3 ms·

It's not the Cruise system's fault that you almost ran into them. They should absolutely be able to stop again to access the situation before continuing, regard

It's not the Cruise system's fault that you almost ran into them. They should absolutely be able to stop again to access the situation before continuing, regardless of the traffic situation. And who knows, maybe there was another pedestrian or animal running around on the other side of the road that you didn't see. It's like rear ending a car at a stop sign because they did a double stop and blaming the front car. That's just not how it works.

alextheparrot 6y ago
This absolutely can be a liability. I've been 'hit' by a car that made a left turn into their driveway across the bike lane. If there is a small animal or another pedestrian that isn't the biker's fault - the car is still liable at that point. Blocking orthogonal lanes of traffic is not a driver's 'right'.
- thelean12 6y ago
  That's a much more vague situation. Did they actually hit you? Did they cut you off and force you to hit them? Those are much different situations than them having plenty of time to make a turn and having to stop for whatever reason, and you assumed that they wouldn't stop so you didn't slow down. And to be clear, I don't care what the law says in this conversation; I care about what I think is the correct outcome. A double stop at a stop sign is a very simple situation.
  - alextheparrot 6y ago
    I'll address your questions second, but I want to put forward the most lucid scenario that I feel addresses the double stop situation. We have an intersection where one direction is controlled (There's a stop sign) and the other is not. If a bike or pedestrian is moving in the uncontrolled direction, should we allow a car in the controlled direction to be able to block uncontrolled traffic - car, bike, pedestrian without by default being liable. My answer would be no - the car coming from the controlled direction cannot impede the uncontrolled lanes of traffic when proceeding. If something suddenly appeared, like an animal, then we should allow drivers some leeway to resolve that trolley problem. However, I would add that there should be an expectation that things are proportionate - allowing a cat to survive should not force a biker or pedestrian to hit the car. I think we can generalize this further by introducing right-of-way and other concepts that make fully controlled intersections more difficult, but I feel the results will be roughly similar. To your initial questions, the body of the car moved into the bike lane when I had insufficient time or space to deviate my path to avoid the car. I hit the hood of the car and flew over it. I am in agreement that if I'm following someone through an intersection and rear-end them based on them double stopping, I think it is less so when we are dealing with orthogonal lanes of traffic.
    - thelean12 6y ago
      We might have to agree to disagree a bit. If I am driving in the uncontrolled direction and see a car crossing in the controlled direction, then I slow down enough in case the crossing car slows down or stops unexpectedly. If the crossing car doesn't give enough space (i.e. cuts people off), then they're at fault. Otherwise the uncontrolled direction is at fault. To simplify it: Everyone should give everyone enough space/time to stop before hitting something. Everyone should use that space/time when something unexpected happens. Anyone who breaks either of those should be at fault. Again, just my opinion about how it should be. I have no idea what the law says.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
These AI cars are like that driver that's been in a million accidents but insists they're a good driver because they weren't "at fault" in any of them they're a good driver. If you violate the expectations of other road users you're gonna get in a hell of a lot of accidents. Sure you might not be to blame in any particular one of them but when you're the common factor eventually it's hard to pretend like you're blameless.

alextheparrot 6y ago

This absolutely can be a liability. I've been 'hit' by a car that made a left turn into their driveway across the bike lane. If there is a small animal or another pedestrian that isn't the biker's fault - the car is still liable at that point. Blocking orthogonal lanes of traffic is not a driver's 'right'.

thelean12 6y ago
That's a much more vague situation. Did they actually hit you? Did they cut you off and force you to hit them? Those are much different situations than them having plenty of time to make a turn and having to stop for whatever reason, and you assumed that they wouldn't stop so you didn't slow down. And to be clear, I don't care what the law says in this conversation; I care about what I think is the correct outcome. A double stop at a stop sign is a very simple situation.
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  I'll address your questions second, but I want to put forward the most lucid scenario that I feel addresses the double stop situation. We have an intersection where one direction is controlled (There's a stop sign) and the other is not. If a bike or pedestrian is moving in the uncontrolled direction, should we allow a car in the controlled direction to be able to block uncontrolled traffic - car, bike, pedestrian without by default being liable. My answer would be no - the car coming from the controlled direction cannot impede the uncontrolled lanes of traffic when proceeding. If something suddenly appeared, like an animal, then we should allow drivers some leeway to resolve that trolley problem. However, I would add that there should be an expectation that things are proportionate - allowing a cat to survive should not force a biker or pedestrian to hit the car. I think we can generalize this further by introducing right-of-way and other concepts that make fully controlled intersections more difficult, but I feel the results will be roughly similar. To your initial questions, the body of the car moved into the bike lane when I had insufficient time or space to deviate my path to avoid the car. I hit the hood of the car and flew over it. I am in agreement that if I'm following someone through an intersection and rear-end them based on them double stopping, I think it is less so when we are dealing with orthogonal lanes of traffic.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    We might have to agree to disagree a bit. If I am driving in the uncontrolled direction and see a car crossing in the controlled direction, then I slow down enough in case the crossing car slows down or stops unexpectedly. If the crossing car doesn't give enough space (i.e. cuts people off), then they're at fault. Otherwise the uncontrolled direction is at fault. To simplify it: Everyone should give everyone enough space/time to stop before hitting something. Everyone should use that space/time when something unexpected happens. Anyone who breaks either of those should be at fault. Again, just my opinion about how it should be. I have no idea what the law says.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

These AI cars are like that driver that's been in a million accidents but insists they're a good driver because they weren't "at fault" in any of them they're a good driver. If you violate the expectations of other road users you're gonna get in a hell of a lot of accidents. Sure you might not be to blame in any particular one of them but when you're the common factor eventually it's hard to pretend like you're blameless.