4 ms·

Uhh.... thinking ahead of risks, and especially hidden cyclists and pedestrians is something that is taught in basic drivers ed here in Sweden. How can this not

by sandos 3y ago

Uhh.... thinking ahead of risks, and especially hidden cyclists and pedestrians is something that is taught in basic drivers ed here in Sweden. How can this not be the fault of the car? It should have realized that, yes, I am completely blind regarding whoever comes out from behind the truck, I should slow down. I guess there are some qualifications here. If there was a severely low probability of a cyclist there, and especially if cycling was forbidden there, then this does not apply in the same way, although you should always be aware that others might break rules, and you are responsible for minimzing risks even to those. But, you can not slow down for every possibly suividal maniac throwing themselves out in the road where you are not supposed to be. I still lean towards the car not being cautious enough.

cm2187 3y ago
If I understood what happened, not in this case. When you drive through an intersection, you assume that the traffic coming in the opposite direction who wants to turn will give you priority, as I believe is the rule in every jurisdiction. It seems to me here that the cyclist made a turn without looking if cars were coming in the opposite direction.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  The cyclist would’ve assumed whoever was going to make a turn would’ve waited to check nothing was behind the truck. Maybe I’m weird but it’s the default way I drive. I hate cutting corners, or making blind turns. The car is in the wrong as it should’ve made sure the road was completely clear before executing the turn. I mean it must’ve been a pretty aggressive move to turn that soon after a truck went past… That or the AIs are ready to start killing people
  - cm2187 3y ago
    It’s unclear to me from the article who was turning, the cyclist or the car. I agree that whoever was turning is at fault.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      As a cyclist and a driver I feel the one driving the killing machine is always at fault. Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.
      - infecto 3y ago
        As a cyclist and driver, I feel fault is not to be assigned to the car by default. If you are driving a car you certainly need to be aware but if you are walking or riding a bicycle you need to be equally aware of your surroundings. People are stupid regardless of what they are driving.
      - phicoh 3y ago
        This attitude doesn't help when typically in a collision, the cyclist needs medical treatment. Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules. So for a cyclist, don't get in the path of a 'killing machine' when the car has priority and when the cyclist has priority look for clues that the car is actually going to stop.
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules. Like no shit, I never said cyclists shouldn't obey the rules, but motorists should be held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective because of the insane amounts of damage that can be inflicted by jerking around on Instagram while driving, for example. I've ridden around cities my whole life on bikes and you can obey all the rules you like, you're still completely vulnerable when it comes to dangerous, inattentive driving. Cars, for the most part, really are a stupid idea, especially in cities.
        lostmsu 3y ago
        > is always at fault > held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective Get yourself a consistent worldview. Anything else is susceptible to the principle of explosion.
- scaryclam 3y ago
  I tend to assume they're going to be an idiot and turn. I'm not going to yield my right of way, but I'm going to prepare to stop. Just because something is a rule, doesn't mean people are thinking properly. In the UK we have to take a specific test for hazard perception to see if we're capable of thinking about this kind of situation, before we can take the practical test for a licence. The cyclist was in the wrong for turning, and legally there is nothing against the car. But the car was also in the wrong for not assessing the situation and preparing to stop, in case the cyclist was daft, which they were.
  - ambichook 3y ago
    100%, it doesn't matter if the crash wouldn't be "my fault", if i can see it coming and prevent it i should and will
infecto 3y ago
How? It’s unclear but reads to me that the cyclist trailed the truck and made a blind turn. Same as if a pedestrian just jumps out in front of you.
magnetowasright 3y ago
Agreed. Where I live, you cannot take the drive test to get your provisional license (allowing drivers to drive without the supervision of a fully licensed driver) without passing a 'hazards test' which involves a bunch of (crappy) videos with situations like these where you have to click the mouse when it is safe for you to start moving the car. Unsafe intersections are a reality. Cyclists and pedestrians (and other vehicles) being obscured from view is a reality. I can't get my license if I can't show I can make safe decisions handling these situations. I can't have even a low speed crash into someone and try to deny culpability by saying the intersection was unsafe or that a cyclist or pedestrian broke the rules. It is still my responsibility as the person in control of dangerous machinery. I find it very frustrating that it's a common sentiment to allow driverless cars to hurt people with those things as a justification. If these semi or supposedly fully autonomous cars can't work within the realities of the roads on which they drive, they shouldn't be driving.
- InTheFutureRob 3y ago
  SO? You could do everything right, and still have a crash. Can you prove that Waymo did anything WRONG or unsafe? That will come out with inquiry
  - magnetowasright 3y ago
    I mean, the car hit a cyclist. I'm pretty sure that that's, uh, WRONG or unsafe.
funnydude9999 3y ago
No offense, but I doubt you are a very frequent driver. While everyone strives to be defensive, it is 100% not your fault and not expected that someone or something would show up in front of your car when you have the right of way. If it did you would be driving 5 km/hr on a 100 km/hr road "to be defensive"

by sandos 3y ago

cm2187 3y ago

If I understood what happened, not in this case. When you drive through an intersection, you assume that the traffic coming in the opposite direction who wants to turn will give you priority, as I believe is the rule in every jurisdiction. It seems to me here that the cyclist made a turn without looking if cars were coming in the opposite direction.

