I live in one of the areas they are actively testing/training in. Their cars consistently behave better and more safely than most human drivers that I’m forced to share the road with.
As semi-autonomous and autonomous cars become the norm, I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging.
The absolute most dangerous drivers I see on the road aren't bad drivers in the sense that they're unskilled at controlling their car. I can't weave between cars at 120 mph or cross three lanes of traffic to make an exit I didn't see until the last second without killing myself, but I routinely see people do that. Sure they don't care about driving safely and/or following the law, but they're probably sane enough to pull it together for a brief driving test.
The other big category of dangerous drivers is drunk/distracted (texting) drivers. Again, most of the people engaging in these behaviors are probably smart enough not to do them during a driving test.
> I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging.
For your system to work, there would actually need to be cops watching traffic.
Since the pandemic, some cities just don't have as many police watching the streets as they used to.
For example, there is virtually no traffic enforcement in Austin now. You see the results with how much people speed now, and how awful some drivers behave on the road.
* Traffic enforcement capacity in Austin dropped significantly -- traffic citations fell about 55% between 2018–2022.
Austin didn't "fire all the cops." What happened was messier.
After 2020, the city council cut about a third of the police budget and paused new cadet classes. At the same time, hundreds of officers retired early or left for better pay elsewhere. By 2023, patrol vacancies were over 30%. With fewer officers, APD stopped handling whole categories of calls -- traffic enforcement, minor crashes, and low-level 911 calls -- because they just didn't have the staff.
Then politics made it worse. Austin leaders (Blue) pushed for more oversight and accountability. The governor (Red) fought back with bills to hide misconduct records and block transparency. The Travis County DA started prosecuting misconduct more aggressively, straining relations even further. The result: a demoralized force, hollowed-out staffing, and a city caught between "fund them less" and "hold them accountable more," while basic policing collapsed.
So no, they weren't fired. But yes, many stopped doing the job -- leaving Austin residents stuck in the middle of a state–city standoff. And honestly, it feels like that was Governor Abbott's goal all along: "If you didn't vote for me, don't expect police to lift a finger for you." These days, even for traffic accidents, assaults, or vandalism, 911 just tells you to file a report online.
If only there were other ways of tracking and observing vehicle behavior. And some reliable way of identifying vehicles themselves. Or ways that we could automate this with computers to sort through.
But that's just science fiction. Cars are just going to be cars!
The HN crowd wouldn't see the tounge in cheek humor if it hit them in the face.
Vehicles have these things called license plates and take a license to operate. It's not dystopian mass surveillance or a technical challenge to have a camera assigning tickets for operating machinery dangerously in public spaces.
In Texas, traffic cameras that automatically issue tickets are illegal. Courts ruled they violate the constitutional right to face your accuser. And look, that's how it should be.
And I certainly don't want my own car, phone, or anything else I own snitching on me while I drive.
Currently people will just ignore a revoked license the same way they ignore other traffic laws.
So I think ~level 5 self driving cars becoming common + a modification to prevent people using their cars just like we install breathalyzers for habitual DUI drivers is needed before revoking people’s licenses is really a meaningful punishment.
Doubtless some would ignore it, but you can go to jail for driving on a suspended license. I suspect there are a lot more people willing to risk a traffic ticket and a few $100 in fines for speeding, bad lane changes, etc. than there are people willing to risk jail for driving on a suspended license.
Obviously it’s not 100% meaningless, but the kind of people losing their licenses here correlate with the kinds of people who will take these risks.
Thus for many it’s a symbolic gesture until the next time something happens which is little different than simply doing nothing until the next incident like say 3 strike laws.
I think that is probably true now (in the US), but the hypothetical is that it is made easier to lose your license.
DC recently banned "right on red" but it is routinely ignored and the penalty is apparently a $100 fine. If the penalty was loss of license (maybe not on first offense) I think there's a lot of people ignoring the current rule that would not be willing to ignore the possibility of losing their license.
Any US jurisdiction that bans right on red is going to see a lot of violations - mostly from people who are unaware of the law or people who know the law but accidentally do it out of habit. If DC wanted to stop people from turning right on red, signs would be the only effective solution.
At least with Arizona, it's the whole state so most drivers won't have the habit.
Of course, if DC just wants to take in a lot of easy $100 tickets, this is exactly the way to do it.
Allow drink driving in places with no metro system? There are obviously lines to be drawn in what you allow, for the safety of others, regardless of the alternatives. That said, we can absolutely work on improving public transport at the same time. There's no reason to have to fully solve public transport before trying to tackle dangerous driving.
Traffic enforcement, which used to correct some bad driving, has basically evaporated in many parts of the U.S. This has been a long-term trend.
A friend who's a cop told me that only when their department got specific state grants would they set up stings of drivers driving in a pedestrian walkway while someone was crossing the street. Here's an example of one such grant program, which is actually funded by the federal government: https://www.mass.gov/doc/ffy26-municipal-road-safety-grant-a...
Crosswalk Decoy Operations: These operations may involve a plainclothes officer acting as a civilian pedestrian and a uniformed officer making stops OR involve a uniformed officer serving as a spotter to observe and relay violations to an officer making stops. ... All Pedestrian and Bicyclist enforcement must be conducted during overtime shifts, meaning grant-funded activity occurs during hours over and above any regular full-time/part-time schedule.
At other times, he said he would only pull someone over if they were doing something batshit crazy and they happened to be behind the vehicle where it was easy to pull them over. Minor stuff and speeding they would rarely ticket.
The U.S. and other countries need to use automated methods of detecting and applying penalties. Some busy intersections have cameras for this, but it seems to be very limited, maybe because of cost.
Years ago New York used to calculate if you were speeding the NY State Thruway based on the time between toll booths. They cancelled this program for some reason.
Although more recently, the New York State Police have speed cameras set up in a few highway work zones, which is effective (double fines applicable, see https://wnyt.com/top-stories/where-are-automated-speed-camer...) but it still requires a person driving a car to set up the gear.
I grew up in a Texas city, lived abroad for over a decade, and recently moved back to the same city because my girlfriend randomly got a job here.
The number of people who run red lights is giving me culture shock. You have to sit and wait at your own green light because 1-3 vehicles are still running their red light, and it's every time.
As a teen, I saw cops everywhere camping out for traffic violations. I got a few tickets myself for tiny infractions that don't compare to running a red light.
Of course, the icing on the cake is that Texas outlawed red light cameras in court.
I’m in Chicagoland and can report the same. The cops aren’t doing anything. Interestingly, it seems crime is going down while they do nothing. This leads me to believe we don’t actually need huge police forces.
I'm in Chicagoland too, and they're doing basically what they've always done: issue tickets --- automatically, now, as well as manually. What difference are you seeing?
Anecdotally, I have not seen a car pulled over on LSD south of the loop in _years_. That used to be common (my first year in Chicago I got 2 tickets there and don’t think of myself as particularly speedy).
I’ve not seen a single person pulled over in my neighborhood in the same time, another activity that was common.
Meanwhile traffic behavior has reached staggeringly wild levels.
My impression, which is certainly not backed with data, is that CPD no longer polices traffic violations. My cynical view is that it’s a work slow down in protest over all the trouble they’ve gotten in for pretextual stops.
