were. Such a strange event. I didn't see them because they approached and crossed the intersection too fast. When I made a normal stop, I looked first right, then left, and started to move. In that split second I looked left they were moving into the intersection already from my right. When I first looked right, they were possibly blocked by obstacles, or seemed too far to be of concern. I just don't remember seeing anything of note. Based on their speed, they'd probably be at least 100 ft. away anyhow when I peeked.
I since changed my routine to look right one final (2nd) time before I move. But that does increase the risk I'll miss a fast approaching car. It's trading the risk of hitting a bicycle for risk of getting hit by a speeding car. (The left view is partly blocked, so I don't have much margin of error.) But I figure I'll fit my choice to my actual experience, rational or not.
Being sued by a cyclist actually seems as scary as being crashed into by a speeding car. Courts, paper-work, wiped out bank account, that's also "big pain". Pain math can be sticky. I also move slower, but if the left approaching car isn't paying attention, our speed difference would then be greater. At least it would probably be ruled their fault, which would make me happy as I read the verdict from my likely double neck-brace in the hospital using my unpatched eye.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you as long as you put your flasher. Once the cyclist knows what you will do, he won't risk it.
hmmm, seems very common. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From your description "I stopped at the light, looked both ways, started to move out of the intersection for a right-hand turn" I take it you were making a right-on-red.
But from your description "they were moving into the intersection already from my right" the only place where the bicyclist could be entering the intersection from your right but also be in a location to make contact with you would be if they were entering the intersection parallel to you.
Was the bicyclist blowing the light to go straight th
Cyclists need to follow traffic laws. (Score:2)
Psychological impact for riders (Score:3)
A passenger in the Waymo vehicle at the time of the crash was uninjured.
That’s a hell of a thing to assume given what happened.
Imagine how bad the psychological impact can become when you are the driver of a car and you accidentally injure or kill a pedestrian.
Now imagine how hard that’s going to be to deal with when people have to sit in horror as a passenger unable to potentially retard or prevent a major accident in a self-driving car that ends up hurting or killing a pedestrian. Imagine an out-of-control self-driving car killing a dozen people before a passenger can even try and do anything to prevent it.
The lawsuits for emotional harm are likely something no one is thinking about right now in the self-driving world. And that’s before we even consider the physical harm that will occur.
antrhopomophization run amok. (Score:2)
I know these driverless cars identify as humans, but humans need to stop anthropomorphizing what these machines actually "see" and "do." They are just making statistical inferences in high dimensional spaces using "learned" parameters that no one actually understands.
The problem with AI is that humans can and do use their entire world knowledge to deal with pretty much any situation.
bike lane (Score:2)
"Behind" is unclear to me. Was the bike "following" or "obscured by"?
TFA includes a google map link [google.com] of the intersection. There is a bike lane which may play a part. Perhaps the truck and bike may have proceeded from a stop at the same time and in the same direction. From the perspective of a Waymo to the left, the bike would have been hidden behind the truck until the moment that the truck out ran the bike.
Probably need to see the Waymo video or the accident sketch to figure out what actually happened and