5 ms·

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard

Self driving cars are amazing in SF. I cycle there I feel much safer when there’s a self driving car behind me. Waymos, zooxes and cruises never accelerate hard to suddenly cut a turn in front of me rather than waiting behind me to turn across the cycle lane. They never get angry when there is no cycle lane and I’m forced to take up a full lane for a stretch. They have cold machine patience and attitude and to get away from my own anecdote the statistics just plain say they are safer. They are expanding the areas the self driving cars can operate in year by year. As much as I hate nanny state laws and acknowledge that self drivings not there yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there.

jordanb 2y ago
A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-car-strikes-bicyclist-san-francisco-injuries https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  The statistics are still in their favour even at this early stage when the bugs are yet to be fully figured out though. There’s good reason today to feel safer around self driving cars even with the above example. As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.
- lubujackson 2y ago
  Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    I don't know what happened in this case, but it's possible that the bicycle stopped at the stop sign before the Waymo did, and then proceeded (behind the truck), entering the intersection before the Waymo. If so, there's nothing wrong with the cyclist's actions. What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way. Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign. But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - bradleybuda 2y ago
      That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
        That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns. Are you sure about that? Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario: 1. The lorry arrives (from the North) first and stops at the stop line. 2. The lorry begins turning at the intersection, and is completely past the stop line but still in the intersection. 3. The bicycle arrives (from the North) and stops at the stop line. 4. The Waymo arrives (from the South) and stops at the stop line. 5. The Waymo waits at the stop line because, if it were to proceed, its path would intersect with the turning lorry's path. 6. The bicycle proceeds into the intersection, following the lorry. How would the cyclist's actions in this scenario violate something in California Vehicle Code sections 21800 to 21809? DMV handbook: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handbook-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo... Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21800.&nodeTreePath=15.4&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- bradleybuda 2y ago
  That was nine months ago. How many human drivers in SF do you wager have struck a cyclist since? It’s easily in the hundreds. Self driving cars do not eliminate risk to pedestrians or cyclists but they reduce it by multiple orders of magnitude, and they are trending in the right direction, whereas human drivers seem to be trending in the wrong one.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving Increase the unsupervised driving age to 18 (unless in an area with no robotic transport) and massively increase penalties for driving infractions. As in you lose your license on your second DUI or third at-fault collision, reckless-driving ticket or cell phone violation. (Maybe make a DUI count as two infractions for the second list.)
- ThunderSizzle 2y ago
  People drive with a suspended license all the time. How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > People drive with a suspended license all the time And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason. > How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.) If you’re driving drunk, hitting things, recklessly speeding or texting while driving, you shouldn’t be driving. We tolerate it, extraordinarily, because driving is almost a right in America. What’s changing is it’s going from a necessity everywhere but New York to a necessity where there isn’t Uber. (In practice, at least from the few folks I know close to the incoming White House, it will happen through increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Or, if your FSD or equivalent isn’t engaged, hard to dispute fault.)
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      > Calling (or buying) a robotic car. If it's cost effective, sure. Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive. > increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Why would human driving insurance cost significantly more than it does today?
warner25 2y ago
> I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there. Yes, I believe that in the distant future humans will look back on the late 20th and early 21st centuries and be appalled that people were ever allowed to operate cars like this. It will be like how we think about ancient practices of human sacrifice or gladiatorial combat.
- 12thhandyman 2y ago
  As seen on a sticker posted at a Topdog in Berkeley, "Do what you're told, it'd be chaos if we all thought for ourselves".
imgabe 2y ago
Why is it always about banning things? Just make the self-driving experience good and most people will choose it voluntarily. No need to ban things. Almost everyone would rather take a nap or read a book than sit in traffic or stare at the highway.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  In this case, it's because being hit by an irresponsible driver is something you don't choose voluntarily.
  - imgabe 2y ago
    There are many bad things that can happen to you that you don't choose voluntarily.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Sure, but look; if this were a discussion about people making irresponsible decisions that result in themselves getting killed, I can sympathize with the philosophy that we can simply encourage people to voluntarily avoid those things by making other choices preferable. But when people make irresponsible decisions that result in third parties being killed, this is when we make laws and ban things. This is why, for example, there is a ban on intoxicated driving. Not because of the risk of harm to the drunk driver, but because of the risk to everybody else, who want to stop volunteering to share roads with drunk drivers.
- occz 2y ago
  We could compromise by turning up the liability for hitting someone with a car to eleven, making it unfeasible for anyone to even consider driving in a manner which threatens the life of another. Of course, we'd have to implement unlimited liability for the self-driving car companies as to make them not hide behind their limited liability scheme to not treat safety with the utmost priority.

jordanb 2y ago

A waymo hit a cyclist in San Francisco a few months ago, by failing to anticipate that there may be traffic behind a turning truck and accelerating into it. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-car-strikes-bicyclist-san-francisco-injuries https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...