I've been pulled over in Chicago within the last couple months, for whatever that's worth. In Oak Park, this is a hotbutton issue, the belief that since COVID traffic enforcement is sharply down, and, apparently, by the numbers, it isn't.
When I looked into the stats for cpd it was a mess. They got in trouble for monkeying with the stats, so they are already suspicious.
But by their numbers stop rates went way up for the 10 years between 2014-2024. But that was during the period when traffic stops were a primary strategy for crime prevention, that is the pretextual stops they got in trouble for.
Sadly, there was no checkbox for the officer to mark if it was a pretextual stop or not for study purposes.
I could probably isolate by stop location to some degree if I really wanted to do some digging. Maybe I can nerdsnipe ‘chaps into doing it for me.
Essentially the same as kasey_junk -- they're missing from the roads entirely. I frequently am in the areas of Lombard & Aurora for work, and I haven't seen a cop on the side of the road with someone pulled over in what feels like years.
I do see the insane driving. People going fast and weaving is the tip of the iceberg. Regularly now I see people using left turn lanes in intersections to pass people on the left and cut them off mid-intersection. Regularly I see people utterly spaced out on their phones, nearly stopped in the middle of the road -- these folks present a unique danger if you're doing the speed limit and not paying really close attention. But just generally, I think "good driving" went out of style during COVID, when a huge swath of people stopped driving.
These sorts of things I feel used to be addressed by the police in a very public way: you'd see that car that was weaving doing dangerous things pulled over a mile up the road as you continued on. THAT is what's changed, for me.
In Miami, there is very little enforcement and reckless driving flourishes. I used to regularly see cars doing 90, weaving, pass cops who did nothing. I've also talked to multiple cops who confirmed that they rarely enforce unless specifically doing traffic duty. Which never made sense to me, since it's a revenue stream. But however the incentives are set up, they motivate cops to do nothing, and drivers know it.
Maybe it's only one part of an overall trend in cultural rot around rule enforcement.
A woman had her dog in the cart at Costco that kept barking at people.
I joked with an employee during check-out "So anyone can bring their dog to the store these days?" and she said they stopped confronting these people because it's not worth it and makes things worse. Worse for who?
Man, I thought that was the exact type of person worth confronting in civilized society. If we can't police minor antisocial behavior, what can we confront? We wait until it's so bad that we have no choice?
The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals—-and even where there are rules, like with learning disabilities, doctors and other professionals act like whores and sell their signatures to anyone with money. It’s widespread bad parenting for generations now. How can a store fight that?
> The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals
I agree with your overall point, but there are actually rules about what types of behavior are unacceptable for service animals. Uncontrolled or disruptive barking is one of those unacceptable behaviors.
The store would be entirely within their right to warn this person and remove the owner and/or ban the “service animal”.
That said, unless you have a legal team that aggressively embraces these sorts of acts against people who abuse the service animal rules, it’s almost always more practical just to let it go. Some of these folks have significant psychological issues, and you’ve already lost once you’ve entered a conflict with an unstable person.
If you wait until it's so bad you have no choice, you usually lack the ability to enforce the rules.
When I'm in the position that I have to enforce rules, I usually provide an alternative and explain to people that they're not the problem. I spell out that problems arise when you have a dozen people breaking said rule, or when the people who come after them decide to push the limits even further. As long as they see the rules enforced consistently and equally, I rarely encounter any pushback. But until my employer got all of the staff to consistently enforce the rules, things were getting pretty nasty (threats towards staff, people doing stuff that would endager lives, etc.).
> The U.S. and other countries need to use automated methods of detecting and applying penalties. Some busy intersections have cameras for this, but it seems to be very limited, maybe because of cost.
Ultimately, someone still has to send in a check, and if they don't, you go back to the same problem, which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
This isn't as much of a problem in NYC, but here in KC, unfortunately, neither the traffic stop nor the warrant are trivially safe tasks.
> Ultimately, someone still has to send in a check, and if they don't, you go back to the same problem, which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
Here in Argentina they if you don't pay, they just remember until you want to sell the car, or renew your license or a ¿anual? technical review of the vehicle.
You have to pay it sooner or later with late fees. It's not necesary to send a minitank to the front door of the home of the bad drivers.
Missouri has the option of yanking your license [0]
... which kinda makes it hard to drive to work to get the paycheck that you need to pay the fine, at least legally. If you get caught it's a misdemeanor [1]
> which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
Impounding vehicles is an option too. Like we do for parking tickets. That is routinely done without police interaction, or interaction at all with the driver.
I know in California if you ignore a red light ticket long enough they'll pull the fines (plus penalties and interest) from your state tax return.
> Years ago New York used to calculate if you were speeding the NY State Thruway based on the time between toll booths. They cancelled this program for some reason.
Did they? The only thing I knew they nailed people for was speeding through the EZPass lanes too fast.
That's because US cops and courts only care about making a profit, and cops issuing speeding tickets and minor traffic infractions don't earn money.
But something like an operating while intoxicated is big bucks, which is why some places have drivers on the road with 12 DUI convictions (tens of thousands in state profit), and now we got cops and courts from legal cannabis states arresting people for smoking 8 hours beforehand because the criteria for guilt is ill-defined but the punishments are massive because they just copied all of the harshest (read expensive) drunk driving laws.
US cops and courts don't care about guilt, they don't care about safety; over and over and over again they have shown themselves to be a profit-seeking racket. Anyone who has ever been in or had access to the the details of someone's criminal case and seen the mountains of ridiculous extra fines and fees and ways to waste money for no gain knows how ridiculous it is.
The real issue is all the current bad drivers. A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society.
I'm from the UK, took driving lessons in the UK but then passed my driving test in the USA (in California).
The USA driving test is so much easier than the UK one!
UK: Varied junctions and roundabouts, traffic lights, independent driving (≈20 minutes via sat nav or signs), one reversing manoeuvre (parallel park, bay park, or pull up on the right and reverse), normal stops and move-offs (including from behind a parked car), hill start, emergency stop.
California: Cross three intersections, three right turns, three left turns, lane change, backing up, park in a bay, obey stop signs and traffic lights.
My understanding is that the USA test is so much easier because it's hard to get by in most of the USA without a car, so if the test was harder people would likely just drive without a license instead.
Right, maybe those words don't express the action correctly: the experienced way to do it is like you say, but it's a little tricky for new drivers. And then there is the noob way where they keep the engine rpm bouncing around 5k and slowly let go the clutch as needed. Can really stink up or even smoke up the street.
How this issue skews probably depends on where you live, but in the area I live, I have the opposite complaint: that bicyclists should re-learn that they are legally required (in my city) to ride on roads, rather than barrelling down sidewalks.
That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us.
I don't personally care whether bikes (or scooters) ride on the road or the sidewalk, but my one ask is that:
If they ride on the sidewalk, they should behave like pedestrians. That is, do not blast into the crosswalk at 20mph (impossible for drivers to safely check for in most environments), do not randomly enter the road from the sidewalk, pass pedestrians at a respectful speed and distance, etc.
If they ride on the road, they should behave similarly to motorists. That is, actually obey stop signs (rolling stop, or even treating it like a yield is okay), and actually obey traffic lights.
