A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
No porn.
No ads / spamming.
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
Can we get the hyperbole out of here? If OP had actually read (and understood) the article they would have seen it was one of those confluence of events that no one could see coming. As soon as the car detected the cyclist it hit the brakes and the cyclist had minor injuries.
Basically, this car didn't mow anyone down and did exactly what it was designed to do and attempted not to hit anyone.
As soon as the car detected the cyclist it hit the brakes and the cyclist had minor injuries.
Had you read (and understood) the article, you would have seen that police have no details about what caused the crash, so you're basing your assessment entirely on what the company said happened.
They have a certain level of damage-control to contend with, so no doubt they won't be admitting negligence.
I think the cyclist only walked away with minor injuries because of the low speed of the accident (the car was allegedly coming off a stop sign) and vehicle type. But I also think it should have it seen or anticipated the cyclist and stopped sooner, especially at such low speeds.
Unless, of course, the claim is that the cyclist hit the car, and not the other way around.
I guess we'll know when Waymo hands over the ride footage. Hopefully, they comply and not withhold it like their competitor did.
To be fair, the article is trash. There's details in other publications, like Reuters:
"Waymo said its vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection when a large truck crossed the intersection in its direction. At its turn to proceed, the Waymo car moved forward.
However, the cyclist, who was obscured by the truck which the cyclist was following, took a left turn into the Waymo vehicle's path. When the cyclist was fully visible, the Waymo's vehicle braked heavily, but wasn't able to avoid the collision, the company said."
Drafting through an intersection is not very safe (I really should stop doing it myself) because of this exact visibility problem. Heck, it seems our cyclist friend cut left because they couldn't see the waymo car either.
Watch out when crossing busy intersections, folk! Cars are bulky and opaque. Yield when encountering busy intersections.
This exactly. OP has their head so far up their ass about this they refuse to acknowledge that the cyclist was also culpable here.
I'm accepting what was said at face value as it sounds probable. It's clear that OP did not actually understand the article and assuming they read it, they were already biased and can't separate their personal feelings from the facts being presented.
Truth is this would be much less likely to happen with better road/urban design. For example, this junction designed with bikes in mind: https://youtu.be/FlApbxLz6pA?si=dzIvntaWJo2DGQ0N
Totally! And SF is a place that's been deploying more bicycle infrastructure and instructing their police to not enforce rolling stops, since at least from 2015! Our car brained governor is stopping such progress, so the battle continues. At least SF residents are holding their ground and voting to keep places like the great highway and JFK drive car-free.
Last year, or the year before, there was a murder in Iceland and it made national news. Why? Because there are virtually no murders in that country - it is an exception to the rule.
Mile-for-mile, self-driving cars fare significantly better than humans: who are actually the ones "mowing down people." Especially the drunk ones. It's exactly the same situation as Iceland with the murders, if you had national news each time a human caused a casualty there would be hardly enough time to tell the news.
The "mowing down" hyperbole is doing your cause no justice. I certainly agree that it's too early to go completely driverless (especially when your trustworthy humans go hands/eyes-free in cars that explicitly disallow it) - but humans have never had the qualifications to deal with something that drives 10x the speed than they can sprint.
If you want to pull self-driving cars off the road then, great! I think we can all agree with that. Let's pull all human drivers off the road first - not only do the statistics support that we're incompet, biology does too.
You need to be better. The article says there was a passenger in the car, I'm sure they can and will testify as to exactly what happened.
Again. This wasn't a mowing down of anyone and it was a situation that even human drivers wouldn't have been able to avoid.
I'm accepting that statement from waymo at face value until given reason not to. There are likely witnesses including the aforementioned passenger. Waymo is the one who called the cops. You need to take a breath and stop letting your hatred of vehicles larger than a bicycle color your take on things. It's not healthy and it will lead to stress based health issues down the road.
The above said. You have a nice day now.
That car being driverless could have saved their life.
It also sounds like it's a situation that even a human driver wouldn't have been able to avoid. Until the tech can see around corners and through solid objects, this kind of thing is still likely to happen regardless of who or what is driving.
Only if we accept that humans have to share the vast majority of public space with large, dangerous machines. I reject this premise, and insofar as self-driving cars support this paradigm, they are harmful even if they become safer than human drivers.
Cars will be part of our world for a very long time. Most cities are not designed for cycling, walking, etc. Plus the trucks and other vehicles that are needed to get food to stores, move our shit from one house to another, etc. You can't have a society built only on cycling, walking etc. I'll also remind you of parts of the world where the weather is not conducive to cycling except for when you want to abuse yourself.
