Should Waymo Robotaxis Always Stop For Pedestrians In Crosswalks? (yahoo.com) 228
"My feet are already in the crosswalk," says Geoffrey A. Fowler, a San Francisco-based tech columnist for the Washington Post. In a video he takes one step from the curb, then stops to see if Waymo robotaxis will stop for him. And they often didn't.
Waymo's position? Their cars consider "signals of pedestrian intent" including forward motion when deciding whether to stop — as well as other vehicles' speed and proximity. ("Do they seem like they're about to cross or are they just sort of milling around waiting for someone?") And Waymo "also said its car might decide not to stop if adjacent cars don't yield."
Fowler counters that California law says cars must always stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. ("It's classic Silicon Valley hubris to assume Waymo's ability to predict my behavior supersedes a law designed to protect me.") And Phil Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who conducts research on autonomous-vehicle safety, agrees that the Waymos should be stopping. "Instead of arguing that they shouldn't stop if human drivers are not going to stop, they could conspicuously stop for pedestrians who are standing on road pavement on a marked crosswalk. That might improve things for everyone by encouraging other drivers to do the same."
From Fowler's video: I tried crossing in front of Waymos here more than 20 times. About three in ten times the Waymo would stop for me, but I couldn't figure out what made it change its mind. Heavy traffic vs light, crossing with two people, sticking one foot out — all would cause it to stop only sometimes. I could make it stop by darting out into the street — but that's not how my mama taught me to use a crosswalk...
Look, I know many human drivers don't stop for pedestrians either. But isn't the whole point of having artificial intelligence robot drivers that they're safer because they actually follow the laws?
Waymo would not admit breaking any laws, but acknowledged "opportunity for continued improvement in how it interacts with pedestrians."
In an article accompanying the video, Fowler calls it "a cautionary tale about how AI, intended to make us more safe, also needs to learn how to coexist with us." Waymo cars don't behave this way at all intersections. Some friends report that the cars are too careful on quiet streets, while others say the vehicles are too aggressive around schools... No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk — at least so far. (It did strike a cyclist earlier this year.) The company touts that, as of October, its cars have 57 percent fewer police-reported crashes compared with a human driving the same distance in the cities where it operates.
Other interesting details from the article:
Waymo's position? Their cars consider "signals of pedestrian intent" including forward motion when deciding whether to stop — as well as other vehicles' speed and proximity. ("Do they seem like they're about to cross or are they just sort of milling around waiting for someone?") And Waymo "also said its car might decide not to stop if adjacent cars don't yield."
Fowler counters that California law says cars must always stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. ("It's classic Silicon Valley hubris to assume Waymo's ability to predict my behavior supersedes a law designed to protect me.") And Phil Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who conducts research on autonomous-vehicle safety, agrees that the Waymos should be stopping. "Instead of arguing that they shouldn't stop if human drivers are not going to stop, they could conspicuously stop for pedestrians who are standing on road pavement on a marked crosswalk. That might improve things for everyone by encouraging other drivers to do the same."
From Fowler's video: I tried crossing in front of Waymos here more than 20 times. About three in ten times the Waymo would stop for me, but I couldn't figure out what made it change its mind. Heavy traffic vs light, crossing with two people, sticking one foot out — all would cause it to stop only sometimes. I could make it stop by darting out into the street — but that's not how my mama taught me to use a crosswalk...
Look, I know many human drivers don't stop for pedestrians either. But isn't the whole point of having artificial intelligence robot drivers that they're safer because they actually follow the laws?
Waymo would not admit breaking any laws, but acknowledged "opportunity for continued improvement in how it interacts with pedestrians."
In an article accompanying the video, Fowler calls it "a cautionary tale about how AI, intended to make us more safe, also needs to learn how to coexist with us." Waymo cars don't behave this way at all intersections. Some friends report that the cars are too careful on quiet streets, while others say the vehicles are too aggressive around schools... No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk — at least so far. (It did strike a cyclist earlier this year.) The company touts that, as of October, its cars have 57 percent fewer police-reported crashes compared with a human driving the same distance in the cities where it operates.