I'll even tolerate transitioning from one to the other at appropriate traffic stops. Just please don't get upset if I almost run you over for abruptly taking right of way you never legally had.
Yeah bikes and pedestrians can mix as long as speeds don't. Mixed use paths (like the W&OD in Reston VA) really need something like a 5 mph speed limit.
No problem, in exchange I just ask that you pass safely (1.5m distance). Since that's not going to happen until hell freezes over, we're gonna have to settle on the current situation.
That's often impossible except at super-off-peak times of day when there's no oncoming cars, except if the cyclist pulls over, but for some reason they never seem to do that.
Where I live, there are definitely places where I end up cycling on the sidewalk, because it would be nigh-suicidal to actually take my bike on the road.
But I don't go barreling past pedestrians, and make sure I give them the right of way.
I have noticed a huge uptick in agressive behaviour from motorists over the past couple of years. By huge uptick, I mean behaviour that I used to see once every couple of weeks I am new facing multiple times daily. Quite bluntly, the politicians in my area are enabling life endangering behaviour towards cyclists by blaming cyclists for traffic congestion that have nothing to do with cyclists (e.g. road construction projects for motorists, or waterworks or building construction that have nothing to do with cyclists).
While I am sticking to the roads, I don't blame other cyclists for seeking refuge on the sidewalks.
That's the "Idaho stop". You're moving at speeds slow enough to be easily able to check for traffic without stopping, plus losing inertia as a cyclist is much more annoying (and arguably even dangerous) than for a car.
From a driver's perspective, you don't want to wait an extra 5-10 seconds because now the bike in front of you has to get back up to speed. 0-5mph is the slowest change and the most energy
> And I wish cyclists would re-learn that pedestrians have more rights of being on sidewalks.
That's not universal, but I do wish they would just learn those laws for their state.
In my state, they have equal rights, and that is that no one has the right of way. If you run into someone, it's your fault full stop. If you couldn't stop in time, then you were travelling too fast for the situation. If someone is blocking the sidewalk, they're a dick, but you can't do anything about it without getting arrested except to find another way around.
Also, if you're on a bike and about to pass a pedestrian, you must give an audible (to the ped) signal so as to warn of your approach. Even then, if you hit them, it's because you were going to fast to stop safely in case they wandered into your path.
I love the laws in my state regarding shared cycling/pedestrian ways, and sidewalks in particular. Very reasonable and fair.
Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.
>Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.
IIUC, cars are pretty much universally permitted to go through red lights at least 1/3 of the time -- right on red is legal (AFAIK) in all 50 states. In many states, left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street is also legal.
That's true, but there are additional special rules that apply to cyclists, and sometimes motorcyclists, allowing them to go straight at a red light under specific circumstances.
Depends on the state. Some are specifically "if there's a vehicle detection sensor and it doesn't detect your bike after 90 seconds", others are just "cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign".
Let me be more direct: because it’s legal for cyclists to run red lights, you think they should? I hope you can see what I am getting at now.
You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement.
You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is indeed a double standard and is inherently unfair.
Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything.
I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights.
Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bike lanes where you're from? Since bicycles and cars are fundamentally different vehicles, they should have different sets of laws applied to them. To try to apply the same set of rules would be inherently unfair. You're welcome to try to argue that that's actually fair, but you've currently backed up your stance with nothing but fake leading questions and baseless claims.
"The law prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"
There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair.
There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents.
The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists.
That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights.
The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated.
Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic.
Plenty of roads were designed for horses. It's clearly unsafe to have paved those roads and allowed automobiles on them, the result of doing so was as you said increased traffic congestion and more accidents.
Why are you okay with the double standard of redistributing property to the motorists, but not redistributing property from the motorists?
I find your position immensely hypocritical.
What do you think is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45?
Automobiles saved an order of magnitude more lives when they replaced horses because horses leave manure on streets, which breed flies and other insects that can spread deadly diseases like typhoid fever. Cities were littered with horse droppings. The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes.
I know that’s not really what you were getting at with you comment, but it’s worth noting when people try to demonize cars, as cyclists are wont to do: they’re the least bad and most versatile mode of mass transportation available.
The context in which the automobile met horses matters: contrary to your portrayal of roads, very few of them were actually paved in any meaningful sense. They were mostly compacted dirt, sometimes gravel. Lanes existed in a less explicit way, and speeds were much slower because pedestrians were always mixed in as well.
Cars were a vast improvement over this situation along every meaningful axis. They’re faster, don’t leave manure on streets, and are safer when you consider operation. Horses get spooked and buck their riders, they can kick, they weigh hundreds of pounds and can crush you. And most importantly, they were cheaper than owning a horse. People didn’t switch overnight for no reason.
To the heart of your comment, the reason why we have the infrastructure we do is because cars were so much more capable than horses. Traffic signals, lane demarcations, signage: all of these things came about because cars were so much faster than horses. Congestion doesn’t matter if you can get there in half the time.
When you need to get to the hospital, do you ride a bike? When you want to buy a couch at the store, how do you get it home? When you need to visit your grandparents the next state over, how do you get there?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, the value of that vehicle is proportional to the infrastructure available to use it.
Here’s the rub: cycling is a luxury. Access to a motor vehicle when you need it is a neccesity. When you need to get to the ER, the last thing you want to do is be fighting a bunch cyclists to get there. When it’s snowing and -20F outside, you’re only taking the bike if you absolutely have too.
Your freedom of movement depends on infrastructure built for motor vehicles. Your ability to really do anything beyond get to work and back in a city depends on reliable and efficient access to a motor vehicle.
We should stop wasting money on bike lanes and build real public transit in our cities. The reason people feel compelled to use a bike is the alternatives are too awful to be competitive.
If you think that’s hypocritical, I don’t know what to tell you. Cyclists degrade infrastructure built for motorists. Infrastructure you need. Infrastructure they contribute to the upkeep of via gas taxes.
Not sure about the answer to your question without looking it up, but probably “car crash” given the context of our conversation.
> The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes.
[Citation needed]
That's really a...unique...take. The reduction in disease was due to things like antibiotics and water treatment facilities, and preventing contamination from human sewage. Horse manure does not cause widespread disease.
Are you just making things up? Like, that's LLM-level hallucination right there.
The rest of your comment is just you stating your opinion as though it's fact because I guess you live somewhere 100% car dependent. Just because your freedom of movement and ability to do things other than commute relies on a motor vehicle, does not make that true of others outside your bubble of wealth.
That said, as established above I'm either arguing with a robot or with a person who has no problem inventing swaths of history out of whole cloth, so I guess the joke is on me.
“Industrialization contributed greatly to the elimination of typhoid fever, as it eliminated the public health hazards associated with having horse manure in public streets, which led to a large number of flies, which are vectors of many pathogens, including Salmonella spp.”
Yeah, I think that's wise. The presentation of the single largest non-age-related killer in the western world as something that needs to be protected, for safety's sake, means we're sufficiently far apart on things like the value of a human life that productive discussions are difficult without someone getting frustrated and devolving into listing the sort of person the other is.
At some intersections the sensor loops literally never activate for bikes (especially carbon bikes with very little metal). If you don't run the red light then you'll be stuck there until a car happens to come along and trip the sensor for you.
