this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
104 points (87.1% liked)
Bicycles
3130 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to [email protected]
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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.