ChatGTP 3y ago
The cyclist would’ve assumed whoever was going to make a turn would’ve waited to check nothing was behind the truck. Maybe I’m weird but it’s the default way I drive. I hate cutting corners, or making blind turns. The car is in the wrong as it should’ve made sure the road was completely clear before executing the turn. I mean it must’ve been a pretty aggressive move to turn that soon after a truck went past… That or the AIs are ready to start killing people
- cm2187 3y ago
  It’s unclear to me from the article who was turning, the cyclist or the car. I agree that whoever was turning is at fault.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    As a cyclist and a driver I feel the one driving the killing machine is always at fault. Of course if the cyclist ran into the car that’s different but drivers need to be ultra careful. Period.
    - infecto 3y ago
      As a cyclist and driver, I feel fault is not to be assigned to the car by default. If you are driving a car you certainly need to be aware but if you are walking or riding a bicycle you need to be equally aware of your surroundings. People are stupid regardless of what they are driving.
    - phicoh 3y ago
      This attitude doesn't help when typically in a collision, the cyclist needs medical treatment. Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules. So for a cyclist, don't get in the path of a 'killing machine' when the car has priority and when the cyclist has priority look for clues that the car is actually going to stop.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        Traffic is a complex real-time action game where there are serious consequences if people make mistakes. So the best approach is to be predictable within the traffic rules. Like no shit, I never said cyclists shouldn't obey the rules, but motorists should be held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective because of the insane amounts of damage that can be inflicted by jerking around on Instagram while driving, for example. I've ridden around cities my whole life on bikes and you can obey all the rules you like, you're still completely vulnerable when it comes to dangerous, inattentive driving. Cars, for the most part, really are a stupid idea, especially in cities.
        lostmsu 3y ago
        > is always at fault > held to a much higher standard from a legal perspective Get yourself a consistent worldview. Anything else is susceptible to the principle of explosion.
scaryclam 3y ago
I tend to assume they're going to be an idiot and turn. I'm not going to yield my right of way, but I'm going to prepare to stop. Just because something is a rule, doesn't mean people are thinking properly. In the UK we have to take a specific test for hazard perception to see if we're capable of thinking about this kind of situation, before we can take the practical test for a licence. The cyclist was in the wrong for turning, and legally there is nothing against the car. But the car was also in the wrong for not assessing the situation and preparing to stop, in case the cyclist was daft, which they were.
- ambichook 3y ago
  100%, it doesn't matter if the crash wouldn't be "my fault", if i can see it coming and prevent it i should and will

infecto 3y ago

How? It’s unclear but reads to me that the cyclist trailed the truck and made a blind turn. Same as if a pedestrian just jumps out in front of you.

magnetowasright 3y ago

Agreed. Where I live, you cannot take the drive test to get your provisional license (allowing drivers to drive without the supervision of a fully licensed driver) without passing a 'hazards test' which involves a bunch of (crappy) videos with situations like these where you have to click the mouse when it is safe for you to start moving the car. Unsafe intersections are a reality. Cyclists and pedestrians (and other vehicles) being obscured from view is a reality. I can't get my license if I can't show I can make safe decisions handling these situations. I can't have even a low speed crash into someone and try to deny culpability by saying the intersection was unsafe or that a cyclist or pedestrian broke the rules. It is still my responsibility as the person in control of dangerous machinery. I find it very frustrating that it's a common sentiment to allow driverless cars to hurt people with those things as a justification. If these semi or supposedly fully autonomous cars can't work within the realities of the roads on which they drive, they shouldn't be driving.

InTheFutureRob 3y ago
SO? You could do everything right, and still have a crash. Can you prove that Waymo did anything WRONG or unsafe? That will come out with inquiry
- magnetowasright 3y ago
  I mean, the car hit a cyclist. I'm pretty sure that that's, uh, WRONG or unsafe.

funnydude9999 3y ago

No offense, but I doubt you are a very frequent driver. While everyone strives to be defensive, it is 100% not your fault and not expected that someone or something would show up in front of your car when you have the right of way. If it did you would be driving 5 km/hr on a 100 km/hr road "to be defensive"