Should Waymo Robotaxis Always Stop For Pedestrians In Crosswalks? (yahoo.com)
- Reference: 0175826603
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/25/01/04/0926232/should-waymo-robotaxis-always-stop-for-pedestrians-in-crosswalks
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/roads-teeming-robotaxis-crossing-street-013656599.html
Waymo's position? Their cars consider "signals of pedestrian intent" including forward motion when deciding whether to stop — as well as other vehicles' speed and proximity. ("Do they seem like they're about to cross or are they just sort of milling around waiting for someone?") And Waymo "also said its car might decide not to stop if adjacent cars don't yield."
Fowler counters that California law says cars must always stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk. ("It's classic Silicon Valley hubris to assume Waymo's ability to predict my behavior supersedes a law designed to protect me.") And Phil Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University professor who conducts research on autonomous-vehicle safety, agrees that the Waymos should be stopping. "Instead of arguing that they shouldn't stop if human drivers are not going to stop, they could conspicuously stop for pedestrians who are standing on road pavement on a marked crosswalk. That might improve things for everyone by encouraging other drivers to do the same."
From Fowler's video:
> I tried crossing in front of Waymos here more than 20 times. About three in ten times the Waymo would stop for me, but I couldn't figure out what made it change its mind. Heavy traffic vs light, crossing with two people, sticking one foot out — all would cause it to stop only sometimes. I could make it stop by darting out into the street — but that's not how my mama taught me to use a crosswalk...
>
> Look, I know many human drivers don't stop for pedestrians either. But isn't the whole point of having artificial intelligence robot drivers that they're safer because they actually follow the laws?
Waymo would not admit breaking any laws, but acknowledged "opportunity for continued improvement in how it interacts with pedestrians."
In [2]an article accompanying the video , Fowler calls it "a cautionary tale about how AI, intended to make us more safe, also needs to learn how to coexist with us."
> Waymo cars don't behave this way at all intersections. Some friends report that the cars are too careful on quiet streets, while others say the vehicles are too aggressive around schools... No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk — at least so far. (It did [3]strike a cyclist earlier this year.) The company touts that, as of October, its cars have [4]57 percent fewer police-reported crashes compared with a human driving the same distance in the cities where it operates.
Other interesting details from the article:
Fowler suggests a way his crosswalk could be made safer: "a flashing light beacon there could let me flag my intent to both humans and robots."
The article points out that Waymo is also [5]under investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration "for driving in an unexpected and disruptive manner, including around traffic control devices (which includes road markings)."
At the same time, Fowler also acknowledges that "I generally find riding in a Waymo to be smooth and relaxing, and I have long assumed its self-driving technology is a net benefit for the city." His conclusion? "The experience has taught my family that the safest place around an autonomous vehicle is inside it, not walking around it."
And he says living in San Francisco lately puts him "in a game of chicken with cars driven by nothing but artificial intelligence."
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/on-roads-teeming-with-robotaxis-crossing-the-street-can-be-harrowing/ar-AA1wHy1N
[2] https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/roads-teeming-robotaxis-crossing-street-013656599.html
[3] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/02/26/0111248/waymos-self-driving-cars-keep-hitting-things-a-cyclist-a-gate-and-a-pickup-truck
[4] https://waymo.com/safety/impact/
[5] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=21950&lawCode=VEH
Two things to consider (Score:2)
1) The car's code should obey the law. Full stop. Anything less is a deliberate violation of the law, not an accident. And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
2) There are assholes who will enjoy dipping their toes into the crosswalk area to stop the self-driving vehicles. This is, however, a separate problem and does not excuse coding ignoring a clear traffic law into the system.
Re: (Score:2)
> And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
Something we humans can only dream of.
Re: (Score:3)
What if obeying the law would cause immediate harm to humans or eve a greater likelihood of harm? The common example is the one person deciding to drive the speed limit on a road full of people going 5 - 10 mph (8 - 16 kmph for those not using vastly superior freedom units) over the posted limit which leads to an increase in accident rate.
Personally I think that with careful tuning and adjustments to the algorithm the Bay Area can have self-driving cars along with a solution to the homeless and drug addi
Re: (Score:2)
> How exactly are you reconciling self-driving with addition and homelessness?
By the multiplicity of fat fingers and auto-(mobile)-corrects.
