7 ms·

I feel like you are injecting facts with a lot of assumptions. How do we know a human driver would have taken longer? What if the human would have seen the bike

I feel like you are injecting facts with a lot of assumptions. How do we know a human driver would have taken longer? What if the human would have seen the bike 200 yards up the road 45 seconds ago, and since bikes don't disappear, waited a half second before proceeding into the intersection. Or what if a small portion of the bike was visible? It could have been absolutely unavoidable but I don't think we know that now.

dharmab 3y ago
In my experience with motorcycling and bicycling as a primary mode of transport I'm happy if the human drivers attempt to stop at all
- websap 3y ago
  Cyclists are supposed to stop at stop signs, if not stop at least yield. At least in this case (if true), the cyclist followed the truck through a 4 way intersection (assuming it's a 4-way stop), that would put them in the wrong. Hope waymo releases the footage.
  - yellow_postit 3y ago
    There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)
    - fortran77 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        [flagged]
        jonas21 3y ago
        "Embarrassing" is a strange way of saying "potentially deadly" (for example, https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-cyclist-sentenced-in-death-of-pedestrian/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-cycl... ).
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > The felony conviction was the first of its kind in the nation involving a bicyclist. The list of things that have killed one person in the last several hundred years is long. Everything is potentially deadly by that standard. Here's a case mentioned in Law's Order: "The plaintiff was about 14 years of age, and the defendant about 11 years of age. On the 20th day of February, 1889, they were sitting opposite to each other across an aisle in the high school of the village of Waukesha. The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. The touch was slight. ... In a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place, which caused him to cry out loudly. ... He will never recover the use of his limb." (Vosburg v Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891))
        Aloisius 3y ago
        It's the first felony conviction, not the first time a cyclist has killed someone. Usually they get charged with a misdemeanor or not at all.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        fortran77 3y ago
        You can kill someone. That's more than embarassing. I'm astounded that you think bicyclists killing pedistrians is just fine. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/22/pedestrian-struck-by-bicycle-in-palo-alto-dies/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/22/pedestrian-st...
    - brian_cunnie 3y ago
      > rules as written/rules as followed As a bicyclist in San Francisco, if I follow the rules as written, I cause traffic. Cars expect me to blow through four-way stop-sign intersections, and if I stop and wait for the cars, the drivers get confused & don't want to go (afraid of hitting me, I suspect). In terms of right of way, the rules as followed seem to be pedestrian > bike > car.
      - Aloisius 3y ago
        I sometimes give way to bicyclists at four-way stops because I can't be sure they didn't get there before I did and I didn't see them because they're small. And of course, if a vehicle, be it a bicyclist or car, enters an intersection when I have right-of-way, it's not like I'm going to start crossing and intentionally run into them. Where bicyclists really risk their lives if they start assuming cars will give way to them is when they blow through two-way stops, especially at night or at one of the many intersections with poor visibility.
  - spamizbad 3y ago
    So are cars and yet it's common practice among drivers to simply slow down to 5-10 mph, declare that a "stop" and proceed into the intersection.
  - cozzyd 3y ago
    Note that there are bike lanes on the likely street where this occurred. The cyclist was not necessarily following the truck but could have been parallel (and overtaken).
twitchyliquid64 3y ago
I've been fairly impressed at Waymo's defensive driving skills, down to it being able to tell when someone turns around towards the road with an eye to cross, & the car slowing-down/giving a wider berth. We will need to wait and see (i.e. footage) for more facts on this one, but I would caution thinking that Waymo's don't have object permanence capabilities. (Usual disclaimer around 1st-hand experience etc etc)
slg 3y ago
Let's be honest, anyone making any type of conclusion based off the information in the article is just giving in to their biases. None of us know enough to actually have any serious opinion on this specific collision.
- Fricken 3y ago
