109
Cyclist hit by driverless Waymo car in San Francisco, police say (www.sfgate.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/bicycles@lemmy.ca
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Here we go. Autonomous vehicles are now mowing down cyclists.

I hope that Waymo's insurance is good!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It also sounds like it's a situation that even a human driver wouldn't have been able to avoid. Until the tech can see around corners and through solid objects, this kind of thing is still likely to happen regardless of who or what is driving.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Only if we accept that humans have to share the vast majority of public space with large, dangerous machines. I reject this premise, and insofar as self-driving cars support this paradigm, they are harmful even if they become safer than human drivers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Cars will be part of our world for a very long time. Most cities are not designed for cycling, walking, etc. Plus the trucks and other vehicles that are needed to get food to stores, move our shit from one house to another, etc. You can't have a society built only on cycling, walking etc. I'll also remind you of parts of the world where the weather is not conducive to cycling except for when you want to abuse yourself.

    I'm all for areas like downtowns being off limits to cars but that's not going to work for those who live 20 minutes by car from civilization. I currently live in the outskirts of my main city and there is no way I or my wife would be able to do any real grocery shopping on a bike. We live 6 miles from 2 different foodlions and it's down roads that are not safe for walking or biking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I’m not saying it’s going to happen overnight but we literally had societies based on walking for thousands of years. Especially possible now that there are now numerous transit alternatives like rail, bikes (including e-bikes and cargo bikes), trams, all sorts of aquatic vehicles, mopeds, etc. All of which are dramatically safer than cars and in combination superior for transporting people and goods in almost all situations. It may be that for certain niche uses a small number of vehicles will be preserved but we could easily cordon off space for them by dramatically reducing traffic lanes and reserving most space for safer uses.

    Even in your situation it’s an easy solution. Make a safe separated area of the road for biking, and add transit options for reaching the more distant city center. It’s not rocket science and has been proven to work already in many cities.

    Truly rural areas will probably need cars for longer but that’s a small population of people and there is plenty of space to develop networks of paths away from cars there which will also help somewhat, even if it doesn’t completely replace cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't disagree with you at all. Problem is that what this would cost to implement across the country is not likely to be funded and supported by tax payers any time soon.

    What I would like to see and would make happen if/when I have the capital is smaller "downtowns" around the city. Draw people and traffic away from the current city center and some of those spaces could be off limits to cars.

    Some of you really need to brush up on your history and get your head out of the clouds. We can definitely have spaces and communities that are better and safer for people to walk and bike but we are never going to get rid of larger vehicles, period, the end.

    As for my situation. I'm going to be blunt here. Fuck no. I'm not going to take the bus to Costco and drag that much stuff on the bus and then have to carry, drag, whatever, fuck knows how far from the stop to my house.

    I'll say this and I'm done. We have never had cities like we do now that were based on walking/cycling. First it was walking combined with horse back or camel, etc and then it was horse and buggy and then trains and then gas powered vehicles that could haul more and go further without need for rest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Clearly there are obstacles but the bus you’re envisioning is an underfunded, outdated system. With the right amount of effort and funding it will be at least as convenient as driving. And I think e-bikes are a game-changer for the urban periphery. Higher speeds mean covering a few miles is not a challenge anymore and you can carry more with cargo bikes too if needed. Though personally I have done grocery shopping on my bike my entire life and it is really not that difficult.

    Your second statement is a bit tautological—of course past cities are not identical to today’s cities, and today’s cities are mostly built around the automobile. But looking at the various communities current and past it’s pretty clear that it’s totally possible to do better than the current system without the personal automobile. Horses were already on their way out thanks to advances in transport and urban planning by the time the car came around, replaced by streetcars and bicycles. So personally I don’t think we need to bring back the horse.

    Again, I know this is not going to happen tomorrow or even in 5 years but I do think the personal automobile as the dominant transportation in urban areas is on its way out. And that is good because people have a fundamental right to go out and use public space without being forcibly exposed to the danger of large polluting machines.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    None of this makes any sense and isn't going to happen, ever. A single person or a couple could get away with shopping via ebike but a family of 3+ needs more than can be transported that way. Not to mention that you still need larger vehicles to bring in goods for those people to buy. And until something changes, you'll need larger vehicles to take away the trash.

    Plus, I'm not moving closer to the masses just so I can bike everywhere. As I eluded to, there is a giant swath of the USA where at times it's too cold or too hot to be biking/walking to/from stores unless you happen to live a block away.

    Seriously. You can't have cities as large as we do now (with our level of tech) that doesn't use cars and trucks to move people/things around. This is a statement of fact and your idea of a walkable city with 100k+ people in it is the fantasy of children or college kids who think they can save the world all by themselves.

    On the whole. I'd bet that my carbon footprint is lower than yours simply because I live in the country and I compost or burn everything I can and recycle the rest. As a family of 3 we have way less trash going to the dump than those who live in the city. And that doesn't even include things like composting leaves instead of having the city pick them up, we don't get that service out here but I would still compost even if I lived in the suburbs.

    If you want a better and cleaner future, push for people to live further away from civilization and be more self sufficient, growing their own food (when they can) getting produce and meat from local farms, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent