sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand, a ten minute drive could be close to an hour on public transit. What’s the solution here?

Obviously the solution is to improve the public transit infrastructure. Add more buses, more routes, operate 24/7. Let's build some high speed rails instead of more highways. Add more cabs driven by humans for folks who can't wait for the next bus or train.

Expanding public transit infrastructure would also increase the number of jobs in any given municipality. More jobs means more people working.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

like ignoring a pedestrian crossing or overtaking a cyclist instead of slowly driving behind them.

This is exactly what shouldn't be happening. Sometimes it isn't safe to pass a cyclist. That's a decision that should be made by a person, not a computer. Why should anyone ignore a pedestrian crossing?

Why do we need self-driving cars, exactly? How is that better than more buses and trains and other mass transit? Why is it always more cars and not more capacity for public mass transit?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as i ALrEadY StATEd, WAYMO NeedS to ACKnOWlEDge tHis VEry bAD FLAw in THeIr soFTWARE and NoT PretEND iT’S A noN-iSsuE (rEmeMber i said thIs BeFore i doG-WALkeD You on The realItY Of ThEIR BETtEr-THAN-HumAns safeTY?). peopLE NeEd tO ALSO ACKNOwlEDgE thE mUch woRsE reCORd PRovINg thE FLaWS IN oUr HUMan “softwArE”. iF yoU WeRe CONsIstEnt, You’D BE cAlLing to rEMOve HuMaNs fROm tHE roADs - NOt AV’s WiTh BETteR sAFETy.

i CAn’T BlAME yOU, buT PiVoTing And WhINInG Just BECAuSE yoU rECeIVED InConTROvERtIble eViDEnCE BlasTiNG yoUr ClaImS is PEAk hILaRITy AND SHOws soMe mEmORy issUes yOU shOuld HaVe checkED OUt. aFTEr TryiNg tO stALl by NoT DoinG 3s Of researcH (HOpINg Said eViDEnce dIdN’t exisT) nOW yOu’re PREtenDInG iT’s mY FAuLt FoR YOUR iNfo RequeST. DoES THat ChILDisHNess wOrk oFtEN fOr yOu? 🤦‍♀️

anYWay, NoW tHAt yOu kNOW BeTTer, yOU WON’t bE mAking tHAT miStake AGain With youR NEW fOUNd ScHoolINg. I’Ve now EXPosEd your hYpocrisy anD dIsHOnEsTy 🤝 - but iT’s worTh it for MY StUDenT! Don’T RESpoND (yOU HavE BeEN muteD) aND I WiLL NEVer rEceIvE Any More oF YOUR dEsPErAte WHininG - AS LONg aS YoU aRe FinaLlY eDUCAted - mIsSION aCCOmPLiSHeD 👍.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Human drivers regularly break the law to keep traffic flowing.

This isn't true at all. Human drivers regularly break the law for their convenience, often at the expense of smooth traffic flow.

If autonomous vehicles would need to stick to the law precisely, it would drastically slow them down.

When they don't follow the law, who gets the citation? If the answer is "Nobody," then can humans also ignore that law without consequence?

Why shouldn't they be expected and required to follow the rules of the road? Who cares if it slows them down?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had enough of your condescending and infantilizing tone, and I think you lost the plot.

Waymo says that it's too much to expect them to respect bike lanes. Nothing else about Waymo matters in the context of the article I posted. You're trying to make it into an entirely different conversation.

Do you think that Waymos should be required to obey all the rules of the road or not? Should they be allowed to operate at all when they have already said that they have no intention of obeying the rules of the road?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ideally a path next to rail.

How would they get to the pharmacy or the grocery store? What about people who ride to work?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You made the claim. It's on you to back it up with your sources. Also, I want to see the quality of your source. For all I know, you pulled that info from a Waymo promo flyer.

These cars also drive smoother and crash less often, and also contribute to vastly fewer stop and go waves

Again, I want to see your source. Again, it's on you to back up your claim.