I'm all for areas like downtowns being off limits to cars but that's not going to work for those who live 20 minutes by car from civilization. I currently live in the outskirts of my main city and there is no way I or my wife would be able to do any real grocery shopping on a bike. We live 6 miles from 2 different foodlions and it's down roads that are not safe for walking or biking.
I’m not saying it’s going to happen overnight but we literally had societies based on walking for thousands of years. Especially possible now that there are now numerous transit alternatives like rail, bikes (including e-bikes and cargo bikes), trams, all sorts of aquatic vehicles, mopeds, etc. All of which are dramatically safer than cars and in combination superior for transporting people and goods in almost all situations. It may be that for certain niche uses a small number of vehicles will be preserved but we could easily cordon off space for them by dramatically reducing traffic lanes and reserving most space for safer uses.
Even in your situation it’s an easy solution. Make a safe separated area of the road for biking, and add transit options for reaching the more distant city center. It’s not rocket science and has been proven to work already in many cities.
Truly rural areas will probably need cars for longer but that’s a small population of people and there is plenty of space to develop networks of paths away from cars there which will also help somewhat, even if it doesn’t completely replace cars.
I don't disagree with you at all. Problem is that what this would cost to implement across the country is not likely to be funded and supported by tax payers any time soon.
What I would like to see and would make happen if/when I have the capital is smaller "downtowns" around the city. Draw people and traffic away from the current city center and some of those spaces could be off limits to cars.
Some of you really need to brush up on your history and get your head out of the clouds. We can definitely have spaces and communities that are better and safer for people to walk and bike but we are never going to get rid of larger vehicles, period, the end.
As for my situation. I'm going to be blunt here. Fuck no. I'm not going to take the bus to Costco and drag that much stuff on the bus and then have to carry, drag, whatever, fuck knows how far from the stop to my house.
I'll say this and I'm done. We have never had cities like we do now that were based on walking/cycling. First it was walking combined with horse back or camel, etc and then it was horse and buggy and then trains and then gas powered vehicles that could haul more and go further without need for rest.
Clearly there are obstacles but the bus you’re envisioning is an underfunded, outdated system. With the right amount of effort and funding it will be at least as convenient as driving. And I think e-bikes are a game-changer for the urban periphery. Higher speeds mean covering a few miles is not a challenge anymore and you can carry more with cargo bikes too if needed. Though personally I have done grocery shopping on my bike my entire life and it is really not that difficult.
Your second statement is a bit tautological—of course past cities are not identical to today’s cities, and today’s cities are mostly built around the automobile. But looking at the various communities current and past it’s pretty clear that it’s totally possible to do better than the current system without the personal automobile. Horses were already on their way out thanks to advances in transport and urban planning by the time the car came around, replaced by streetcars and bicycles. So personally I don’t think we need to bring back the horse.
Again, I know this is not going to happen tomorrow or even in 5 years but I do think the personal automobile as the dominant transportation in urban areas is on its way out. And that is good because people have a fundamental right to go out and use public space without being forcibly exposed to the danger of large polluting machines.
None of this makes any sense and isn't going to happen, ever. A single person or a couple could get away with shopping via ebike but a family of 3+ needs more than can be transported that way. Not to mention that you still need larger vehicles to bring in goods for those people to buy. And until something changes, you'll need larger vehicles to take away the trash.
Plus, I'm not moving closer to the masses just so I can bike everywhere. As I eluded to, there is a giant swath of the USA where at times it's too cold or too hot to be biking/walking to/from stores unless you happen to live a block away.
Seriously. You can't have cities as large as we do now (with our level of tech) that doesn't use cars and trucks to move people/things around. This is a statement of fact and your idea of a walkable city with 100k+ people in it is the fantasy of children or college kids who think they can save the world all by themselves.
On the whole. I'd bet that my carbon footprint is lower than yours simply because I live in the country and I compost or burn everything I can and recycle the rest. As a family of 3 we have way less trash going to the dump than those who live in the city. And that doesn't even include things like composting leaves instead of having the city pick them up, we don't get that service out here but I would still compost even if I lived in the suburbs.
If you want a better and cleaner future, push for people to live further away from civilization and be more self sufficient, growing their own food (when they can) getting produce and meat from local farms, etc.
The car's driver AI is becoming more human-like in running down cyclists, that is just concerning.
According to Waymo, the company’s vehicle fully stopped at a four-way intersection before proceeding into the intersection as a large truck was driving through in the opposite direction. “The cyclist was occluded by the truck and quickly followed behind it, crossing into the Waymo vehicle’s path,” the company said in a statement. “When they became fully visible, our vehicle applied heavy braking but was not able to avoid the collision.”
so what I'm hearing is that the cyclist was hidden behind a truck until last second, would a standard driver been able to see the cyclist? It initiated the brakes as soon as it saw the cyclist, not sure what else they expected it to be able to do.
