In San Francisco, the vehicles often pull into bike lanes to pick up and drop off passengers — because that’s what they’re programmed to do, according to advocates who’ve asked the company for an explanation.

Waymo has told advocates that expecting it to respect bike lanes is “too high a bar” because customers expect to be dropped off in them, said Christopher White, executive director of the San Francisco Bike Coalition.

“People always point out that unlike human driven cars, the AVs stop at lights and obey the speed limit. However, they are really only as good and effective and safe as they are programmed to be,” White said. “Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe but the companies say that is a normal practice and that’s what customers expect.”

Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the main context of the article is that this is in London though, where the rule is that you don't do that, and Waymo somehow seem to think that it should be OK anyways:

> The Google-owned company, which officially launched its self-driving fleet in London earlier this month, has told cycling campaigners that it is “normal practice” for their taxis to veer into and block cycle lanes

> According to the Highway Code, motorists “must not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation” or block a bike lane marked by a broken white line “unless it is unavoidable”.

Better would be for Waymo to adapt themselves to the locale and instead program it to find safer pickup/dropoff points, rather than blocking and endangering bike traffic.

	▲	svat 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but if you read the article closely, what it's saying is that Waymo, which launched in London earlier this month, told cycling campaigners in San Francisco that it is normal practice (and this is according to the campaigners, not a direct statement from Waymo). The article has a lot of useful information and context, but the headline framing is misleading IMO. The article at least does not suggest any data on whether this is actually happening in London. The closest it gets is "remains to be seen": > “Waymo claims they’re far safer in the US than traditional taxi services. But whether that is still the case on London’s infamously complex, congested and contested streets, remains to be seen.”

▲

coin 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"it's too hard" should never be an excuse to break the law

▲

jrowen 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The argument is that "our customers expect this behavior because everyone else does it." Not that they tried to change it and failed.

▲

scoofy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

This is as unacceptable as telling people in wheelchairs “you don’t matter, our other customers prefer a bathroom you can’t fit in.”

▲

jrowen 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, there are a lot of non-ADA-compliant bathrooms out there, for one reason or another. But that's up to inspectors to enforce. If they're letting it slide in human-built businesses then AI-built businesses will hew to that.

It's also a lot different with a permanent installation that is verified once than this kind of tragedy-of-the-commons temporary minor abuse of public space.

▲

scoofy 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The ADA is enforced by lawsuits — not inspectors — exactly because businesses can’t be trusted to follow the rules that most of their customers don’t like.

▲

jrowen 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I mean, if it comes to a lawsuit, sure, but the system is designed so that permitting and inspectors catch most of it. If you're trying to build your bathroom under the radar without a permit that's an entirely different analogy.

But either way, it is the responsibility of the regulatory body to enforce. As other people have noted, this is not a Waymo problem, they're just following the status quo.

	▲	scoofy 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Again… it most definitely is a Waymo problem. Exactly the case with the ADA. Since GOOGL is responsible for Waymo behavior, they will be liable in a class action suit where they willfully violated the law, putting others in danger, in selling their product. There is not any way around it. You can avoid this issue like Lyft does, by having divers make that decision and by them being not worth suing, but GOOGL is worth suing, and you can’t intentionally violate the law and put folks in danger without it giving you massive amounts of liability.

▲

knollimar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

huh? I work in construction (electrical drafter) and I've been called out for my installs not being ADA (after the designer gave me a non-ADA compliant design).

▲

bushbaba 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The difference is that Uber/Lyft use external contractors who are liable for their driving. Waymo is directly liable for the driving as they directly own and operate the cars and the driver.

	▲	mothballed 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Seems like a mistake. I wonder if they could farm out liability to homeless people under a financially engineered IC contract 'leasing' a locked down car or similar financial vehicle.

▲

davidw 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.

Yeah I think it'd probably actually be easier to prevent Waymo from doing this. Once you change the programming, they all stop doing it.

	▲	wiml 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What that means is that Waymo is intentionally choosing illegal behavior, at a corporate level. Uber/Lyft are merely turning a blind eye to the illegal behavior of their employees... er, "contractors".

▲

teaearlgraycold 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> the vehicles often pull into bike lanes to pick up and drop off passengers

FWIW after ~150 Waymo rides I don't think I've had a car pick me up or drop me off in a bike lane. This must depend highly on exactly where you ride to/from.

▲

jMyles 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Can't find a Waymo article about this, but Lyft and Uber (let alone trad taxis) also do this. I'm not sure that this is a particularly autonomous-car-shaped sin.