AnotherGoodName 2y ago
The statistics are still in their favour even at this early stage when the bugs are yet to be fully figured out though. There’s good reason today to feel safer around self driving cars even with the above example. As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.
lubujackson 2y ago
Just noting that the bicyclist is fully at fault for trying to jump the queue at a 4 way stop, and it sounds like they were going in a different direction than the turning truck as well. Hard to pin that one on Waymo, though I do feel like Waymo cars tend to drive a bit "city aggressive" at times, like asserting their right of way, sticking close to the car in front, etc.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  I don't know what happened in this case, but it's possible that the bicycle stopped at the stop sign before the Waymo did, and then proceeded (behind the truck), entering the intersection before the Waymo. If so, there's nothing wrong with the cyclist's actions. What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way. Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign. But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bradleybuda 2y ago
    That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time. No, 'taking turns' is not codified in the law or mentioned in the DMV handbook. If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield. At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns. Are you sure about that? Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario: 1. The lorry arrives (from the North) first and stops at the stop line. 2. The lorry begins turning at the intersection, and is completely past the stop line but still in the intersection. 3. The bicycle arrives (from the North) and stops at the stop line. 4. The Waymo arrives (from the South) and stops at the stop line. 5. The Waymo waits at the stop line because, if it were to proceed, its path would intersect with the turning lorry's path. 6. The bicycle proceeds into the intersection, following the lorry. How would the cyclist's actions in this scenario violate something in California Vehicle Code sections 21800 to 21809? DMV handbook: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handbook-pdf/ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo... Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21800.&nodeTreePath=15.4&lawCode=VEH https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
bradleybuda 2y ago
That was nine months ago. How many human drivers in SF do you wager have struck a cyclist since? It’s easily in the hundreds. Self driving cars do not eliminate risk to pedestrians or cyclists but they reduce it by multiple orders of magnitude, and they are trending in the right direction, whereas human drivers seem to be trending in the wrong one.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving Increase the unsupervised driving age to 18 (unless in an area with no robotic transport) and massively increase penalties for driving infractions. As in you lose your license on your second DUI or third at-fault collision, reckless-driving ticket or cell phone violation. (Maybe make a DUI count as two infractions for the second list.)

ThunderSizzle 2y ago
People drive with a suspended license all the time. How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > People drive with a suspended license all the time And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason. > How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries? Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.) If you’re driving drunk, hitting things, recklessly speeding or texting while driving, you shouldn’t be driving. We tolerate it, extraordinarily, because driving is almost a right in America. What’s changing is it’s going from a necessity everywhere but New York to a necessity where there isn’t Uber. (In practice, at least from the few folks I know close to the incoming White House, it will happen through increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Or, if your FSD or equivalent isn’t engaged, hard to dispute fault.)
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    > Calling (or buying) a robotic car. If it's cost effective, sure. Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive. > increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Why would human driving insurance cost significantly more than it does today?

warner25 2y ago

> I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there. Yes, I believe that in the distant future humans will look back on the late 20th and early 21st centuries and be appalled that people were ever allowed to operate cars like this. It will be like how we think about ancient practices of human sacrifice or gladiatorial combat.

12thhandyman 2y ago
As seen on a sticker posted at a Topdog in Berkeley, "Do what you're told, it'd be chaos if we all thought for ourselves".

imgabe 2y ago

Why is it always about banning things? Just make the self-driving experience good and most people will choose it voluntarily. No need to ban things. Almost everyone would rather take a nap or read a book than sit in traffic or stare at the highway.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
In this case, it's because being hit by an irresponsible driver is something you don't choose voluntarily.
- imgabe 2y ago
  There are many bad things that can happen to you that you don't choose voluntarily.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Sure, but look; if this were a discussion about people making irresponsible decisions that result in themselves getting killed, I can sympathize with the philosophy that we can simply encourage people to voluntarily avoid those things by making other choices preferable. But when people make irresponsible decisions that result in third parties being killed, this is when we make laws and ban things. This is why, for example, there is a ban on intoxicated driving. Not because of the risk of harm to the drunk driver, but because of the risk to everybody else, who want to stop volunteering to share roads with drunk drivers.
occz 2y ago
We could compromise by turning up the liability for hitting someone with a car to eleven, making it unfeasible for anyone to even consider driving in a manner which threatens the life of another. Of course, we'd have to implement unlimited liability for the self-driving car companies as to make them not hide behind their limited liability scheme to not treat safety with the utmost priority.