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

[jigglysackles@lemmy.world]

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.

[evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world]

and hoping nobody will force them to.

And the sad thing is, probably no one will.

[tim_bisley@piefed.social]

Tech companies don’t have to be responsible.

[grue@lemmy.world]

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.

[mac@mander.xyz]

Legally allowed, sure. “Welcome” is a stretch. lol

[mac@mander.xyz]

Judging by the [lack of] consequences for the current ones: ∞

[spacenoodle@lemmy.world]

The NHTSA hopefully will. If we’re lucky it won’t take them trying to cover up harming a cyclist to get there.

[spacenoodle@lemmy.world]

Y’all forget what happened to Cruise?

[p00ptart@lemmy.world]

That’s what it needs to be. But the reality is the entire point of AVs is to remove people from the expense report.

[justjack23@slrpnk.net]

Or “we don’t care enough to do it”

[tangentism@beehaw.org]

Then Waymo shouldnt be surprised if cyclists destroy their vehicles because they can’t obey traffic regulations and observe basic human safety

[doleo@lemmy.one]

they dont need to exist.

[acockworkorange@mander.xyz]

You can’t forget what you never knew.

[spacenoodle@lemmy.world]

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.

[olgratin_magmatoe@slrpnk.net]

Respecting the property of waymo is too high a bar.

[grue@lemmy.world]

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!

[frenchgeek@lemmy.ml]

I wonder if the cars detect a flat or if they keep driving with one, or more…

[grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works]

Doesn’t this kind of lock them out from a lot of markets?

Seems like admitting defeat on self driving, you know the one we were suppose to have 8 years ago

[grrgyle@slrpnk.net]

Now tell them how cyclists are technically entitled to the entire lane, but how that actually plays out is highly dynamic and relies on communication

[axx@slrpnk.net]

I don’t think that’s how it works. Decision-makers are rarely that principled. Instead, it’ll just part of the downsides “everyone needs to accept” as a tradeoff for this “inevitable technological progress”.

Kranzberg’s “laws” of technology would like to say something here, but decision-makers can’t hear them over all the lobybing.