Expecting driverless taxis to respect bike lanes “too high a bar” – because customers want to be dropped off in them, autonomous vehicle firm Waymo tells cyclists
-
How many windshields is this gonna take?
-
As someone who’s worked in an engineering field. This response is almost certainly saying “we currently can’t do this reliably” and hoping nobody will force them to.
-
Total horseshit. The entire point of AVs needs to be increased safety, which is the antithesis of such an act.
-
How many windshields is this gonna take?
How many lawsuits from run over cyclists is it gonna take?
-
I said this in the other community I saw this posted. But if they can’t figure this out, then robotaxis don’t need to exist.
-
As someone who’s worked in an engineering field. This response is almost certainly saying “we currently can’t do this reliably” and hoping nobody will force them to.
and hoping nobody will force them to.
And the sad thing is, probably no one will.
-
Tech companies don’t have to be responsible.
-
I’m sure the waymo riders would be happy to be dropped off in the the car lane too.
I agree with the sentiment, but friendly reminder: there is no such thing as a “car lane.” There are bus-only lanes and there are bike-only lanes, where cars are not allowed, but the other lanes are “general-purpose lanes” and are not for the exclusive use of cars. Buses and bikes are welcome there too.
It’s an easy slip to make because it’s conveniently short, but “car lane” is car-centric loaded language and we shouldn’t cede that framing of the debate to the car-brains.
-
I agree with the sentiment, but friendly reminder: there is no such thing as a “car lane.” There are bus-only lanes and there are bike-only lanes, where cars are not allowed, but the other lanes are “general-purpose lanes” and are not for the exclusive use of cars. Buses and bikes are welcome there too.
It’s an easy slip to make because it’s conveniently short, but “car lane” is car-centric loaded language and we shouldn’t cede that framing of the debate to the car-brains.
Legally allowed, sure. “Welcome” is a stretch. lol
-
Judging by the [lack of] consequences for the current ones: ∞
-
and hoping nobody will force them to.
And the sad thing is, probably no one will.
The NHTSA hopefully will. If we’re lucky it won’t take them trying to cover up harming a cyclist to get there.
-
Judging by the [lack of] consequences for the current ones: ∞
Y’all forget what happened to Cruise?
-
Total horseshit. The entire point of AVs needs to be increased safety, which is the antithesis of such an act.
That’s what it needs to be. But the reality is the entire point of AVs is to remove people from the expense report.
-
As someone who’s worked in an engineering field. This response is almost certainly saying “we currently can’t do this reliably” and hoping nobody will force them to.
Or “we don’t care enough to do it”
-
Then Waymo shouldnt be surprised if cyclists destroy their vehicles because they can’t obey traffic regulations and observe basic human safety
-
I said this in the other community I saw this posted. But if they can’t figure this out, then robotaxis don’t need to exist.
they dont need to exist.
-
Y’all forget what happened to Cruise?
You can’t forget what you never knew.
-
You can’t forget what you never knew.
Briefly, they lied to the NHTSA about dragging a pedestrian 20 ft and pinning them after another car knocked them into the vehicle’s path, and while they just narrowly avoided criminal charges, that incident was the final straw that caused the company to unravel, fully revealing an internal culture that flouted safety, ultimately ending with parent company GM pulling funding and recycling the technology for their assisted driving efforts while scrapping AV plans.
-
Respecting the property of waymo is too high a bar.
-
Legally allowed, sure. “Welcome” is a stretch. lol
But drivers must love having cyclists share the lane with them: obviously, they oppose bike lanes because they can’t bear to be separated from us!