  I'm drawing the conclusion that this is a non-issue, or would be if autonomous vehicles hadn't got to be so political over the last year in San Fransisco. There are many people out for blood, they want a follow-up to the Cruise scandal. One fact of the matter is that the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt, and Waymo has had many minor contact events in its 10 million+ miles of driving on public roads. We're hearing about this event because politics.
  - slg 3y ago
    You are just proving my point. You are pro-autonomous vehicle so you are interpreting the few facts we know in way that benefits your side of the debate. Referencing the cyclist not being seriously hurt is the most obvious example. It doesn't take much for a car to seriously injure a cyclist. It often just comes down to luck of the cyclists physical position and where they fall. Onto the hood of the car is safest, but they could have easily been caught under the vehicle, pushed into other traffic, or dangerously thrown down to the pavement. A cyclist walking away from this collision doesn't necessarily mean the next time a Waymo hits a cyclist will be just as safe. If there is some fault in the system that increases the odds of it hitting a cyclist (something that is impossible for us to know) it would be only a matter of time until an unlucky cyclist gets seriously hurt.
    - Fricken 3y ago
      I'm not pro-autonomous vehicles. Under the hypothesis that they worked well enough that they proliferated widely and people came to rely on them, they would be the most enshittifiable service ever. Also I ride a bicycle everywhere, I don't own a car. I've had many crashes while cycling, a handful of which involved another moving vehicle. Speed is a good predictor of how much harm a moving vehicle can cause to a cyclist or pedestrian, and given that the Waymo was turning left off a 4-way stop, it couldn't have been going that fast, and even if it was, the waymo stopped soon enough to avoid doing serious damage. Maybe the cyclist veered into the Waymo, we don't know. Maybe we'll get video and then we can really pick it apart. There is a battle going on right now between the Governor of California and SF city council over the city's inability to regulate the existence of autonomous vehicles on their streets after the fast proliferation of Cruise's AVs led to all kinds of traffic snarls and general irritation amongst the public. Cruise has been operating in SF since 2019 and has had many incidents more severe than the one we're discussing now, but they got little attention because it wasn't so political then. Nowdays SF is looking for any excuse they can find to get AVs out of their city. In legal terms I doubt the city will find what they need with this incident. With regards to public sentiment, the headline "Waymo hits cyclist in SF" is about as much as most people will read, and the details of the crash don't matter.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
What we do know is that this incident will be analyzed with the level of attention we would give to a plane crash. If there was any way the incident could have been avoided, the engineers will probably figure it out. It’s likely that software will be updated to implement a fix as well, and this type of accident will become much less likely across Waymo’s entire fleet. That seems like a really good result.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Only the driving software will be updated, the intersection will not be redesigned to reduce the severity of driver mistakes. It’s not the best outcome, ideally someone will analyze the case and produce the changes that needed to made to the driving software, the intersection, and biking behavior (aka the Dutch approach).
  - Sebb767 3y ago
    Fair, but then again, this would be taking drastic measures for a single data point. A full redesign would be quite a stretch for a single accident and nearly impossible to scale. The least you'd need to do is check for a pattern of accidents.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      Yet that’s exactly what the Dutch do: https://www.bicyclelaw.com/after-every-crash-in-netherlands-intense-scrutiny/ https://www.bicyclelaw.com/after-every-crash-in-netherlands-... > In the Netherlands, accidents like these are followed by intense investigations, street redesign, and criminal prosecution on a level wholly different from Boston, where a slew of bike fatalities in recent years have prompted modest on-street changes and police crackdowns on bicyclists running red lights. But there have been few street design overhauls and no criminal convictions of motorists in those fatal accidents. I’m pretty sure there is an HN discussion on this article somewhere. Ah, the highest level of scrutiny is limited to and mandatory for fatalities, which makes sense.
- sverhagen 3y ago
adrianN 3y ago
As a cyclist, I'm invisible to drivers quite often even when I'm not hiding behind a truck. Many drivers also immediately forget you after overtaking you just seconds ago and attempt a right-hook. It is of course possible that a human's advanced reasoning could have avoided the situation as described, but imo that would've been sheer luck or a very unusual driver.