Re: (Score:2)
> What if obeying the law would cause immediate harm to humans or eve a greater likelihood of harm?
The breaking of pretty much any law can be successfully defended on those grounds in court if necessary - and if your action was obviously necessary, it's never even going to see a courtroom unless you're dealing with a particularly corrupt system.
I see no reason why you wouldn't code THAT into your traffic rules... it's an uber-rule, kind of like the Hippocratic Oath or the First Law of Robotics.
Re: (Score:2)
The only long term option is to fix the inconsistency. Either change the law, change the speed limit, or fine everyone until they stop speeding.
Also if you know where the First Law of Robotics came from, you should agree that there are significant dangers to loosely interpretating laws and coming up with unwritten uber-laws like the Zeroth Law.
Re: (Score:2)
> What if obeying the law would cause immediate harm to humans or eve a greater likelihood of harm? The common example is the one person deciding to drive the speed limit on a road full of people going...over the posted limit which leads to an increase in accident rate.
First, the law in your state says that slow-moving vehicles should [1]be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic. [ca.gov] Slower vehicles staying out of the passing lanes helps keep everyone safer.
Second, the type of crashes you're describing (rear end
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21654.
Re: Two things to consider (Score:2)
If the car always stop it's also a way for street robbers to trap people or hijack the cars for parts.
Re: (Score:2)
> 1) The car's code should obey the law. Full stop. Anything less is a deliberate violation of the law, not an accident. And since it's code and not a human... it'll be consistently violating the law and can't be made to comply with threat of fines or jail time.
That's definitely a supportable position and it's not the only supportable one. There's definitely room for abuse on the part of pedestrians. Some goofball might get their kicks by intentionally blocking robocars which is something a real human would not put up with. Is that really what we want?
How about speed limits? I see very few cars actually driving at or below the speed limit unless limited by traffic. The common advice for human drivers is you're safer travelling at the speed of other cars rather tha
Depends on the state (Score:2)
In almost states, cars are required to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. In California, cars must stop for people on the sidewalk who are in the process of framing the thought to step into a crosswalk. This is an unusually high bar for automated cars.
Re: (Score:2)
> In California, ...
> cars must stop for people on the sidewalk who are in the process of framing the thought
That's clearly the empty set. Drive on.
When this researcher (Score:1)
stepped into the crosswalk and the Google car didn't stop, why wasn't anyone from Google ticketed and held to account?
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would you expect them to issue a ticket for a no harm event like not stopping at a crosswalk?
Well, if they are the same as everywhere else it is because ticketing offenses bring in revenue, while investigating and/or arresting people for more serious crimes costs money.
There's the law, and then there's practicality (Score:5, Insightful)
More than once have I stopped at a pedestrian crossing, waiting for a pedestrian who is standing right on the curb. They're facing the crosswalk, but they're just standing there. How long is it practical for me to yield? The pedestrian doesn't seem interested in communicating their intent.
Or worse yet, sometime pedestrians standing there wave me through, but legally I'm liable if they change their mind, so I always yield. But then you are gesticulating like jerks to each other: you go, no you go, no you go.
My point is, even though the law is clear, in practice it's sometimes not black & white. I get why the Waymo devs have built in a "pedestrian intent" mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or worse yet, sometime pedestrians standing there wave me through, but legally I'm liable if they change their mind, so I always yield. But then you are gesticulating like jerks to each other: you go, no you go, no you go.
One option here (after you've stopped and gesticulated long enough) would be for you to go through, but slowly, so that if the pedestrian changes his mind and moves in front of you, you'll be able to stop before you hit them.
Yes, you're liable in the legal/academic sense, but liability isn't so important if there's no actual damage done to be liable for.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Europe, you have to stop, period. After you have stopped and when it is clear that the pedestrian doesn't want to cross, the same happens as in any other situation where you don't have the right of way but the other party doesn't cross: you start to slowly approach the crosswalk at a speed where you can always stop in time.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US you have to hold your horn for at least 10 seconds while screaming profanity if the pedestrian isn't moving or isn't walking fast enough.
Re:There's the law, and then there's practicality (Score:4, Funny)
> They're facing the crosswalk, but they're just standing there.
Those are prostitutes. Yes, you have to stop. At least, that's what I tell my wife.
I'm sorry about this (Score:2)
Yes, they should stop Waymo often.