Okay, that seems ultra relevant to the ~100% of bikes that routinely run red lights in San Francisco at fully trafficked intersections where the sensors are clearly already tripped.
So you dismount and cross as a pedestrian. I mostly cycle, and the lack of bike sensors at some intersections is occasionally annoying but not a reason to break the road rules.
I just wish every cyclist would re-learn that they're bound by the same traffics laws as every driver on the road. I'd bet accidents are more often than not mostly their fault.
No, surveys like where researchers show up to hospitals and look at the police reports for the injured cyclists.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my wording. By "survey" I was trying to point to the specific kind of research methodology where you survey people about what has happened in the past instead of trying to control variables like in a typical experiment.
I wasn't talking about random internet polls or self-reported blame analyses, but actual research papers.
Cyclists contribute to congestion and occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits.
Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.
Cyclists are rarely subjected to traffic law enforcement despite demanding all of the rights that motorists pay for and are licensed for.
Cyclists are a danger to themselves and others while operating in the same area as motorists, but are not required to carry insurance or wear safety equipment, while motorists are held to more stringent regulation.
In a nutshell, cyclists are free-riding risk takers who are arrogant to boot. When they start acting like motorists and pay taxes like motorists and are fined like motorists for violating the law, I will happily change my opinion.
How many cyclists can fit in a space of one car? Or, would you rather that every cyclist was in a car instead? Would that increase or decrease congestion?
> occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits
So roads get funded in full by motorists and cyclists can't possibly also own motorized vehicles and they don't pay tax that definitely doesn't contribute to the roads that they surely wear down at a rate that's not on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands lower than cars. Oh and 16 lane highways are built because of all the damn cyclists clogging up the roads.
> Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.
A cyclist on the road is only a danger to himself. A motorist can mow down a school trip on a pedestrian crossing on a whim.
The latter two points just repeat the above. Yes, driving a 2 ton machine at 80 mph is going to have be a little more restricted than a 20 kg bicycle at 20 mph.
Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist.
Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier traffic, sure. But deterioration from temperature cycling, road salt application, and weather happens whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use this infrastructure, they should contribute to its upkeep.
If cyclists have a car and contribute by paying these taxes and fees, then let’s build a regulatory regime that exempts these users from cyclist fees and taxes. The point here is to make those using the infrastructure pay for their share of upkeep and their contribution to congestion.
Deer are only a danger to themselves too, right? People never experience damage to their vehicle or personal injury when they hit a deer? The damage and risk is not proportional to both parties, sure. But it is false to say that drivers experience no risk of damage or bodily injury when in an accident with a cyclist who disobeys traffic laws. Cyclists should be insured at whatever rate is necessary to protect against this risk.
Your school children example is not really applicable here. We’re discussing cyclists who want to be treated like motorists but refuse to act like them and obey common traffic rules. That is about as far as you can get from from an innocent group of school children crossing the street with the flashing red stop sign on the school bus activated.
Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.
Your “obvious” example is something that’s unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.
The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced. The idea that it’s a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput. Having separate rules is entirely consistent here. If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non problem.
Thank you for sharing that. I hope you feel better now.
> Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.
The second sentence of the abstract of this study would imply you're ignorant, but I won't stoop to name calling:
"Red light running violation of bicyclists is the major contributory factor to the crash involvement of bicyclists worldwide."
> Your "obvious" example is something that's unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.
If I'm following a cyclist who is going 20mph in a 30mph zone, they're contributing to congestion. This is obvious to every human, even those who have never even seen modern infrastructure or the vehicles that operate on it. It happens when walking in hallways or on stairways. When someone is slow and people can't get around them, you get congestion.
> The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced
I don't have any disdain for cyclists, only those dumb enough to try and coexist with motorists and arrogant enough to try and change traffic laws and infrastructure to fit their needs at the expense of everyone else.
I ride my bicycle at the park with my kids, and partly why I feel so passionately about this is because I don't want my kids riding in situations where they are very likely to get themselves injured or killed.
You're absolutely right, waiting at an intersection is one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. This is because riding on roads with motorists is the most dangerous moment for cyclists.
There is no way to make it safe for cyclists to coexist with motorists. Mixing the two results in more people getting injured and dying. This should be reason enough to ban them from roads with motor vehicles, putting aside every other issue I've raised.
Allowing them to run red lights is a recipe for disaster. Use your brain: motorists reasonably and rightfully expect to have the right of way when the light is green. Literally every other moving object yields to them at intersections with a signal. Making an exception for cyclists will result in more people running red lights, and more corresponding injuries and deaths.
> The idea that it's a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput.
Go look up what the phrase double standard means. It is by definition a double standard. You can defend the double standard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one.
> If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non-problem.
If by this you mean we should reduce the amount of subsidization to zero for both, I agree completely. Infrastructure should be paid for with use fees. If cyclists want to use it they should pay for it. If motorists want to use it, they should pay for it. Currently motorists contribute, while cyclists do not.
I do pay taxes, just like a motorist might. Where do you live that you think your car or your gas is taxed in a way that contributes to road upkeep? In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades, roadways are maintained out of the common coffers (incl. large federal incentives which come straight out of your income tax payments).
> In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades
But the tax is still constantly being collected even though the rate isn't going up. This is like saying electricity must be free if you haven't had a rate hike in a while.
Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it? What exactly is your point?
For the record, I support closing that gap, in addition to taxing the odometer on electric vehicles which don’t contribute to gas tax revenue but use roadways like other motorists.
> Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it?
I don't think you understood what you wrote. Non-motorists subsidize motorists.
Feel free to look up the % of funding for roads that gas tax or w/e accounts for in your country.
Also look up the fourth power law, that'll tell you how much tax a cyclist should pay compared to a driver in terms of road wear. Say a cyclist should pay $1, how much should you?
Then check how many millions it costs to build a mile of highway and internalize the fact that cyclists are not allowed there. Nor do they use car parking. Nor do they cause 40 thousand deaths per year in the USA. What's the cost of human life again?
Once you figure all that out, we'll be ready to start talking about pollution and its effects.
More than half of the US doesn’t pay income taxes. Your point about non-motorists subsidizing motorists is nonsensical in this context. At least some of the taxes motorists pay are directly used for road maintenance.
Roads deteriorate whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use them, they should pay to maintain them. I don’t know why you find this idea so controversial. Adjust the fees commensurate with their weight if you want, but by definition those fees should not be zero.
Roads are obviously expensive, hence why it is repulsive that cyclists pay nothing to build or maintain them, but actively increase the danger on them and degrade the efficiency of using them.
Pollution? In what world do cyclists not require fuel to operate? Cyclists use the most expensive fuel possible to operate: consumable calories. We burn fuel to operate machinery to produce food, then transport it to stores and then transport it home, cook it, and then use only a portion of the available calories to operate a bicycle because the human body isn’t 100% efficient.
You’re delusional if you somehow think cycling is good for the environment.
Motorists __DO NOT COVER__ the costs of roads. Your existence as a motorist is entirely subsidized. The cost of driving is borne by government and society. Road infrastructure, maintenance, and space for cars is actually insanely expensive.
No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park.
By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less.
Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there.
To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs.
The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image.
Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy.
I'm sorry you aren't able to see the parallels. Let me explain them for you:
Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use.
Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners.
Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park.
I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose.
To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it.
In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be.
If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective.
I think we're ignoring the wider context of this thread, which would be the context of TFA, which is New York City specifically. The roads in NYC predate the existence of the automobile. NYC had a bicycle boom in the late 1800s.
> In 1896, then New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt launched the first-ever group of bicycle-riding officers. This team evolved into a 100-member organization with its own station stated Evan Friss, co-curator of the Museum of the City of New York’s 2019 exhibit Cycling in the City: A 200-Year History[0].
> This documentary travelogue of New York City in 1911 was made by a team of cameramen with the Swedish company Svenska Biografteatern, who were sent around the world to make pictures of well-known places.
> Opening and closing with shots of the Statue of Liberty, the film also includes New York Harbor; Battery Park and the John Ericsson statue; the elevated railways at Bowery and Worth Streets; Broadway sights like Grace Church and Mark Cross; the Flatiron Building on Fifth Avenue; and Madison Avenue. Produced only three years before the outbreak of World War I, the everyday life of the city recorded here—street traffic, people going about their business—has a casual, almost pastoral quality that differs from the modernist perspective of later city-symphony films like Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler’s "Manhatta" (1921). Take note of the surprising and remarkably timeless expression of boredom exhibited by a young girl filmed as she was chauffeured along Broadway in the front seat of a convertible limousine.
Jaywalking wasn't even really a concept until ~1915. It's legal again in NYC as of last year. Jaywalking laws against pedestrians and other non-drivers could be viewed as a taking from or enclosure of the commons; in this case, roads as public thoroughfares for one and all. In this light, the behavior of drivers towards cyclists is a continuation of their hostility towards horse carriage users and pedestrians.
Folks have been cycling in NYC long before cars were common. Before that, folks were using the roads for all manner of pursuits. Roads are tools for living, and they're for everyone who needs them if a better option more suited for your mode of transportation isn't available.
It’s more like the cities have chosen to turn _every public space_ into a dog park that you have no ability to escape. For the pleasure of living in this inefficient landscape, you are charged in the form of taxes to maintain it. Dog owners remain convinced that because they pay sales tax on kibbles, that they have a right to this space. After all, it’s just how places naturally are!
Not enough. I've been consistently stating throughout this thread that people need to pay for their use. The fact that motorists shoulder some but not all of the cost is not an argument that cyclists should be exempted from paying any of the cost.
> A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society.
1) Are you going to fund that? Because it means a significant increase in testing examiners.
2) The data say over and over and over that the single best traffic safety enhancement would be to ban drivers until they are 21. People have to be in their 80s(!) before they are as bad as drivers in their teens and early 20s.
1) could reasonably be self funded. $150 per driver every 5 years is a rounding error compared to all the other costs of car ownership.
2) how much of this is because the drivers are young, and how much because they are inexperienced? If you ban teenage drivers, your 22-year-old drivers will still be inexperienced.
I would support re-testing on some interval like every 5 years. That said, so much could be done to make the environment safer. Lower speeds, more traffic calming, safer intersections, safer alternatives (public transit, walking, bicycle).
I can't help but think about the failures of basic human-oriented infrastructure when I can't safely ride my bike to the grocery store 2 miles from my home. I don't know what it'll take to change this in our cities, and it feels like an uphill battle when seemingly very few people care about problems like these.
"Safely" is a subjective term. Plenty of motorists are injured in MVAs on 2 mile drives to get groceries too. What cyclists should pursue is an accident rate equivalent to cars, per hour in traffic.
Everyone agrees to this, the problem is there needs to be a way for this to be done efficiently so it's not another regressive tax on poor people's time and money.
I think the US at least does sight tests periodically? The UK still doesn't do that, you're required to have decent vision to drive, but the license renewals are just paperwork, pay the money and click a web form.
There is talk in the UK of requiring sight tests for the elderly. Historically UK licenses required frequent renewal, when they were centralised for convenience they ceased to have a renewal step, and it was kinda-sorta reintroduced much later once they had photographs because of course a 40 year photo is unrecognisable. But because of the focus on photographs the renewal step is integrated to passports, and is a chain-of-likeness documentation process. If I look a big greyer than last time in the photo I upload, pay, wait a few days, OK, some mix of humans and machines says that's the same guy as the other photo except older, replace image, print new ID.
Since it's aligned with passports (which also care about image similarity) there's no room in that step for like "Do your eyes still work?" let alone "Do you know what this fucking sign means?" or anything resembling mandatory continuing education.
I think a lot about this (bad drivers) and I’m not really sure how to fix it since I think it’s really a problem of underlying selfishness and perceived-exceptionalism mixed with overestimation of skill.
Don't you think that the vast majority of dangerous human drivers would be perfectly capable of changing their behavior during a driving test? Even without any malicious intent most people would be more careful during a test.
I want a camera on every traffic light and stop light - or better, cameras on a random 20% subset of intersections. The system would automatically flag infractions for human review. Combined with docking points off people's licenses and/or fines based on income/wealth percentage, this would be a decent deterrent.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
That shift will happen all by itself. At some point, in a distant future, the price of the insurrance for human-driven cars will be so expensive that people because of that will choose a robot-driven car.
It is all about risk (the risk of the insurrance company loosing money) and an error prone and unpreditical human will be a considered high risk in that regard.
Will it though? Surely as driverless cars become viable the "I don't wanna do this, I actively don't care about doing it well" crowd will adopt them and insurance rates for everyone else will likely plummet.
What I would love to see happen from a safety perspective and which I think might happen (but zero timeline on when) is that a human driving a car will be relegated to something people do purely for enjoyment and only in areas designated for human drivers, similar to how you don't see horseback riding anymore except in designated areas or for specific use cases.
If you actually ride in one, you do notice some off behaviors that I didn't pick up while just driving alongside them. That said, I agree that the bad human drivers have done things far, far worse than any of the cars.
The biggest gripe with riding in one is that they're slow, both because of super cautious driving and because they won't take freeways yet.
A month ago I saw a Waymo turn left into a tiny alley in Palo Alto and continue at full 25mph speed, which was alarming. I guess the alley is marked as a regular road in the software? Highlights how even if it's safer than humans on average, they need to minimize these weird behaviors in order to get socially accepted and avoid $$$ liability when there is an accident.
New speedbumps were installed in a school zone near my housing complex recently, we're a heavy Waymo area and I watched one of them launch itself over one without slowing down.
They installed one of those near my friends house. There's a couple mechanic shops in the vicinity used it for diagnosis while driving exactly the posted speed limit. It lasted about a month until the people who complained it into existence complained it out of existence.
I have only taken a couple Waymos but I had the opposite experience. They were much faster and more decisive than I expected. They do apparently learn from surrounding drivers and this was LA so maybe that explains the difference.
Interesting. I hadn’t considered it but that makes a lot of sense. I wonder if that happens per car or per ride. Do aggression settings adjust to apparent passenger comfort?
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty
I have taken driving licence exams in 3 different countries in the world and the NY exams was, by far, the easiest, less stringent one.