dharmab 3y ago

In my experience with motorcycling and bicycling as a primary mode of transport I'm happy if the human drivers attempt to stop at all

websap 3y ago
Cyclists are supposed to stop at stop signs, if not stop at least yield. At least in this case (if true), the cyclist followed the truck through a 4 way intersection (assuming it's a 4-way stop), that would put them in the wrong. Hope waymo releases the footage.
- yellow_postit 3y ago
  There’s rules as written and then rules as followed — I’d much prefer a system that recognizes the rules that people tend to follow/bend/break — as a cyclist I too will often “convoy” with a bigger vehicle as it provides some additional protection most of the time (though obviously not here)
  - fortran77 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jonas21 3y ago
        "Embarrassing" is a strange way of saying "potentially deadly" (for example, https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-cyclist-sentenced-in-death-of-pedestrian/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-francisco-cycl... ).
        thaumasiotes 3y ago
        > The felony conviction was the first of its kind in the nation involving a bicyclist. The list of things that have killed one person in the last several hundred years is long. Everything is potentially deadly by that standard. Here's a case mentioned in Law's Order: "The plaintiff was about 14 years of age, and the defendant about 11 years of age. On the 20th day of February, 1889, they were sitting opposite to each other across an aisle in the high school of the village of Waukesha. The defendant reached across the aisle with his foot, and hit with his toe the shin of the right leg of the plaintiff. The touch was slight. ... In a few moments he felt a violent pain in that place, which caused him to cry out loudly. ... He will never recover the use of his limb." (Vosburg v Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891))
        Aloisius 3y ago
        It's the first felony conviction, not the first time a cyclist has killed someone. Usually they get charged with a misdemeanor or not at all.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - fortran77 3y ago
        You can kill someone. That's more than embarassing. I'm astounded that you think bicyclists killing pedistrians is just fine. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/22/pedestrian-struck-by-bicycle-in-palo-alto-dies/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2015/04/22/pedestrian-st...
  - brian_cunnie 3y ago
    > rules as written/rules as followed As a bicyclist in San Francisco, if I follow the rules as written, I cause traffic. Cars expect me to blow through four-way stop-sign intersections, and if I stop and wait for the cars, the drivers get confused & don't want to go (afraid of hitting me, I suspect). In terms of right of way, the rules as followed seem to be pedestrian > bike > car.
    - Aloisius 3y ago
      I sometimes give way to bicyclists at four-way stops because I can't be sure they didn't get there before I did and I didn't see them because they're small. And of course, if a vehicle, be it a bicyclist or car, enters an intersection when I have right-of-way, it's not like I'm going to start crossing and intentionally run into them. Where bicyclists really risk their lives if they start assuming cars will give way to them is when they blow through two-way stops, especially at night or at one of the many intersections with poor visibility.
- spamizbad 3y ago
  So are cars and yet it's common practice among drivers to simply slow down to 5-10 mph, declare that a "stop" and proceed into the intersection.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  Note that there are bike lanes on the likely street where this occurred. The cyclist was not necessarily following the truck but could have been parallel (and overtaken).

twitchyliquid64 3y ago

I've been fairly impressed at Waymo's defensive driving skills, down to it being able to tell when someone turns around towards the road with an eye to cross, & the car slowing-down/giving a wider berth. We will need to wait and see (i.e. footage) for more facts on this one, but I would caution thinking that Waymo's don't have object permanence capabilities. (Usual disclaimer around 1st-hand experience etc etc)

slg 3y ago

Let's be honest, anyone making any type of conclusion based off the information in the article is just giving in to their biases. None of us know enough to actually have any serious opinion on this specific collision.