Other interesting details from the article:
- Fowler suggests a way his crosswalk could be made safer: "a flashing light beacon there could let me flag my intent to both humans and robots."
- The article points out that Waymo is also under investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "for driving in an unexpected and disruptive manner, including around traffic control devices (which includes road markings)."
At the same time, Fowler also acknowledges that "I generally find riding in a Waymo to be smooth and relaxing, and I have long assumed its self-driving technology is a net benefit for the city." His conclusion? "The experience has taught my family that the safest place around an autonomous vehicle is inside it, not walking around it."
And he says living in San Francisco lately puts him "in a game of chicken with cars driven by nothing but artificial intelligence."
Why even ask this question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:2)
The CA DMV driver manual states that a car must stop/yield when a pedestrian is any part of the sidewalk (with an exception for divided streets), but Iâ(TM)ve never found any part the CVC (California Vehicle Code) that states this.
Waymo lets people book pickups and drop-offs in areas that are marked âoeNo Stopping Any Timeâ, and thereâ(TM)s lots of other ways that Waymoâ(TM)s driving doesnâ(TM)t set a good example for other drivers to reference.
Re:Why even ask this question? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. At what point does the car ignore the crosswalk? You are doing 35 mph, does the car have to slam on the breaks because someone looks like they might cross?
Yes. The alternative is that if they step into the street you will hit them. You are driving a dangerous piece of machinery and are responsible for their safety. And you are supposed to stop to let them cross.
. How much of the pedestrian has to be in the crosswalk? One toe? Can a pedestrian just stand in the crosswalk talking and stall traffic for 30 minutes?
You are supposed to stop to allow pedestrians to cross the street. And yes they can block traffic, just like a car can double park and block traffic or park across and block a sidewalk. The difference is that pedestrians don't do it very often.
3. how does this relate parking lots. My Walmart has crosswalks and there is a stead stream of people in and out.
I am not sure Walmart parking lots are governed by the ru
Re: (Score:3)
At what point does the car ignore the crosswalk? You are doing 35 mph, does the car have to slam on the breaks because someone looks like they might cross?
Don't be a dingus. Obviously you're expected to slow down to a reasonable speed when approaching a crosswalk. When you see the sign warning you that a crosswalk is ahead, but you haven't reached it yet, you get ready to slow down. If there are people near the crosswalk, you slow down. If not, you remain vigilant.
How much of the pedestrian has to be in the crosswalk? One toe?
I don't know the details in California, but I know that in Oregon if a pedestrian places 1 toe into the crosswalk, that's a signal for you to stop. It is the legally prescribed action for a pedestr
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "breaks" is the most common misspelling in comments here.
You will hear the breaking of the brakes when you brake too hard. Don't break the brakes!
Re: (Score:2)
If the car is approaching the crosswalk safely, *it will already have slowed down*. So there’s no need to slam on the brakes. As a driver, you have to look at the road ahead and spot upcoming hazards, and react accordingly. The crosswalk itself is a hazard that requires you to slow, and if you see pedestrians near it, you need to slow even more. This is the law in some countries, but it’s also just the sensible thing to do, to avoid hitting people.
Re: Trickier (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think this may be one of the ways that the US is bonkers, thanks to all the jaywalking laws, compared to both the UK and Canada. In the UK, the Highway Code has just been updated to make it crystal clear that the most vulnerable road user always has priority over the less vulnerable. So a pedestrian has right of way over a car.
The Code’s rules are admirably clear and easy to understand:
Rule 205
There is a risk of pedestrians, especially children, stepping unexpectedly into the road. You should drive
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Waymo had just picked up people, and then went to a 3 way stop, where people were crossing endlessly to get to the parking garage on the other side. The waymo sat there, because pedestrians were not letting it go by. I picked up who I wanted to pick up, and U-turned it instead of waiting there for the people to stop being asses and let the car go through.