For the theory part, you can take the exam from home, on your own laptop and you just have to pinky swear you won't cheat. It's downright silly.
Also, traffic enforcement in NYC feels basically nonexistent. Drivers will run red lights, fail to yield at pedestrian crossings and will park wherever they feel like it. And the police won't do anything - in fact, the police are one of the biggest offenders.
Like "real" safety or like "16yo with a driver's ed instructor in the passenger seat ensuring the follow every law but doesn't really 'get it' yet" safely?
be careful what you wish for, you are giving up your freedom to movement in the name of security. you might make the argument that you can hail a cab. that's more expensive than owning your own car and with self driving cabs you will lose your privacy when you use them. any movement between 2 points will always be recorded with at least video and as you are moving, someone else other than you can pinpoint your exact location. with your own vehicle, you could unplug your phone and car GPS/tracking device and have some privacy.
> you are giving up your freedom to movement in the name of security
Driving in American cities is the opposite of freedom. The necessity of regulating apes piloting heavy machinery in close proximity to each other and society is a major source of our modern police state.
We do not have a freedom to movement _by motor vehicle_ in the US.
It is a privilege licensed by the State and regularly revoked through due process or expiry.
While your concern about mobility and privacy are valid, I would contend that public safety is what it’s to be weighed against. Some people really are better riders than drivers.
Making it more difficult to obtain (or keep) a driver's license is meaningless without tough enforcement. Traffic enforcement in many areas is still way down after the "mostly peaceful" protests in 2020. When police do stop an unlicensed driver they often treat it as a simple citation without even impounding the vehicle.
> would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road
A Manhattan driver’s license addendum might be the way to do it. Keep a low bar for where one might need a car. But to enter Manhattan, you need to be autonomous or specially licensed.
Human failures have some, but not total, correlation with each other. A big fear of autonomous driving is some severe failure with total correlation - the whole fleet does the same dumb thing at the same time, in the same place, and/or in the same way.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
I'd like to challenge this part. I don't see the value of increasing the driving license tests. Reckless drivers can be reckless regardless of their initial driving license tests. You just need drivers with sense of responsibilities. they will get to know road norms as they go, which often is far more valuable than the driving license quizzes.
Context: I moved to a new place where acquiring a license can take more than a year. It turns into a game where driving license companies deliberately fail you just to get you to pay more.
I live in the bay and occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time.
I visited NYC a few weeks ago and was instantly reminded of how much the traffic fucking sucks :) While I was there I actually thought of Waymo and how they'd have to turn up the "aggression" slider up to 11 to get anything done there. I mean, could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?
Semi-related, but just once in my life, I want to hear a mayoral candidate say: “I endorse broken windows theory, but for drivers. You honk when there’s no emergency, block the box, roll through a stop sign — buddy that’s a ticket. Do it enough and we’ll impound your car.”
Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…
This always astounds me about cities who have a reputation for people breaking certain traffic laws. In St. Louis, people run red lights for 5+ seconds after it turns red, and no one seems to care to solve it, but if they'd just station police at some worst-offender lights for a couple months to write tickets, people would catch on pretty quickly that it's not worth the risk. I have similar thoughts on people using their phones at red lights and people running stop signs.
It’s amazing how effective even a slight amount of random law enforcement can be.
Several of the hiking trails I frequent allow dogs but only on leash. Over time the number of dogs running around off leash grows until it’s nearly every dog you see.
When the city starts putting someone at the trailhead at random times to write tickets for people coming down the trail with off-leash dogs suddenly most dogs are back on leash again. Then they stop enforcing it and the number of off-leash dogs starts growing.
Random sampling over time is substantially as effective as having someone enforce the law 100% of the time. It's something like how randomized algorithms can be faster than their purely-deterministic counterparts, or how sampling a population is quite effective at finding population statistics.
It feels less fair though. When everyone is driving x mph over the limit but only you get pulled over, it sucks. So I agree for efficiency of enforcement, but I'd rather see 100% enforcement (automated if possible), with more warnings and lower penalties.
That's a pretty extreme example, maybe the idea doesn't hold as much there. But yeah, if 99% of murders weren't prosecuted, the 1% who get charged might feel like they were singled out (and maybe they were, because of some bias or discrimination). Again, 100% enforcement is better.
It doesn't just "feel" less fair, it often is -- bc it's not truly random, it's selective enforcement which leads to things like "driving while black".
The problem with 100% enforcement is it doesn't allow law enforcement any discretion, and then you end up having to actually officially change the speed limit which would probably never happen
Definitely true in practice, but I don't think we want discretion. What I mean though is as a deterrent, you can either have a "fair" fine that's enforced 100% of the time, or 2x the "fair" amount with 50% enforcement, etc. When it's 100x the "fair" amount with 1% enforcement, and you see everyone else not being enforced, it feels unfair.
Traffic rules do require some discretion though - if eg you don’t allow crossing a double yellow line but a car is broken down blocking the lane, does that mean that the road is now effectively unusable until that car is towed? Lots of examples.
But I’m with you on more enforcement. I’m totally fine with automated traffic cameras and it was working great when I was in China - suddenly seemingly overnight everyone stopped speeding on the highways when I was in Shanghai, as your chances of getting a ticket were super high.
In Massachusetts, USA, red light cameras were illegal until very recently, due to a 70s era law specifying that a live policeman had to issue a citation for something like that. From well before traffic cameras were common.
We had a pilot program in NJ for them, they were universally hated. People would slam brakes on and be hanging over the edge into intersection and throw their car into reverse panicking to avoid the ticket, ended up causing a ton of new accidents so the program was never continued. In newark people shot at the cameras: https://www.nj.com/news/2012/08/shoot_out_the_red_lights_2_t...
That's an insufficient yellow phase rather than a camera problem. Not sure why NJ would think their population are special snowflakes that can't deal with red light cameras otherwise.
I bet if you come back after they've removed the old one but before they install the new one you can wreck the threads on the threaded anchors by impacting the wrong size higher grade nut on.
Sweden: Their locations are public. There is even an official API.
They are mostly located in sane places.
Apps like Waze consume this API and warn drivers if they’re at risk of getting caught. It’s the deterrence/slowdown at known risky spots they’re after, not the fine, I guess.
I heard that apps warning drivers this way are illegal in Germany?
Aside: what's up with the traffic speed cameras in Sweden? It feels like they're not designed to catch anybody. In my recent drive there it seemed like most of the cameras were in an 80 zone just before it switch to 50 for a tiny town. They wouldn't catch a typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere -- they would likely have already started slowing down for the 50.
In my city in Canada, that camera would be in the 50 zone.
The typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere is probably not the biggest safety hazard.
When I lived in a small town in Sweden, the problem was that at night some drivers would blow down the country roads and straight through the small towns at crazy speeds assuming that there was nobody around. On some nights/weekends there were also zero police on duty in the whole municipality, they would have to be called in from a neighboring, larger, municipality.
But does it slow people down? I doubt it has significant effect. Very few people are going to be going over 80 a few meters in front of a 50 sign. You essentially are only catching people who are doing close to double the upcoming speed limit. Those who are willing to do that should be getting much more severe punishment than a speeding ticket.