Re: (Score:2)
That joke was Waymo funny a few years ago...
Yes, they should (Score:2)
For electric vehicles, stopping or braking is a lot less costly than on gas powered vehicles. Not only can they recover the energy loss, but also they are quicker to accelerate.
As such, yes, Waymo should stop for every pedestrian. Specially for a company like Waymo, that will need a lot of public support & goodwill, if they want to become mainstream.
For distracted or undecided pedestrians, it could use lights or sounds to alert them of the fact that it is safe for them to cross. Like nowadays, the li
Re: (Score:2)
> For distracted or undecided pedestrians, it could use lights or sounds to alert them of the fact that it is safe for them to cross.
By "it", are you referring to the Waymo? Because if a car (robotic or otherwise) flashes lights or uses a sound (which might be interpreted as a horn) on any pedestrians, there will be a riot. Conducted by The Urbanists and Walkable Cities crowds.
If you are referring to crossing signals, we have these in many places already. But they depend on pedestrians understanding the meaning of the Big Red Hand. Few do.
What are my options if endangered by a machine? (Score:1)
If I consider myself (or others) to be immediately endangered by a machine, what can I legally do (say, in SF) to prevent the machine from causing injury or death? It appears that we've moved beyond this being just a hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people in the Bay Area have taken to vandalizing these stupid things. Too bad we're not organized enough to actually win the war with the machines.
Counterpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
Iâ(TM)ve crossed in front of Waymos at least 60 times probably closer to 100 at this point. They are ubiquitous in my area. Never had an issue, car always behaved reasonably and predictably.
Ditto that for when Iâ(TM)m a bicyclist sharing the road and as an auto driver. Waymos at this stage are more consistent, predictable, and generally law abiding than the humans on the road. Always room for improvement but they are ready for prime time now.
It is of course popular to dump on them, but as more folks experience robot taxis both as occupants and sharing the road these sort of hit pieces will go out of style. When they come to your area they will be instantly popular, I have no doubt.
Perfect is the enemy of good (Score:2)
From reading this article, you might assume that human drivers have never hit people in crosswalks, and that somehow Waymo vehicles are creating some new danger that no one has ever anticipated. But looking at the article, you find this:
> No Waymo car has hit me, or any other person walking in a San Francisco crosswalk - at least so far.
Given the way that pedestrians behave and humans drive in most major cities, I find this particular statement very reassuring with respect to self-driving technology. I've personally been hit by a car in a crosswalk (the driver was busy chatting on her cell phone), knocked
Do human drivers always stop? No. (Score:2)
So I say "No" for Waymo drivers too.
For one, it's an obvious "denial of service" method. Just put a foot in a crosswalk and it'll never move forward again. Like that cone in front of them (or was it in front and behind?). Could just sit on the curb and mess with it while using your phone.
Doesn't matter what that one person 'feels'. Also doesn't matter what the law is, because again... why should robotic taxis be more 'honest' than humans?
Nobody allows the expected following distance while driving on fr
Prioritize: Occupant or Pedestrian? (Score:2)
> Should Waymo Robotaxis Always Stop For Pedestrians In Crosswalks?
Ah... the automated-car "prioritize occupant" vs. "prioritize pedestrian" passenger-settable toggle -- from the Amazon TV show [1]Upload [wikipedia.org]. Quite the conundrum.
(The show is funny and poignant -- and Andy Allo is adorable -- I recommend it.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upload_(TV_series)
Betteridge (Score:2)
Anyone?
I'm not a machine (Score:2)
But I always stop for pedestrians if I can see them. Even if they are jaywalking (which is now legal in California)
Why even ask this question? (Score:5, Insightful)
What does the law say? That's what that should be required to do.
Re: Trickier (Score:2, Informative)
But you are free to walk in front of a vehicle. Pedestrians always have right of way. Drivers can't just decide to hit people because they find it inconvenient to stop
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> But you are free to walk in front of a vehicle. Pedestrians always have right of way. Drivers can't just decide to hit people because they find it inconvenient to stop
Pedestrians do not always have the right away. That is one of the urban legends. A pedestrian can not step out into a crosswalk if a vehicle already occupies that right away. "Right aways" are fluid and change dependent on many things, but mostly on timing. The same goes for the old one, that a car that rear end another is always at fault. Urban legends abound around the vehicle code. Again as I always say, at least in California your jurisdiction may differ.