A human driver wou
Re: Trickier (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like the stop sign needs to be upgraded if there are that many people crossing the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's illegal to use the horn except to warn of danger.
This can be done safely. In fact, this strategy is practically required wherever traffic is heavy.
But this demonstrates a gap in traffic laws, where an endless stream of pedestrians can effectively shut down traffic flow. Similarly, heavy traffic on a main road can shut down traffic on a side road trying to access or cross the main road. In both cases, the usual solution is to add traffic light
Re: Trickier (Score:5, Insightful)
INstead, there were 5-6 cars stuck there for, while I waited... at least 5 minutes. It showed me an issue with the cars and the lack of care of the mob to allow it through. I felt bad for the people it picked up 5 minutes earlier, because they were literally stuck in the car while it did nothing to address the situation.
How is that different than the pedestrians waiting for a stream of traffic? That is a normal every day occurrence. Every single person in that mob was behind someone else. If they stopped, every person in the entire mob behind them would have been delayed to avoid delaying one car full. Why should the car have priority?
Re: (Score:3)
This is such a perfect summation of the American mindset. As you say, there were an endless stream of pedestrians — presumably many more humans than the humans in the five or six cars you referred to. Why do the few humans in the cars get to make all the human pedestrians stop and wait for them? Why is it obvious to you that the cars ought to have priority over the pedestrians? The stream of pedestrians is, after all, not actually endless. The drivers might have to wait a minute or two, but it would
Re: (Score:3)
Pedestrians don't actually have the right to cross the road against the lights. In many jurisdictions there are jaywalking laws against that. Now, many crosswalks do not have a system to tell pedestrians where they can and can not cross. Those tend to be in spots where there is not a lot of foot traffic and pedestrians tend to always have the right of way on those. It is expected that they will not form into an endless stream. There is a problem of course if they do. An endless stream of people crossing the
Re: (Score:2)
Waymo's are electric, right. So its not sitting there idling and putting out CO2 . No harm, no foul.
Re: (Score:3)
Waymo's are electric, right. So its not sitting there idling and putting out CO2 . No harm, no foul.
They can still potentially run out of power just sitting there from power used for climate control and accessories. More importantly, humans are not primarily electric and they also have better things to do than sit still in traffic. They also have lives and schedules they need to keep. Not to mention biological functions they need to fulfill like sleeping, eating and going to the bathroom. They also may have time-sensitive medical needs, etc. So, even if there's no harm to the vehicle, there can be harm to
Re: Trickier (Score:4, Informative)
Pedestrians don't actually have the right to cross the road against the lights. In many jurisdictions there are jaywalking laws against that.
This is mistaken understanding, caused by adversarial thinking.
Even when the pedestrian is breaking a rule by crossing at the wrong time, the law that requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk doesn't have an exception for that. You can call the police and complain they broke the law, but you still have to stop for them in the crosswalk.
Re: (Score:2)
The post said it was a stop sign, but thanks for all the cool facts about lights.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a problem with the pedestrians -- it's a problem with the road planning.
If there's enough foot traffic that you'll get a constant stream for long periods, the planners should have put in a light if they want cars to pass.
If it's a one-off random surge for a few minutes, the cars have to wait. There is no right of way for cars to push through an in-use pedestrian crossing.
In the 5-thick crowd example, it's pretty clear that the status quo was actually maximizing the rate at which people (whether i
Re: (Score:2)
Why is a problem for traffic flow a bigger deal than a problem for pedestrian flow? If there are lots of pedestrians crossing the road, that means there are dozens and dozens of people who are crossing. Why should they have to wait for a smaller number of people in cars?
Re: Trickier (Score:2)
Sports stadium should hire people to manage traffic and pedestrian flow before and after games. Concert venues sometimes do that since there can be tens of thousands of people.
