Here we go. Autonomous vehicles are now mowing down cyclists.

I hope that Waymo’s insurance is good!

36 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

‘Waymo said’

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m sure they were completely paying attention to what their car was doing like every time one of these things happen.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

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.

Do you think that the passenger would have been paying attention to what’s in front of the car? I don’t think so, but I would rather go by the cameras on the car - they don’t lie.

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 think they would have. At least human drivers that aren’t driving like self-driving cars 😜

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.

Fair point, and I appreciate your concern.

My daughter’s friend was killed by a driver in a pick-up truck less than a year ago while she was riding an e-scooter. It was 100% avoidable, and the driver was only charged with failure to yield.

No charges for actually killing her. So when I see that cars are still hurting or killing people, it boils my blood because I know that the driver (self-driving or not) will never be held accountable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can’t wait until a guy that loses the ability to use their legs because they got demolished by a self driving cat has to defend themselves against corporate lawyers for daring to exist next to their infallible automated driving car.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

That car being driverless could have saved their life.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

When I don’t see what’s coming because there’s a semi truck in the way, I wait.

When an automated car sees a gap, it dives in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The car’s driver AI is becoming more human-like in running down cyclists, that is just concerning.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

They did say they wanted to replace human drivers. Only seems fair that they ignore us on bikes, just like the previous pilots.

permalink
report
reply

Bicycles

!bicycles@lemmy.ca

Create post

Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca

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

Community stats

  • 452

    Monthly active users

  • 245

    Posts

  • 2.4K

    Comments

Community moderators