A non-negligent driver would practice defensive driving where you have to check that no vehicle is behind the truck and then start applying the accelerator.
This is just a lame excuse to avoid responsibility.
When handling a > 2 ton machine capable of speeds > 30 Kmph you have to be that careful.
I recommend stripping negligent drivers of their driving license and forcing them to relearn and apply again.
So basically the car gunned it trying to shave .02 seconds off the drive? I mean, how fast of an acceleration did you need to hit someone not "fully visible" behind a truck?
I was actually curious about this so I started looking into it, this article doesn't do it justice. Most articles on it give a better clarification of how the intersection was laid out.
The vehicle definitely didn't gun it to race through the intersection it started moving as soon as it was clear that the truck entering the intersection was going straight and not turning, however the cyclist who was behind it didn't stop at the intersection like the truck did and continued following behind the vehicle until deciding to blindly turn left.
I really don't think that was the fault of the machine and I think a human driver would have done the same thing and are really might not have stopped in time. I think this is a clear no-fault or cyclist fault because the machine followed road laws, I'm not sure why these cyclist would decide to blindly turn left in a four-way intersection knowing that in a four-way intersection the opposite side can go at the same time
They did say they wanted to replace human drivers. Only seems fair that they ignore us on bikes, just like the previous pilots.
The day I get hit by a driverless car while on my bike is the day I lose what little sanity I have left. That car better hope it hits me good, else it's gonna get some heavy u-lock treatment.
The choice between a range of humans drivers on the roads or only good self driving cars, give me the self driving cars.
But they aren't there yet they are still being developed.
Sure you want to get rid of cars on the roads, I get that. But frankly it won't happen, ever. Trying to stop self driving cars is trying to stop a future where you don't have to worry about some driver being distracted and killing you.
Self driving cars are going to be the only thing that gets me on most of the roads that have no designated cycle lane.
I'll take a good human driver over a good self-driving car. Humans can anticipate with foresight in a way that autonomous vehicles can't.
For example, there are areas or times of the day where it might be common for pedestrians to walk out from behind a parked vehicle. A good human driver would know this, and drive defensively.
A self driving car only knows how to react to what it sees. And it can often wrong in certain situations. There are quite a few videos online of Teslas wanting to steer into danger or ignoring traffic stops.
I think the only way that self driving cars can work is if they are on designated roads (I.e. highway) with no random events like human drivers, cyclists, or kids near by.
But I really think it's irresponsible for our governments to allow beta technology on public roads. There is no real accountability for when they fail. Maybe a small fine or settlement in court, but that's about it.
How do you ensure all human drivers and good ones and not distracted? That's roads I want to be on. If you know how to do that countries around the world want to hear from you.
Waymo actually seems very cautious. It's was actually a known issue especially at the start. You can also programme it to be cautious at certain points.
We are talking self driving cars, think waymo. We are not talking about lane assist, what Tesla does is irrelevant. I was also on about thr tech when it's more developed, but right now at this moment in time it is already safer than drivers in the US.
I hate the lane assist in our car, I had to shut it off. It kept steering the car back toward obstacles I was trying to avoid, like trucks with wide loads, potholes, and cyclists. I don't know why anyone thinks that shit is a good idea. I'm sure driverless cars will make the same stupid mistakes.
I've never had issues with it because it shuts off when indicating in the direction that you are turning.
I'm not indicating when I'm sliding to the left or right within the lane I'm already in...
Mine disconnects when I steer. Both my cars will just beep at you for actively steering across a line, though you do need to overpower the machine's steering
Yeah that "machine's steering" is what pisses me off (and got shut off).
I've been driving for decades. Hundreds of thousands of miles. Everything from small cars to pickups towing 30' trailers, and motorhomes towing cars. I have ONE at-fault accident in my record during all that time (which likely wouldn't have been helped by the nanny features). I do not need the help.
I'm not saying I'm perfect; I make mistakes, too. But the fucking false alarms and shit from the car is distracting. I almost hit the brakes the first time I got a false alarm, because I thought there was something seriously wrong with our new car. It's training me to ignore the alarm, so when I actually do make a mistake it catches, I'll probably just ignore it - making them useless.
Why TF are cars driving themselves around without people? Like the 1:1 ratio of cars to people wasn't bad enough now we need to clog up the roads and pollute our air even more and for what?? Like literally for what?
In this incident there was a passenger in the car. They were not injured.
The rolling taxis problem is still a thing though. I know there's lots for these self-driving cars to hang out in, but even that means a return trip back to base is without passengers.
The bots can't let humans have all the fun.
~~Rule 1~~