Re: (Score:2)
If Waymo sits on the road blocking traffic then the answer is send Waymo back to the drawing board.
But Waymo is complying with the law. And if it were a human driver, complying with the law, the end effect would be exactly the same. It's the traffic engineering that needs to go back to the drawing board.
where people were crossing endlessly to get to the parking garage on the other side.
Sounds like some sort of event venue letting out. In this case, it should be the event organizers duty to arrange for crossing guards/police. They even do that for church services in my town every Sunday.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. Pedestrians should be flattened by robocars. And we should write new laws that not only allow it, but encourage it.
Re: Trickier (Score:5, Insightful)
Pedestrians do not always have the right away.
You'd be a lot more convincing if you actually knew what it was called. But you don't.
Re: Trickier (Score:5, Informative)
Pedestrians do not always have the right away. That is one of the urban legends. ... at least in California your jurisdiction may differ.
Let's check with the California Department of Motor Vehicles [ca.gov]: "Right-of-Way Rules: Who Goes First? ... Intersections ... Pedestrians always have the right-of-way. ... Green traffic signal light: Proceed with caution. Pedestrians have the right-of-way. ... When there is a pedestrian crossing a roadway with or without a crosswalk, you must use caution, reduce your speed, or stop to allow the pedestrian to safely finish crossing. ... Crosswalks: A crosswalk is the part of the road set aside for pedestrians to safely cross the road. They are often marked with white lines. School crossings may have yellow crosswalk lines. Not all crosswalks are marked. Pedestrians have the right-of-way in marked or unmarked crosswalks. If there is a limit line before the crosswalk, stop at the limit line and allow pedestrians to cross the street."
"A pedestrian can not step out into a crosswalk if a vehicle already occupies that right away.
I can't figure out what that means. "Right of way" means a person or vehicle has the right to proceed. I don't know how someone can "occupy" a right of way. Are you trying to say that pedestrians aren't allowed to cross the street if a vehicle is parked on the crosswalk? Vehicles aren't allowed to do that: "Stop sign: Make a full stop before entering the crosswalk or at the limit line."
Re: (Score:3)
I think what the guy is trying to say is that if the car is already moving across the crosswalk, the pedestrian can’t step in front of it.
Of course, that’s not how these things work in practice. In practice, it’s like in the video: the question is will the car slow as it approaches the crosswalk so that the pedestrian already at the crosswalk feels safe enough to step into the road? Or will the driver keep their speed up to signal to the pedestrian that the car will not stop? In the UK, dr
Re: Trickier (Score:5, Informative)
> Pedestrians do not always have the right away. [sic]
In 48 out of 50 states, yes, they do.
> "Right aways" are fluid and change dependent on many things, but mostly on timing.
Excuse me? "Right aways?"
So, you **absolutely** don't know what you're talking about. Got it.
Re: Trickier (Score:2)
Breaks? It's called Brakes.
Re:Trickier (Score:5, Insightful)
It's trickier than that. On the one hand, you don't want these cars hitting people. On the other, you don't want to train the general populace that, when you see an automated car coming down the street, you can feel free to walk in front of it, even if it's not legal for you to do so, because it will slam on it's breaks to try to avoid hitting you.
So you think they should be trained to teach pedestrians a lesson by running them over?
The problem here is that you have a deadly threatening machine being driven down the street at speeds that are unsafe for anyone not in the machine. That is the nature of most motor vehicles. We have organized our society around people staying out of their way and the machine's human driver treating human life with at least some modicum of human decency. AI has no human decency. And there isn't an equation to give it any.
So the answer is yes. Waymo should always stop for pedestrians. Because the alternative is for it to run them over.
Re: (Score:2)
> even if it's not legal for you to do so
So, not like what OP said.
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:3)
I'm supposed to slam on my brakes and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me because the wanker crossed when they didn't have the right of way?
