Comment by vlovich123
3 days ago
A) I see no evidence this is creating death or misery. Autonomous still seems safer.
B) even if in this one aspect they remain status quo, overall it would still be an improvement.
3 days ago
A) I see no evidence this is creating death or misery. Autonomous still seems safer.
B) even if in this one aspect they remain status quo, overall it would still be an improvement.
The source article describes an incident where a cyclist was seriously injured after Waymo's cyclist detection system failed while it was parked in a bike lane, allowing the passenger to hit her with the door. I don't think this represents some terrible sin where Waymo executives should all go to prison, but I do think we can reasonably expect and if necessary demand that Waymo take action to prevent similar incidents in the future.
If the cyclist was doored by an exiting passenger, would t that imply it should further block the bike lane to increase safety as it is not safe for a bike to pass while a passenger is exiting? If the car door opening is what injuries the cyclist it wasn't really in the bike line very far.
It’s easy to skew perception with anecdotes when you don’t include anecdotes about the accepted status who.
What I’m hearing is that the system that creates a higher safety bar failed and the result was the same as you’d get with a human driver. It’s fun to lie with anecdotes when you don’t include stories and statistics of uber passengers dooring bicyclists. See how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusion?
It’s a big enough problem that personal injury industry actively seeks plaintiffs because there’s so many:
https://www.personalinjurysandiego.org/practice-areas/ridesh...
https://saslawgroup.com/hit-by-an-uber-pedestrian-and-cyclis...
https://www.bicyclelaw.com/about-bicycle-accidents-involving...
From the last one:
> As ride share vehicles have skyrocketed in popularity, we are increasingly seeing bicycle crashes involving ride share vehicles
The conclusion itself is biased and wrong claiming that uber lacks the markings of cabs without actually presenting any evidence that cabs are involved in fewer such incidents per passenger driven. They’re also doing the same thing you’re doing but at least it’s likely a website by cab drivers looking to actively paint Uber in a bad light. Oh, and Waymo taxis are actually branded clearly as taxis thus by that argument already they outperform ride shares.
> Waymo's cyclist detection system failed
I did a quick search on this, but was nothing but PR articles about how they lower cyclist/pedestrian collisions. Are you suggesting the Waymo car sees oncoming cyclists and somehow prevents the rider from opening the door? This would be interesting in how it could be done. Does it indicate in any way that the door will not be able to be opened until the cyclist clears, or is the rider left wondering why the damn car won't let them out?
It sees oncoming cyclists but only warns the passengers inside via visual cue on the displays and an audible cue through the speakers. Apparently external cues to the cyclist are also given that a door may open (blinking lights?)?
https://waymo.com/community/articles/advocacy-meets-innovati...
From my experience, a tiny alarm sounds, a voice says cyclist approaching and the door clicks to locked. At least I believe it did, I heard a sound. I didn't check the handle.
I don't believe the car was specifically in a bike lane at this time but I'm new to the city and may have missed the markings.
In general, Waymo keeps track of all nearby vehicles and pedestrians and shows them on the car's nav system. I've been in one before when it detected a cyclist coming from behind, and it gave clear warnings both audibly and visually, although I don't know whether it actually locked the door.
>allowing the passenger to hit her with the door.
the bar is absurdly high if we're blaming the car manufacturer for mistakes human make after the car stops