Here in my country they removed the cameras in the second largest city after a trial period. It took too much effort to filter out police colleagues running a red (in police or civilian vehicles).
Ah that is easy here. 1) civilian vehicles never get leeway 2) we know the license plates of all police cars so we just filter it. Or actually only do so when they use proper permission to run a light
In most the USA, or at least Arizona, you have to serve someone. Just dropping something in a mail box doesn't mean dick. The very people that invented the traffic cameras up in Scottsdale were caught dodging the process servers from triggers from their own camera.
Another words, you have to spend hundreds of dollars chasing someone down, by the time you add that on to how easy it is to jam up the ticket in court by demanding an actual human being accuse you, it's not the easy win some may think. You're basically looking at $500+ to try and prosecute someone for a $300 ticket.
NY is not Arizona. They have the plate and send the fine to whomever the vehicle is registered to. If the fine isn't paid they flag the plate and impound the car if it's driven in their state.
In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide.
"The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation"
What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.
When the police come across a car that's parked illegally, do you think they should need to wait around and figure out exactly who left it before issuing a ticket? Of course not; the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring it's parked legally.
In the same way, it's the vehicle owner's responsibility to make sure their car is not driven through a red light. If they abdicate that responsibility, they aren't innocent!
That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this.
Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.
1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations
2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets)
If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond.
Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.
Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.
You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.
If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1].
The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras.
My friend "showed" the plates were not his (he couldn't prove the car wasn't stolen because it wasn't -- they only copied his plate) but they kept sending him tickets because apparently it only counts for one ticket. They wanted him to go through a laborious process every time. I think he finally just stopped challenging them because it took too much time, and probably can't go to that state again unless he wants his car seized.
In CO we have automatic traffic cameras, and to my knowledge they just mail you the ticket, which is usually only a fine (and no license points). Its one of those “automatic plea” tickets where if you fight it, you fight (and risk conviction on) the actual offense, while if you just pay the ticket it will automatically get downgraded to a less serious offense (IE parking outside the lines).
I live in AZ, try driving on Lincoln in Paradise Valley. Everyone is going at 40mph because of the speed cameras. Most people don't want to be fugitives.
I sometimes use Tatum with PV's speed vans parked on the side of the road to head towards downtown Phx and, yes, the common speed is definitely around 40. But pretty much as soon as past McDonald and on 44th St, I resume the the normalized 7-8 mph over the posted limit because I know there are no more speed cameras.
It's just a process server, not cops. It's just the equivalent of a glorified delivery man looking for you. The general counsel, an executive, and the employees in general of ATS (the company that does the traffic cameras in most of AZ and I think much the USA) dodge the process servers when they get caught by their own cameras. The people that understand how the process works don't seem too bothered being a "fugitive" as it's all a nothing-burger and if you get caught all it means is you need to hire a lawyer to make it go away or pay the ticket.
Not in New Jersey. I visited my parents and didn’t stop for a full three seconds before making a right on red on a deserted road at night and they fined my dad.
They were rolled out but the mailed tickets are legally meaningless, someone has to actually hunt you down within a short timespan (I think 90 days) to create any binding requirement to address it.
A mailed citation from a photo radar camera is not an official ticket and does not need to be responded to unless it has been formally served to you.
The problem with traffic cameras in the US was that they became outsourced revenue enhancement rather than public safety.
The cameras would get installed at busy intersections with lots of minor infractions to collect fines on rather than unsafe intersections that had lots of bad accidents. And then, when the revenue was insufficient, they would dial down the yellow light time.
Consequently, and rightly, Americans now immediately revolt against traffic cameras whenever they appear.
(San Diego was one particularly egregious example. They installed the cameras on the busy freeway interchange lights when the super dangerous intersection that produced all the T-bone accidents was literally one traffic light up the hill. This infuriated everybody.)
Nobody thinks it's racist to enforce traffic laws. People think it's racist to selectively enforce traffic laws by race, which usually takes the form of police pulling over Black drivers at higher rates. (But it can also mean installing more traffic cameras in minority neighborhoods!)
Try driving anywhere in the world that's not Western Europe or The USA and you'll quickly see how advanced even our worst cities are when it comes to traffic.
Last time I was in China drivers simply go through four way intersections at top speed from all directions simultaneously. If you are a pedestrian I hope you're good at frogger because there is a 0% chance anyone will stop for you. I really wonder how self driving cars work because they must program some kind of insane software that ignores all laws or it wouldn't even be remotely workable.
When I was living in China I got used to crossing large streets one lane at a time. Pedestrians stand on the lane markers with cars whizzing by on either side while they wait for a gap big enough to cross the next lane. It's not great for safety, to put it mildly, but the drivers expect it and it's the only way to get across the road in some places. I was freaked out by it but eventually it became habit.
Then I came back to the US and forgot to switch back to US-style street crossing behavior at first. No physical harm done, but I was very embarrassed when people slammed on their brakes at the sight of me in the middle of the road.
I've never been to SK, but in Japan things are -- unsurprisingly, as one might guess -- very orderly. For the most part (in cities at least) you don't jaywalk, even when there are no cars on the road.
Same in Korea, just on the other side of the road, very polite and professional, no one breaks rules for the most part, even in Major Cities.
I know a lot of foreigners like Japan for motorcycling specifically because you can "white line" in most places, and the drivers are attentive.
The one quirk I thought was most interesting was Crab Angle Stops or when at a T shape stop lights that have an additional stop light 20 feet further from the intersection. Sometimes the cars will align diagonally to allow more traffic per light and let whoever is in front have a better angle to see traffic on small roads with poor visibility. Then when the light turns green the diagonally aligned cars move back to normal.
Like ////// to - - - - - -
Officially, the 道路交通法 (Road Traffic Act) doesn’t say “you must angle.” It just requires drivers to stop at the line and confirm safety before entering.
The diagonal stop is more of a local driving custom (practical adaptation) rather than a codified rule.
What the actual rules are matter far less than that traffic is predictable. Like in Boston it's typical for a few cars to get into the intersection to take a left, traffic goes around them in both directions and only on the change to red to they go. Not technically legal but normal. 4-way stops where nobody stops and everyone times their roll unless there's a reason to. Also not technically legal but normal. Nobody with an opinion worth caring about complains about these things. Blowing lights many seconds after they've changed is still wild IMO.
That sounds reasonable to me. Everybody makes mistakes, but nobody should be consistently making grievous mistakes capable of causing serious injury or death to other motorists on a regular basis.
I'm less concerned with a little speeding than I am with blowing through lights and stop signs.
I think in most areas with cameras where fines are automatically assesed to the vehicle owner (who is not necessarily the driver), there are no points. That way it's just a civil penalty and the burden of proof is low. "We have a photo" is enough.
If they run a red light today there is some small chance they will injure/kill someone.
If they run a red light with a camera, there is a 100% chance they will receive a ticket.
The key factor is not the magnitude of the penalty (i.e. whether someone dies or they receive a fine) but the chance that they will encounter the penalty.
It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced. We need a lot more red light cameras.
The nominal regulations on automotive behavior is pretty sufficient throughout the US, the main problem is that in most parts of the country traffic law may as well be a dead letter.
> It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced.
