109
Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say
(www.sfgate.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
109 points (87.6% liked)
Bicycles
3108 readers
7 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
'Waymo said'