Fricken 3y ago
I'm drawing the conclusion that this is a non-issue, or would be if autonomous vehicles hadn't got to be so political over the last year in San Fransisco. There are many people out for blood, they want a follow-up to the Cruise scandal. One fact of the matter is that the cyclist wasn't seriously hurt, and Waymo has had many minor contact events in its 10 million+ miles of driving on public roads. We're hearing about this event because politics.
- slg 3y ago
  You are just proving my point. You are pro-autonomous vehicle so you are interpreting the few facts we know in way that benefits your side of the debate. Referencing the cyclist not being seriously hurt is the most obvious example. It doesn't take much for a car to seriously injure a cyclist. It often just comes down to luck of the cyclists physical position and where they fall. Onto the hood of the car is safest, but they could have easily been caught under the vehicle, pushed into other traffic, or dangerously thrown down to the pavement. A cyclist walking away from this collision doesn't necessarily mean the next time a Waymo hits a cyclist will be just as safe. If there is some fault in the system that increases the odds of it hitting a cyclist (something that is impossible for us to know) it would be only a matter of time until an unlucky cyclist gets seriously hurt.
  - Fricken 3y ago
    I'm not pro-autonomous vehicles. Under the hypothesis that they worked well enough that they proliferated widely and people came to rely on them, they would be the most enshittifiable service ever. Also I ride a bicycle everywhere, I don't own a car. I've had many crashes while cycling, a handful of which involved another moving vehicle. Speed is a good predictor of how much harm a moving vehicle can cause to a cyclist or pedestrian, and given that the Waymo was turning left off a 4-way stop, it couldn't have been going that fast, and even if it was, the waymo stopped soon enough to avoid doing serious damage. Maybe the cyclist veered into the Waymo, we don't know. Maybe we'll get video and then we can really pick it apart. There is a battle going on right now between the Governor of California and SF city council over the city's inability to regulate the existence of autonomous vehicles on their streets after the fast proliferation of Cruise's AVs led to all kinds of traffic snarls and general irritation amongst the public. Cruise has been operating in SF since 2019 and has had many incidents more severe than the one we're discussing now, but they got little attention because it wasn't so political then. Nowdays SF is looking for any excuse they can find to get AVs out of their city. In legal terms I doubt the city will find what they need with this incident. With regards to public sentiment, the headline "Waymo hits cyclist in SF" is about as much as most people will read, and the details of the crash don't matter.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

What we do know is that this incident will be analyzed with the level of attention we would give to a plane crash. If there was any way the incident could have been avoided, the engineers will probably figure it out. It’s likely that software will be updated to implement a fix as well, and this type of accident will become much less likely across Waymo’s entire fleet. That seems like a really good result.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Only the driving software will be updated, the intersection will not be redesigned to reduce the severity of driver mistakes. It’s not the best outcome, ideally someone will analyze the case and produce the changes that needed to made to the driving software, the intersection, and biking behavior (aka the Dutch approach).
- Sebb767 3y ago
  Fair, but then again, this would be taking drastic measures for a single data point. A full redesign would be quite a stretch for a single accident and nearly impossible to scale. The least you'd need to do is check for a pattern of accidents.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Yet that’s exactly what the Dutch do: https://www.bicyclelaw.com/after-every-crash-in-netherlands-intense-scrutiny/ https://www.bicyclelaw.com/after-every-crash-in-netherlands-... > In the Netherlands, accidents like these are followed by intense investigations, street redesign, and criminal prosecution on a level wholly different from Boston, where a slew of bike fatalities in recent years have prompted modest on-street changes and police crackdowns on bicyclists running red lights. But there have been few street design overhauls and no criminal convictions of motorists in those fatal accidents. I’m pretty sure there is an HN discussion on this article somewhere. Ah, the highest level of scrutiny is limited to and mandatory for fatalities, which makes sense.
sverhagen 3y ago

adrianN 3y ago

As a cyclist, I'm invisible to drivers quite often even when I'm not hiding behind a truck. Many drivers also immediately forget you after overtaking you just seconds ago and attempt a right-hook. It is of course possible that a human's advanced reasoning could have avoided the situation as described, but imo that would've been sheer luck or a very unusual driver.