Re: Trickier (Score:4, Interesting)
To add to this, I witnessed a Waymo cause a traffic jam because a stream.. endless stream of people were crossing at a stop sign.
The Waymo had just picked up people, and then went to a 3 way stop, where people were crossing endlessly to get to the parking garage on the other side. The waymo sat there, because pedestrians were not letting it go by. I picked up who I wanted to pick up, and U-turned it instead of waiting there for the people to stop being asses and let the car go through.
A human driver would have honked, edged through, or would do something else to get people to pause for a second to let them go through. INstead, there were 5-6 cars stuck there for, while I waited... at least 5 minutes. It showed me an issue with the cars and the lack of care of the mob to allow it through. I felt bad for the people it picked up 5 minutes earlier, because they were literally stuck in the car while it did nothing to address the situation. Because of course it wouldnt have any other option but to try and go through.
Re: (Score:3)
Pedestrians have the right to cross the road. If Waymo sits on the road blocking traffic then the answer is send Waymo back to the drawing board.
Yes, doing the right thing as a robot in a human centric world is tough. Deal with it, Google fanboys.
Re: (Score:1)
short sighted response. Either trolling, or just trying to push a narrative. Either way, pretty epic in display of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Pedestrians don't actually have the right to cross the road against the lights. In many jurisdictions there are jaywalking laws against that. Now, many crosswalks do not have a system to tell pedestrians where they can and can not cross. Those tend to be in spots where there is not a lot of foot traffic and pedestrians tend to always have the right of way on those. It is expected that they will not form into an endless stream. There is a problem of course if they do. An endless stream of people crossing the
Re: (Score:2)
Waymo's are electric, right. So its not sitting there idling and putting out CO2 . No harm, no foul.
Re: (Score:2)
> If Waymo sits on the road blocking traffic then the answer is send Waymo back to the drawing board.
But Waymo is complying with the law. And if it were a human driver, complying with the law, the end effect would be exactly the same. It's the traffic engineering that needs to go back to the drawing board.
> where people were crossing endlessly to get to the parking garage on the other side.
Sounds like some sort of event venue letting out. In this case, it should be the event organizers duty to arrange for crossing guards/police. They even do that for church services in my town every Sunday.
Re: Trickier (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like the stop sign needs to be upgraded if there are that many people crossing the street.
Re: (Score:2)
The law is written to create this behavior intentionally. A human driver trying to crawl through the pedestrian stream is breaking the law.
Now if the law says the vehicle is allowed to start moving slowly through after waiting some number of minutes, then I would fully expect Waymo to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
> A human driver would have honked,
Except that it's illegal to use the horn except to warn of danger.
> edged through,
This can be done safely. In fact, this strategy is practically required wherever traffic is heavy.
But this demonstrates a gap in traffic laws, where an endless stream of pedestrians can effectively shut down traffic flow. Similarly, heavy traffic on a main road can shut down traffic on a side road trying to access or cross the main road. In both cases, the usual solution is to add traffic light
Re: Trickier (Score:4, Funny)
> Pedestrians do not always have the right away.
You'd be a lot more convincing if you actually knew what it was called. But you don't.
Re: (Score:3)
> Pedestrians do not always have the right away. That is one of the urban legends. ... at least in California your jurisdiction may differ.
Let's check with the [1]California Department of Motor Vehicles [ca.gov]: "Right-of-Way Rules: Who Goes First? ... Intersections ... Pedestrians always have the right-of-way. ... Green traffic signal light: Proceed with caution. Pedestrians have the right-of-way. ... When there is a pedestrian crossing a roadway with or without a crosswalk, you must use caution, reduce your speed, or stop to allow the pedestrian to safely finish crossing. ... Crosswalks: A crosswalk is the part of the road set aside for pedestrians to
[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/california-driver-handbook/laws-and-rules-of-the-road/#rightofway
Re: Trickier (Score:2)
Breaks? It's called Brakes.
Re: (Score:3)
> It's trickier than that. On the one hand, you don't want these cars hitting people. On the other, you don't want to train the general populace that, when you see an automated car coming down the street, you can feel free to walk in front of it, even if it's not legal for you to do so, because it will slam on it's breaks to try to avoid hitting you.
