4 ms·

Based on waymos description, it seems pretty cut and dry that this was literally an “accident” where the biker maybe should have waited until the lane cleared a

Based on waymos description, it seems pretty cut and dry that this was literally an “accident” where the biker maybe should have waited until the lane cleared and any car would have hit them in the same situation. If anything they can use this data to see how it maybe could be prevented in the future. Maybe waymo was still in the wrong for some reason? Sadly the article that goes in depth after we have more details and can more clearly report if waymo is to blame will likely not get nearly as much traction as this headline.

incompatible 3y ago
I'd like to see a video. If a car is turning, it would presumably be travelling slowly, and wouldn't be trying to cut right behind a passing truck when there's no visibility.
- MobiusHorizons 3y ago
  I believe based on the description that no one was turning. The truck and the waymo vehicle were traveling parallel to one another, and the cyclist was at 90 degrees. If this is correct the “behind the truck” would mean occluded by the truck rather than following the rear of the truck. If that is true the cyclist and the waymo vehicle couldn’t see one another due to the truck, and both began entering the intersection. My guess is the cyclist was also unable to come to a stop when they saw the waymo vehicle. I think we would need to know a lot more to assign fault though.
rob74 3y ago
Maybe the accident could have been avoided completely if the Waymo car drove more defensively? The article doesn't mention how fast it was travelling before it applied the brakes, but maybe it would be better to drive extra slowly while it can't "see" to the left because of a truck when driving through an intersection? Or not proceed into the intersection at all before it has a clear field of view? Of course there is also a balance between safety and practicality here. Above a certain level of traffic congestion, I assume even Waymo cars have to be a bit "assertive", otherwise they would wait for hours at a stop sign...

incompatible 3y ago

I'd like to see a video. If a car is turning, it would presumably be travelling slowly, and wouldn't be trying to cut right behind a passing truck when there's no visibility.

MobiusHorizons 3y ago
I believe based on the description that no one was turning. The truck and the waymo vehicle were traveling parallel to one another, and the cyclist was at 90 degrees. If this is correct the “behind the truck” would mean occluded by the truck rather than following the rear of the truck. If that is true the cyclist and the waymo vehicle couldn’t see one another due to the truck, and both began entering the intersection. My guess is the cyclist was also unable to come to a stop when they saw the waymo vehicle. I think we would need to know a lot more to assign fault though.

rob74 3y ago

Maybe the accident could have been avoided completely if the Waymo car drove more defensively? The article doesn't mention how fast it was travelling before it applied the brakes, but maybe it would be better to drive extra slowly while it can't "see" to the left because of a truck when driving through an intersection? Or not proceed into the intersection at all before it has a clear field of view? Of course there is also a balance between safety and practicality here. Above a certain level of traffic congestion, I assume even Waymo cars have to be a bit "assertive", otherwise they would wait for hours at a stop sign...