3 ms·

According to the Waymo description, the cyclist was behind a truck, and not visible to the Waymo car. If that's true, then a human driver likely would've done

According to the Waymo description, the cyclist was behind a truck, and not visible to the Waymo car. If that's true, then a human driver likely would've done the same thing: take its turn at the stop sign.

readthenotes1 3y ago
In most of my defensive driving classes, they tell me that if I can't see it, that means there's probably a car there. So a safe human driver would not have entered the intersection while the truck was obstructing vision. That may have pissed off the people behind me, but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind.
- pavon 3y ago
  If Waymo's description was accurate it wasn't blind when they entered the intersection. Waymo and the truck stopped at a 4-way intersection traveling opposite directions. Both entered the intersection going straight. In the meanwhile the bicycle entered from the cross street behind the truck, himself blind to what was occurring in the intersection. We'll have to wait for more information to see if that description is accurate, but the car's action was a legal and safe thing to do based on the description given. > but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind. There is nothing in the article suggesting that the waymo was turning. Edit: Nevermind I was visualizing the direction of cross traffic incorrectly. The cyclist's lane would have been to the left and closest to the Waymo, which means that the truck must have already been in the intersection when the Waymo started moving if it was obscuring the bike. So either the Waymo got to the intersection later than the black truck and tried to sneak in a crossing, or they both got there at the same time but the Waymo came to a complete stop and then proceeded while the truck performed a rolling stop, or something similar. That's a much fuzzier situation and will depend a lot more on details not being shared.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    The cyclist and truck were turning.

readthenotes1 3y ago

In most of my defensive driving classes, they tell me that if I can't see it, that means there's probably a car there. So a safe human driver would not have entered the intersection while the truck was obstructing vision. That may have pissed off the people behind me, but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind.

pavon 3y ago
If Waymo's description was accurate it wasn't blind when they entered the intersection. Waymo and the truck stopped at a 4-way intersection traveling opposite directions. Both entered the intersection going straight. In the meanwhile the bicycle entered from the cross street behind the truck, himself blind to what was occurring in the intersection. We'll have to wait for more information to see if that description is accurate, but the car's action was a legal and safe thing to do based on the description given. > but at least I wouldn't be turning while blind. There is nothing in the article suggesting that the waymo was turning. Edit: Nevermind I was visualizing the direction of cross traffic incorrectly. The cyclist's lane would have been to the left and closest to the Waymo, which means that the truck must have already been in the intersection when the Waymo started moving if it was obscuring the bike. So either the Waymo got to the intersection later than the black truck and tried to sneak in a crossing, or they both got there at the same time but the Waymo came to a complete stop and then proceeded while the truck performed a rolling stop, or something similar. That's a much fuzzier situation and will depend a lot more on details not being shared.
- mlyle 3y ago
  The cyclist and truck were turning.