So you think they should be trained to teach pedestrians a lesson by running them over?
The problem here is that you have a deadly threatening machine being driven down the street at speeds that are unsafe for anyone not in the machine. That is the nature of most motor vehicles. We have organized our society around people staying out of their way and the machine's human driver treating human life with at least some modicum of human decency. AI has no human decency. And there isn't an equation to give it any.
Re: (Score:2)
> even if it's not legal for you to do so
So, not like what OP said.
Re: (Score:2)
this is not always a practical benchmark. People writing the law are not thinking about practicality, and are often not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Assuming the road is a 35 mph road.
1. At what point does the car ignore the crosswalk? You are doing 35 mph, does the car have to slam on the breaks because someone looks like they might cross?
2. How much of the pedestrian has to be in the crosswalk? One toe? Can a pedestrian just stand in the crosswalk talking and stall traffic for 30 minutes? My wife would
Re: (Score:1)
As long as I'm required to follow the law, so should Google and it's cars.
Re: (Score:2)
The car should stop for the pedestrian. But if the pedestrian is standing there obliviously, the car should honk its horn, just like a human driver would do.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a bullshit law. If I'm driving the street at speed and there's a green light, and some wanker decides to cross, I'm supposed to slam on my brakes and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me because the wanker crossed when they didn't have the right of way? What if a large group of people decided to cross the street when the light's green? Now you have traffic backing up because the law says you have to stop. What if there's a group of people, or even one or two, who are crossing ag
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:2)
> I'm supposed to slam on my brakes and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me because the wanker crossed when they didn't have the right of way?
Not sure where you're located, but where I am, the pedestrian always/I> has the right of way, even when it makes no sense due to the physics of stopping two tons of metal.
Laws of man vs laws of physics (Score:3)
Yeah, I always treat it as the pedestrian has the right of way - or to put it another way: I'm always in the wrong if I hit a pedestrian. Has to do with me not being a psychopath. Or, in the "it's too much of a hassle to keep hiding the bodies" sense, the stress from the paperwork and potential lawsuits for hitting a pedestrian just isn't worth it if at all avoidable.
On the other hand, my mother always taught me that even if the laws of man are on my side, who's going to win by the laws of physics betwee
Re: (Score:2)
> Screw that - I treat cars as though they're trying to hit me.
Where I am it's illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. The idea is you might hit a pedestrian (on foot). They want bicycle riders to ride in the street.
There are very few people actually on foot outside of a couple specific areas of town where businesses are small and grouped close together.
My thinking is "if I ride in the street I have to trust all the people in cars not to hit me, verses me looking out for the (few, if any) pedestrians on the sidewalk."
I ride on the sidewalk.
Re: (Score:1)
I had my ankle broken by an asshole like you who hit me with their bike as I walked on the sidewalk.
Basically, you are deciding to externalize the risk of your choosing to ride a bike onto pedestrians rather than assume the risk of riding on the road where it's legal
Typical byciclist attitude - obey laws when they are convenient, but flout them when they are not. I bet you blow red lights on your bike, too.
The ethical choice here is to find a fucking bike lane, not to put pedestrians in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
> Basically, you are deciding to externalize the risk of your choosing to ride a bike onto pedestrians rather than assume the risk of riding on the road where it's legal
How am I externalizing a risk by being the one responsible for my own safety? You know that when a bicyclist hits a pedestrian they often suffer injury as well, right? cause it's kinda hard to keep your balance when you have the mass of a person or object reacting to your impact, and bicyclists are as exposed as pedestrians to this stuff. Not like when a car hits a bicyclist and the driver sometimes doesn't know they even hit someone if they aren't paying attention. The worst they get is body damage to thei
Re: (Score:2)
> Has to do with me not being a psychopath.
It's funny how often that simple metric trips up a portion of the Slashdot user base.
Re: (Score:3)
> [...] even when it makes no sense due to the physics of stopping two tons of metal.
Then perhaps you need to adjust the physics of your vehicle so that you can stop in time.
For example, if you're approaching a pedestrian crosswalk, you could slow down. This would make it easier to stop 2 tons of metal.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then perhaps you need to adjust the physics of your vehicle so that you can stop in time.
I think you need to research the actual stopping distances of a car better.