Not sure where you're located, but where I am, the pedestrian always/I> has the right of way, even when it makes no sense due to the physics of stopping two tons of metal.
Laws of man vs laws of physics (Score:3)
Yeah, I always treat it as the pedestrian has the right of way - or to put it another way: I'm always in the wrong if I hit a pedestrian. Has to do with me not being a psychopath. Or, in the "it's too much of a hassle to keep hiding the bodies" sense, the stress from the paperwork and potential lawsuits for hitting a pedestrian just isn't worth it if at all avoidable.
On the other hand, my mother always taught me that even if the laws of man are on my side, who's going to win by the laws of physics betwee
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that - I treat cars as though they're trying to hit me.
Where I am it's illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. The idea is you might hit a pedestrian (on foot). They want bicycle riders to ride in the street.
There are very few people actually on foot outside of a couple specific areas of town where businesses are small and grouped close together.
My thinking is "if I ride in the street I have to trust all the people in cars not to hit me, verses me looking out for the (few, if any) pedestrians on the sidewalk."
I ride on the sidewalk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, you are deciding to externalize the risk of your choosing to ride a bike onto pedestrians rather than assume the risk of riding on the road where it's legal
How am I externalizing a risk by being the one responsible for my own safety? You know that when a bicyclist hits a pedestrian they often suffer injury as well, right? cause it's kinda hard to keep your balance when you have the mass of a person or object reacting to your impact, and bicyclists are as exposed as pedestrians to this stuff. Not like when a car hits a bicyclist and the driver sometimes doesn't know they even hit someone if they aren't paying attention. The worst they get is body damage to thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, what you think is clearance may not be sufficient given that you may startle someone who thinks they are in an area fir foot traffic
Sorry I didn't clarify that better. I don't try to drive around them on the sidewalk. By clearance, I mean I leave the sidewalk as I approach, and drive on the ground while they continue on the sidewalk.
secondly you contribute to the view that cyclists ignore the rules so shouldn't get special dispensation such as cycle lanes
The local government doesn't care either way. Their idea of "providing cycling paths" is a handful of local parks with long paths for recreational purposes. The idea someone would use a bike as transportation for business purposes beyond the local university isn't in their view.
This whole discussion is rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As an occasional pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist, I have to point out that there's a bit of difference between the injury risk you identified: A broken ankle, vs the injuries experienced by bicyclist/car collisions, which can include death.
He also identified that pedestrians in the areas that he rides in are rare.
Also, just because he's a bicyclist doesn't mean that he's an ass while on the sidewalk - he might not be riding pedal to metal all the time, could actually slow down if he sees somebody walki
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Has to do with me not being a psychopath.
It's funny how often that simple metric trips up a portion of the Slashdot user base.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] even when it makes no sense due to the physics of stopping two tons of metal.
Then perhaps you need to adjust the physics of your vehicle so that you can stop in time.
For example, if you're approaching a pedestrian crosswalk, you could slow down. This would make it easier to stop 2 tons of metal.
Re: (Score:2)
Then perhaps you need to adjust the physics of your vehicle so that you can stop in time.
I think you need to research the actual stopping distances of a car better.
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why even ask this question? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm driving the street at speed and there's a green light, and some wanker decides to cross, I'm supposed to slam on my brakes and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me because the wanker crossed when they didn't have the right of way?
Yes. You're supposed to stop as quickly and safely as possible. What do you want to do instead, deliberately plow into the wanker because he had it coming? Good luck with that defense in court.
What if a large group of people decided to cross the street when the light's green? Now you have traffic backing up because the law says you have to stop.
Again, yes. Sometimes life is unfair, and you just have to suck it up and not, you know, murder people.
What if there's a group of people, or even one or two, who are crossing against the green light and a fire truck/ambulance comes down the road. Are they supposed to stop for the pedestrians in the road?
Still yes. There is no "manslaughter is okay in these circumstances" provision in the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, yes.
