Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say
A driverless Waymo car striking a cyclist at a four‑way stop in San Francisco has triggered debate over whether the crash reflects a failure of autonomous driving, cyclist behavior at stop signs, or poor street design. Commenters argue over legal fault versus the broader goal of avoiding “avoidable” collisions, with many calling for release of video and telemetry to assess whether a human driver would likely have done better. The incident is also used to revisit larger questions about how safe self‑driving cars must be to justify their use, how they compare statistically to human drivers, and how car‑centric urban planning endangers cyclists and pedestrians.
Incident description & fault (unclear)
- Waymo says its car fully stopped at a four‑way stop, proceeded, and a cyclist “occluded” by a truck then emerged behind the truck into its path; the car braked hard but still hit the cyclist, who had minor injuries.
- Multiple commenters point out the description is vague/weasel‑worded:
- Unclear whether Waymo or the cyclist was turning vs going straight.
- Unclear who entered the intersection first, how fast the Waymo was going, and whether its path was “blind” when it committed.
- Some argue that if the account is accurate and the cyclist ran or rolled a stop sign, fault lies with the cyclist. Others argue that defensive driving means not entering space you can’t see, especially where a bike lane or pedestrians could be hidden.
Cyclists, stop signs, and road rules
- Large sub‑thread on cyclists rolling stop signs (“Idaho stop”):
- In California, bikes must legally stop; a bill to allow yield‑as‑stop was vetoed.
- Many cyclists in SF treat stops as yields in practice; some drivers do the same.
- Debate over whether bikes should follow exactly the same rules as cars vs having different norms due to lower mass, speed, and effort to restart.
- Several posts note that in the Netherlands and elsewhere, infrastructure and law assume high bike volumes and strongly constrain drivers, sometimes with near‑strict driver liability.
Autonomous vehicles vs human drivers
- Some see this crash as evidence AVs still mishandle occlusion and edge cases and should not be trusted in cities.
- Others say human drivers frequently hit cyclists, often worse; if AVs are even modestly safer per mile, they should be encouraged.
- Discussion of unrealistic expectations: AVs are treated as if they must be 100% safe, whereas humans are not. Concern that a single dramatic AV crash gets more press than countless human‑caused ones.
Video, telemetry, and transparency
- Strong calls for releasing video and telemetry to clarify what happened and compare reaction timing to a human driver.
- Counter‑arguments: privacy of the cyclist, risk of sensationalism and misinterpretation, and the fact that regulators already get full data even if the public doesn’t.
- Some argue public use of shared roads gives Waymo a moral/PR obligation to be more transparent; others say regulators, not public opinion, should be the arbiter.
Street design and urban policy
- Criticism of four‑way stop intersections and unprotected bike lanes; suggestions for roundabouts, raised crossings, and “daylighting” (no parking near corners).
- Broader anti‑car arguments: cities should reduce car dependence, invest in transit and bike infrastructure, and accept fewer, slower cars rather than only swapping human drivers for robots.