> The average driver requires approximately 1.5 seconds to perceive, react, and apply the brakes. The brakes are not being applied and the vehicle
> continues to move at the same speed and on the same path toward the hazard during this 1.5 seconds. The distance the vehicle travels during the 1.5 seconds depends upon the speed...
> At 20 mph, the average vehicle will travel an additional 18 feet after the brakes are applied for a total stoppi
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:2)
I think the bullshit is the concept that you only need to stop (to protect someone) if you find it convenient.
Re:Why even ask this question? (Score:5, Insightful)
> If I'm driving the street at speed and there's a green light, and some wanker decides to cross, I'm supposed to slam on my brakes and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me because the wanker crossed when they didn't have the right of way?
Yes. You're supposed to stop as quickly and safely as possible. What do you want to do instead, deliberately plow into the wanker because he had it coming? Good luck with that defense in court.
> What if a large group of people decided to cross the street when the light's green? Now you have traffic backing up because the law says you have to stop.
Again, yes. Sometimes life is unfair, and you just have to suck it up and not, you know, murder people.
> What if there's a group of people, or even one or two, who are crossing against the green light and a fire truck/ambulance comes down the road. Are they supposed to stop for the pedestrians in the road?
Still yes. There is no "manslaughter is okay in these circumstances" provision in the law.
Re: (Score:3)
The crosswalk we are talking about and that is shown in the video does (a) not have a traffic light and is (b) clearly marked as pedestrian cross walk. As such, your example is absolutely misleading and irrelevant. The car has to stop, period. Now, if the pedestrian doesn't show any sign of actually going, you can start to slowly approach the crosswalk again, but that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed that people often show signs of intending to cross, but then never do. In fact they look amazed if they are standing with their feet on the kerb staring at a crossing and a car stops.
Re: (Score:1)
> I'm supposed to slam on my brakes...
Yes.
... and risk getting plowed into by the person behind me
That's on the shithead behind you being too fucking close to avoid a collision should you need to make an emergency stop.
What if someone trips and falls into the road? You just going to run them over because "fuck them, they don't have right of way"?
Re: (Score:2)
These are normal defensive driving questions you should be constantly asking yourself. If you don't, then you should not be driving.
Re: (Score:2)
> What does the law say? That's what that should be required to do.
The problem with this is that when the early waymo cars followed the law exactly the other drivers wouldn't yield to them and they couldn't make left hand turns and frequently got stuck because ALL the other vehicles were breaking the law.
Traffic enforcement is very lax. In California, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red you are guilty of running a red light. If traffic laws were enforced and speeding tickets handed out for 1 mph over the limit (do it five times and you lose your licen
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem with this is that when the early waymo cars followed the law exactly the other drivers wouldn't yield to them and they couldn't make left hand turns and frequently got stuck because ALL the other vehicles were breaking the law.
This is not a very convincing hypothetical argument. When you make up ideas like that, you are merely pointing out that Waymo haven't solved the problem that they set out to solve. That makes Google (Waymo's owners) look weak and amateurish, liars at best claiming they'v
Re: (Score:2)
> In California, if you are in the intersection when the light turns red you are guilty of running a red light.
Really? Which law says this?
IANAL but I found [1]this [ca.gov]:
> (a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b)
It doesn't say what happens if you're already inside the intersection. If something is not outlawed, it must be legal.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=21453.
Re: (Score:2)
So, entering an intersection if you can't clear it is the ticket, but you aren't ticketed unless it turns red. It's what people get ticketed for in San Francisco [1]https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH§ionNum=22526
Re: Why even ask this question? (Score:1)
You want unmanned robot cars to run people over?
Re: (Score:2)
> What does the law say? That's what that should be required to do.
The problem with that is that the law is sometimes, effectively wrong. Or at least insufficient. For example, there are intersections where the correct thing to do if you want to take a left turn, according to the law, is to stop at the stop line until there is no traffic coming from the other direction, then you advance past the stop line and turn. The problem is that many of these intersections always have traffic coming from the other direction, or at least always during daytime hours. There can literall
Re: (Score:2)
> The problem is that many of these intersections always have traffic coming from the other direction, or at least always during daytime hours. There can literally be a ten hour wait before traffic thins out enough to take a legal turn.
Thinking outside of the box here: or maybe you could not try to make a left turn at a location where you can't make a left turn. Or petition to have a left-turn signal installed.