What's the fuck's the point of owning a lifted dually Raptor F350 if I can't run over literally anything in my way? Next you'll be telling them I can't second amendment those assholes either.
Re: (Score:2)
What if it's literally not possible to stop in time?
Then you don't stop. The law allows for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why even ask this question? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why even ask this question? (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm supposed to slam on my brakes...
Yes.
> ... and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me
That's on the shithead behind you being too fucking close to avoid a collision should you need to make an emergency stop.
What if someone trips and falls into the road? You just going to run them over because "fuck them, they don't have right of way"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The person behind you is supposed to be far enough behind that they can stop. Its amazing how we have this whole set of "bullshit laws" that when taken together actually work to keep everyone safe.
Are they supposed to stop for the pedestrians in the road?
Yes, the same way emergency vehicles stop for motorists who fail to pull of the road and get out of their way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a very convincing hypothetical argument. When you make up ideas like that, you are merely pointing out that Waymo haven't solved the problem that they set out to solve. That makes Google (Waymo's owners) look weak and amateurish, liars at best claiming they'v
Re: (Score:2)
In California, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red you are guilty of running a red light.
Really? Which law says this?
IANAL but I found this [ca.gov]:
(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b)
It doesn't say what happens if you're already inside the intersection. If something is not outlawed, it must be legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law specifically says this:
a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
I don't know how judges usually interpret this, but if I were to interpret it literally, it says you must have space on the other side of the intersection which would allow you not to obstruct the intersection. The key is "sufficient space on the other side of the intersection". It doesn't say you can't obstruct the intersection. The "without obstructing the through passage of vehicles" is describing how much space you must have.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that many of these intersections always have traffic coming from the other direction, or at least always during daytime hours. There can literally be a ten hour wait before traffic thins out enough to take a legal turn.
Thinking outside of the box here: or maybe you could not try to make a left turn at a location where you can't make a left turn. Or petition to have a left-turn signal installed.
Two things to consider (Score:2)
1) The car's code should obey the law. Full stop. Anything less is a deliberate violation of the law, not an accident. And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
2) There are assholes who will enjoy dipping their toes into the crosswalk area to stop the self-driving vehicles. This is, however, a separate problem and does not excuse coding ignoring a clear traffic law into the system.
Re: (Score:2)
And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
Something we humans can only dream of.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I think that with careful tuning and adjustments to the algorithm the Bay Area can have self-driving cars along with a solution to the homeless and drug addi
Re: (Score:2)
>What if obeying the law would cause immediate harm to humans or eve a greater likelihood of harm?
The breaking of pretty much any law can be successfully defended on those grounds in court if necessary - and if your action was obviously necessary, it's never even going to see a courtroom unless you're dealing with a particularly corrupt system.
I see no reason why you wouldn't code THAT into your traffic rules... it's an uber-rule, kind of like the Hippocratic Oath or the First Law of Robotics.
Re: (Score:2)
The only long term option is to fix the inconsistency. Either change the law, change the speed limit, or fine everyone until they stop speeding.
Also if you know where the First Law of Robotics came from, you should agree that there are significant dangers to loosely interpretating laws and coming up with unwritten uber-laws like the Zeroth Law.
Re: (Score:2)
First, the law in your state says that slow-moving vehicles should be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic. [ca.gov] Slower vehicles staying out of the passing lanes helps keep everyone safer.
Second, the type of crashes you're describing (rear end
Re: (Score:3)
That’s a really terrible example.
If it’s a single lane, then all the cars behind will now be travelling at the speed limit too. As they brake, their brake lights will come on, and everyone will slow down.
If it’s more than one lane, then the driver should drive at the speed limit (or below) in the slowest lane, and other drivers can overtake if they want to break the law, without having to be impeded by the driver who is obeying the law.
There are no circumstances in which this is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly are you reconciling self-driving with addition and homelessness?