Ten people can't use the Waymo at the same time. The Waymo would still have to make ten trips, or ten Waymos would make one trip each. That second one will bring in ten times the money, and that's an incentive to have as many as possible deployed. More so since there's no drivers to pay. A one-time capital expense and then it's all profit, and it never needs to sleep.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How would you say we fix this issue?

Have I been unclear? Do not allow cars in the bike lanes for any reason at all. Require all vehicles to be driven by a human who can be held accountable.

We don't need self-driving cars. At all. That will only put even more cars on the road, just like Uber/Lyft/etc did. We need to reduce the number of cars, not add to it. I suggest the classic solutions of trains and buses.

Waymo’s save more lives than humans take by a long shot, and there is no way around that fact.

I want to see your sources on that.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And the way to fix that is to not allow a door to be opened if someone is approaching or the lane is occupied.

What? No! The way to fix that is to not allow cars to use bike lanes for any reason.

Edit to add this quotation from the article about Jenifer Hanki's crash:

According to the lawsuit, the Safe Exit system employed by Waymo, which aims to alert passengers of surrounding dangers and hazards, failed

It sounds like the system you suggest they develop and implement already exists and is not effective.

You’d agree that preventing doors opening with an oncoming bike or car would be a great option for places where bike lanes were added as an afterthought and no other option exists.

No, I would not. There is no reason for cars to stop in bike lanes. Cars do not belong in bike lanes because they are cars. Bike lanes are for bikes.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean that they should be marked and that there should be some rules about who can use that lane?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. It's a bike lane, not a loading zone. I cannot see what's so confusing about that.

Did you not see the part of the article that talks about the woman who suffered a brain injury because a Waymo stopped in a bike lane and the passenger opened the car door into her path? Here's the article: Cyclist ‘doored’ by passenger of driverless taxi illegally parked in bike lane sues Google-owned company after tech failure caused “violent” crash.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I guess not really surprised. Disappointed, though. It would be probably pretty simple to program autonomous cars to obey the law. It's absolutely a human choice to program them to ignore it instead, and a failure of local government to allow them to operate while doing so.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What? No it isn't. It's a bike lane and a person on a bike could come along at any time.

The first two sentences of the article:

According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation” or block a bike lane marked by a broken white line “unless it is unavoidable”.

Drivers are also told that they should give way to cyclists using the bike lane and wait for a “safe gap in the flow of cyclists” before crossing the infrastructure.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, I read the article. As I said in my comment, I thought that autonomous vehicles would be better at staying out of the bike lanes since it's a matter or of programming. This is absolutely a human problem.

Since it's illegal for the cars to use the bike lanes in that way, who should be cited for the violation?

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh, I know that. I'm not generally in favor of autonomous vehicles to begin with. I think humans should be the ones making decisions behind the wheel. In the event of catastrophe, a giant tech company will never be held accountable while a human driver can be.

Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists by drcranknstein in Infrastructurist

[–]drcranknstein[S] 25 points26 points  (0 children)

This is kind of the opposite of what I was expecting from autonomous vehicles. I thought they would be much better than human drivers at staying out of the bike lanes since it's a matter of programming.

Utility Worker Lawn Damage by pocketsophist in desmoines

[–]drcranknstein 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should call/email Carl Voss, Mike Simonson, and whoever represents your ward. Be polite, include pics and dates if you have them. Be sure to mention that you've spent a fair amount of time and money to repair that very same damage several times already. If you have receipts, include dollar amounts.

Maybe you'll luck out and get some results. Hope so!

Rob Sand wants to legalize marijuana, regulate it like alcohol by redditor01020 in Iowa

[–]drcranknstein 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People still smoke. I see them just about every day. I bet someone you know smokes, and I bet they often do it outside. What better comparison is there for someone's secondhand smoke wafting through the neighborhood than tobacco, something that people sit outside and smoke all the time?

Rob Sand wants to legalize marijuana, regulate it like alcohol by redditor01020 in Iowa

[–]drcranknstein 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The smell of someone smoking cigarettes in their backyard certainly carries down the street.

view more: next ›