It depends on expectations. If the pitch is (and, let's face it - it is) that automs will be less violent, then this is a problem. If we're OK with them just adopting the existing levels of misery and death visited upon our communities by cars, then the upside is far less than we've been sold.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I want to hear how you equate "misery and death" with "unloading a passenger in the bike lane for 30 seconds".

I can't tell if you intend this a real analogy or if you are overcome with rage when thinking about motor vehicles

▲

ok_dad 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Pulling into the bike lane for 30 seconds causes bikers to have to unsafely pull around the car, possibly causing accidents. In some cities and lanes you may be endangering dozens of bikers during the 30 seconds.

I had to commute by foot for two years into a city, and I have to say I understand the rage. Cars nearly killed me a dozen times and I was always more safe than the law required of me as a pedestrian. Most drivers don’t understand their power with today’s massive cars.

	▲	pandaman 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Pulling into the bike lane for 30 seconds causes bikers to have to unsafely pull around the car Or, hear me out, they could stop if passing the car is unsafe.

▲

abeppu 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Waymos pull over into bike lanes all the time for pickups and drop-offs and that’s neither legal nor safe.

While perhaps drop-offs are often relatively quick (though perhaps more risky; see the dooring accident description in the article), I'm also really annoyed by Waymos waiting and blocking for pick-ups, which can be multiple minutes.

▲

scoofy 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I could give you dozens of examples of 30 seconds in a bike lane leading to cyclist life altering injuries and deaths.

▲

brendoelfrendo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Cars pulling into cycling lanes injure and kill cyclists. Simple as.

▲

jMyles 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I want to hear how you equate "misery and death" with "unloading a passenger in the bike lane for 30 seconds".

I didn't say that.

I'm saying that the toll of traffic violence is unacceptable - tens of thousands of unanticipated and often gruesome fatalities, along with much larger numbers of injuries and traumatic experiences. So we look to autonomous vehicles to be better-behaved - particularly in terms of speed and attention, but also in the little things, like lawful/traditional engagement with lanes for smaller conveyances.

I'm an avid cyclist and I kinda hate bike lanes; I don't blame cars for not knowing how to treat them. I much prefer either a shared lane with a slow pace or a totally separated trail for bikes.

But at the end of the day, the standard for autonomous vehicles isn't parity with the negligence and aggression that cars currently foist upon society, it's much higher.

▲

skybrian 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you know it’s “violent?” It might not technically be allowed but that doesn’t mean they’re doing it unsafely.

There’s quite a difference between violent and illegal and they shouldn’t be confused.

▲

vlovich123 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A) I see no evidence this is creating death or misery. Autonomous still seems safer.

B) even if in this one aspect they remain status quo, overall it would still be an improvement.

▲

SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The source article describes an incident where a cyclist was seriously injured after Waymo's cyclist detection system failed while it was parked in a bike lane, allowing the passenger to hit her with the door. I don't think this represents some terrible sin where Waymo executives should all go to prison, but I do think we can reasonably expect and if necessary demand that Waymo take action to prevent similar incidents in the future.

▲

jmalicki 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the cyclist was doored by an exiting passenger, would t that imply it should further block the bike lane to increase safety as it is not safe for a bike to pass while a passenger is exiting? If the car door opening is what injuries the cyclist it wasn't really in the bike line very far.

▲

dylan604 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Waymo's cyclist detection system failed

I did a quick search on this, but was nothing but PR articles about how they lower cyclist/pedestrian collisions. Are you suggesting the Waymo car sees oncoming cyclists and somehow prevents the rider from opening the door? This would be interesting in how it could be done. Does it indicate in any way that the door will not be able to be opened until the cyclist clears, or is the rider left wondering why the damn car won't let them out?

	▲	reitzensteinm 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		From my experience, a tiny alarm sounds, a voice says cyclist approaching and the door clicks to locked. At least I believe it did, I heard a sound. I didn't check the handle. I don't believe the car was specifically in a bike lane at this time but I'm new to the city and may have missed the markings.
	▲	SpicyLemonZest 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		In general, Waymo keeps track of all nearby vehicles and pedestrians and shows them on the car's nav system. I've been in one before when it detected a cyclist coming from behind, and it gave clear warnings both audibly and visually, although I don't know whether it actually locked the door.
	▲	kotaKat 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It sees oncoming cyclists but only warns the passengers inside via visual cue on the displays and an audible cue through the speakers. Apparently external cues to the cyclist are also given that a door may open (blinking lights?)? https://waymo.com/community/articles/advocacy-meets-innovati...

▲

sigmar 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>allowing the passenger to hit her with the door.

the bar is absurdly high if we're blaming the car manufacturer for mistakes human make after the car stops

▲

nandomrumber 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cars are violence now.

What next?