By the multiplicity of fat fingers and auto-(mobile)-corrects.
Re: Two things to consider (Score:2)
If the car always stop it's also a way for street robbers to trap people or hijack the cars for parts.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The car's code should obey the law. Full stop. Anything less is a deliberate violation of the law, not an accident. And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
That's definitely a supportable position and it's not the only supportable one. There's definitely room for abuse on the part of pedestrians. Some goofball might get their kicks by intentionally blocking robocars which is something a real human would not put up with. Is that really what we want?
How about speed limits? I see very few cars actually driving at or below the speed limit unless limited by traffic. The common advice for human drivers is you're safer travelling at the speed of other cars rather tha
Re: (Score:2)
If you put a Big Brother computer program into everybody's car that could truly and strictly detect every violation of law and immediately rack up the fines, driving wouldn't even be feasible. (I know some people would think otherwise, that they 'never break the law'... b
Depends on the state (Score:2)
In almost states, cars are required to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. In California, cars must stop for people on the sidewalk who are in the process of framing the thought to step into a crosswalk. This is an unusually high bar for automated cars.
Re: (Score:2)
In California, ...
cars must stop for people on the sidewalk who are in the process of framing the thought
That's clearly the empty set. Drive on.
When this researcher (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you expect them to issue a ticket for a no harm event like not stopping at a crosswalk?
Well, if they are the same as everywhere else it is because ticketing offenses bring in revenue, while investigating and/or arresting people for more serious crimes costs money.
There's the law, and then there's practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
More than once have I stopped at a pedestrian crossing, waiting for a pedestrian who is standing right on the curb. They're facing the crosswalk, but they're just standing there. How long is it practical for me to yield? The pedestrian doesn't seem interested in communicating their intent.
Or worse yet, sometime pedestrians standing there wave me through, but legally I'm liable if they change their mind, so I always yield. But then you are gesticulating like jerks to each other: you go, no you go, no you go.
My point is, even though the law is clear, in practice it's sometimes not black & white. I get why the Waymo devs have built in a "pedestrian intent" mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Or worse yet, sometime pedestrians standing there wave me through, but legally I'm liable if they change their mind, so I always yield. But then you are gesticulating like jerks to each other: you go, no you go, no you go.
One option here (after you've stopped and gesticulated long enough) would be for you to go through, but slowly, so that if the pedestrian changes his mind and moves in front of you, you'll be able to stop before you hit them.
Yes, you're liable in the legal/academic sense, but liability isn't so important if there's no actual damage done to be liable for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There's the law, and then there's practicality (Score:5, Funny)
In the US you have to hold your horn for at least 10 seconds while screaming profanity if the pedestrian isn't moving or isn't walking fast enough.
Re:There's the law, and then there's practicality (Score:5, Funny)
They're facing the crosswalk, but they're just standing there.
Those are prostitutes. Yes, you have to stop. At least, that's what I tell my wife.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd ban use of cellphones at crossings, you'd get rid of 90% of these cases.
I'm sorry about this (Score:3)
Yes, they should stop Waymo often.
Re: (Score:2)
That joke was Waymo funny a few years ago...
Yes, they should (Score:2)
As such, yes, Waymo should stop for every pedestrian. Specially for a company like Waymo, that will need a lot of public support & goodwill, if they want to become mainstream.
For distracted or undecided pedestrians, it could use lights or sounds to alert them of the fact that it is safe for them to cross. Like nowadays, the li
Re: (Score:2)
For distracted or undecided pedestrians, it could use lights or sounds to alert them of the fact that it is safe for them to cross.
By "it", are you referring to the Waymo? Because if a car (robotic or otherwise) flashes lights or uses a sound (which might be interpreted as a horn) on any pedestrians, there will be a riot. Conducted by The Urbanists and Walkable Cities crowds.
If you are referring to crossing signals, we have these in many places already. But they depend on pedestrians understanding the meaning of the Big Red Hand. Few do.
Counterpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
Iâ(TM)ve crossed in front of Waymos at least 60 times probably closer to 100 at this point. They are ubiquitous in my area. Never had an issue, car always behaved reasonably and predictably.
Ditto that for when Iâ(TM)m a bicyclist sharing the road and as an auto driver. Waymos at this stage are more consistent, predictable, and generally law abiding than the humans on the road. Always room for improvement but they are ready for prime time now.
It is of course popular to dump on them, but as more folks experience robot taxis both as occupants and sharing the road these sort of hit pieces will go out of style. When they come to your area they will be instantly popular, I have no doubt.
Perfect is the enemy of good (Score:2)
From reading this article, you might assume that human drivers have never hit people in crosswalks, and that somehow Waymo vehicles are creating some new danger that no one has ever anticipated. But looking at the article, you find this:
No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk - at least so far.
Given the way that pedestrians behave and humans drive in most major cities, I find this particular statement very reassuring with respect to self-driving technology. I've personally been hit by a car in a crosswalk (the driver was busy chatting on her cell phone), knocked
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t think that’s a fair interpretation of the article. It’s really not an unreasonable standard of perfection to expect Waymo cars to obey the law, which includes stopping at crosswalks for pedestrians.
Do human drivers always stop? No. (Score:2)
So I say "No" for Waymo drivers too.
For one, it's an obvious "denial of service" method. Just put a foot in a crosswalk and it'll never move forward again. Like that cone in front of them (or was it in front and behind?). Could just sit on the curb and mess with it while using your phone.
Doesn't matter what that one person 'feels'. Also doesn't matter what the law is, because again... why should robotic taxis be more 'honest' than humans?
Nobody allows the expected following distance while driving on fr
Re: (Score:3)
For one, it's an obvious "denial of service" method. Just put a foot in a crosswalk and it'll never move forward again.
A pedestrian can already stand in the middle of the road to "Denial of Service" normal cars with human drivers. If large number of people turn in to massive dickheads prepared to do incredibly tedious things for vast amounts of time just to fuck with other people then society will break down with or without robocars.
Prioritize: Occupant or Pedestrian? (Score:2)
Should Waymo Robotaxis Always Stop For Pedestrians In Crosswalks?
Ah... the automated-car "prioritize occupant" vs. "prioritize pedestrian" passenger-settable toggle -- from the Amazon TV show Upload [wikipedia.org]. Quite the conundrum.
(The show is funny and poignant -- and Andy Allo is adorable -- I recommend it.)
Betteridge (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone?
I'm not a machine (Score:2)
But I always stop for pedestrians if I can see them. Even if they are jaywalking (which is now legal in California)
not to rain on your impending plans (Score:2)
Shoplifting under $950 is a misdemeanor in California. So you can still get arrested, fined, jailed, etc.
It depends on the outcome (Score:3)
It depends on what leads to a better outcome for people in general.
Laws are strict. People don't follow them strictly. That's because the aim of the law is to improve life and guide us. We're not meant to spend our lives completely obeying every law. So as a large group of humans, we tend to gravitate towards partially following the purpose of the law instead of strictly following the letter of the law. Once you add AI, your aim should be for the machine to also imitate that - which is not a simple thing to do.
If you think that the machine should strictly follow every law and "teach" us humans to also do that, you're missing the whole point of being human. Humans are imperfect and will never ever be perfect. Life where you strive to be perfect and not break a single law or rule is unbearable. It's a utopia for unbearable control freaks.
And last, laws are also written by imperfect human beings. And some are written by unbearable control freaks. We're not supposed to blindly follow them to the letter.
The safety argument (Score:3)
If self-driving cars don't obey the traffic laws, then the argument of them being safer than human drivers goes out the window.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people in the Bay Area have taken to vandalizing these stupid things. Too bad we're not organized enough to actually win the war with the machines.
Re: (Score:3)