It's enforced in the worst congested zones, the intersections around tunnel entrances and midtown, but as I said in my other comment usually by parking enforcement not NYPD.
A workaround in the law is to throw your turn signal on if stranded in the box, this doesn't count as blocking the box.
It is in NYC as well and it's usually enforced by parking enforcement (doesn't carry points but it has a steep fine), if NYPD writes it also comes with points but in my experience they'd rather let the walking ticket printers do it.
Great! and if enforcement were consistent, rule-breaking behavior would probably decline:
> Quick, clear and consistent also works in controlling crime. It’s not a coincidence that the same approach works for parenting and crime control because the problems are largely the same. Moreover, in both domains quick, clear and consistent punishment need not be severe.
> Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…
I think this could be an interesting unintended consequence of the proliferation of Waymos: if everyone gets used to drivers that obey the law to letter, it could slipstream into being a norm by sheer numbers.
If you look into the fleet size serving Waymo service areas, it's remarkably small. But because they work 24/7 they serve up a lot of rides, punching way above their weight in terms of market share in ride hailing.
Their effect on traffic and how drivers behave will be similarly amplified. It could turn out to be disastrous for Waymo. But I suspect that low speed limits in New York will work to Waymo's favor.]
I've seen reports that they've been testing Driver 6 in snowy places like around Lake Tahoe and the upper Midwest last winter. I suppose this year we'll find out how well that went.
Ultimately I wouldn’t support this level of snitching (especially in our current political env) but I’ve had the idea of:
A bounty program to submit dash cam video of egregious driving crimes. It gets reviewed, maybe even by AI initially and then gets escalated to formal ticket if legit. Once ticket is paid, the snitch gets a percentage.
Again, I am fundamentally against something like this though, especially now.
Snitching... Please. We're not in the school playground any more. We're talking about taking responsibility when it comes to operating a vehicle in public. There's a huge imbalance of power when it comes to car use especially and we need to restore the balance. People need a recourse against irresponsible and bad drivers.
do you actually know every specific vehicle code and regulation everywhere you drive? I constantly remark to my dashcam about people breaking the law in my jurisdiction.
Would you be bothered if someone was following you all day, making recordings every time you didn't signal for exactly 5000ms before a lane change, or 300' before a turn? how about not stopping for a full three seconds, or driving an extra 100' in the left lane than necessary?
NYPD cops don't like enforcing traffic violations: https://i.redd.it/w6es37v1sqpc1.png (License holders and drivers on the road are up in the same period that summonses are down, too. Traffic is up since pre-covid.)
Now that I live in Toronto we face the same challenges. Politicians may introduce traffic laws to curb dangers and nuisances from drivers, but police refuse to enforce them. As they don't live in the city, cops seem to prefer to side with drivers over local pedestrians, residents or cyclists who they view antagonistically. Broken window works for them because they enjoy harassing pedestrians and residents of the communities they commute into.
So there is a bigger problem to solve than legislation.
Police quiet quitting and arbitrarily choosing what laws they feel like enforcing is a huge problem.
The most effective fix vis a vis traffic is simply automating so much of it with speed averaging cameras and intersection cameras and taking police out of the equation and retasking them to more important things that only they can do.
Don't police have quotas any more? 40 years ago everybody knew not to speed at the end of the month because a cop that would normally give you a warning for a small speed infraction would give you a ticket instead so they could make this month's quota.
Part of the problem is we have police doing far too many jobs. We need to separate out traffic enforcement, mental health responses, and other works into their own focused units. Especially the mental health responses, as far too often police refuse to or (at best) don't know how to de-escalate in those situations.
Bringing a gun and a taser to every problem guarantees that a lot of problems will be "solved" with the wrong tools. It's impossible to train enough people to carry guns and tasers and use them wisely.
The current Democratic nominee and frontrunner for NYC mayor plans to do exactly that! He plans to create a Department of Community Safety to take over mental health responses from NYPD.
I agree we need to separate these responsibilities, but when it comes to mental health response, the police themselves are often opposed to alternatives, even while they complain that they're not mental health providers and often can't do anything in those types of situations.
In my city, we've had an underfunded street response program for a few years now, but a lot of people (including a lot of people who don't live here) see it as antagonistic to police and police funding, when really it should just be part of a holistic system to address social issues.
It makes no sense to me that the people who ostensibly care the most about addressing crime and "disorder" on the streets are often the most oppositional to programs that might actually address some of the underlying issues (not all of course, but some).
As a paramedic, multiple times I've watched police walk into a mental health emergency that we were handing satisfactorily, to everyone's contentment, patient, family, bystanders...
... and escalate it into a law enforcement situation.
One situation sticks in my mind. Person had broken a glass bottle on a curb. Family member was sweeping and cleaning that up while we dealt with laceration and planning for in-patient help (they were off their meds).
LE shows up, and immediately starts yelling aggressively at the patient about the broken glass, liability for any tires, injuries. Patient makes some comments back, so LE gets in his face and yells more, leads to patient trying to push off a bit and saying "get out of my face", cop is arresting him for assaulting a police officer.
Only with me and my partner talking to the Sergeant who showed up shortly after did it get de-escalated, but better believe the cop (and even the Sergeant) weren't happy with us about it.
Isn't that what speed cameras are about? Seem a lot more efficient and cheaper. I got a few tickets, nothing too serious just ran the yellow a little too close and 40 in 25. And if def changed my behavior
In many places outside the USA they just use cameras for box blocking, stop sign rolling, speeding...and there is a system for honking also. But many in the states think automation here is too Orwellian.
They do that in NY too. The worst offenders inevitably have fake/defaced/covered/no license plates. That should be cracked down on very hard but the police and prosecutors are strangely reluctant.
A sound solution in general, but the majority of police and firefighters and government employees with a connection to law enforcement cover their license plates with magnetic 'leaves' and so on. It's an undocumented perk for government employees.
>We don't go after moving violations anymore (in NYC) because the driver might have a bad reaction. True story.
Who is "we"? And it's not a "true story." In fact, the NYPD issued almost 52,000 moving violation summonses in July 2025 alone and more than 400,000 year to date.[0]
If 400,000 moving violation summonses just this year is your "true story" about moving violations not being issued to avoid "bad reactions", do you believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus as well?
Or are you referring to the policy that NYPD cars shouldn't endanger the lives of everyone by engaging in high-speed chases on city streets?[1] Which is a completely different thing.
My wife and I took a road trip that included time in SF last year and seeing a Waymo was pretty neat.
To save some money, we stayed in downtown Oakland and took the BART into San Francisco. After getting ice cream at the Ghirardelli Chocolate shop, we were headed to Pier 39. My wife has a bad ankle and can't walk very far before needing a break to sit, and we could have taken another bus, we decided to take a Waymo for the novelty of it. It felt like being in the future.
I own a Tesla and have had trials of FSD, but being in a car that was ACTUALLY autonomous and didn't merely pretend to be was amazing. For that short ride of 7 city blocks, it was like being in a sci-fi film.
The company selling the car is adamant that none of their cars are fully autonomous in every single legal or regularity context. Any accident caused by the car is 100% the fault of the driver. But the company markets their cars as fully autonomous. That's pretty much the definition of pretending to be autonomous.
I think we are at the point where the data suggests they bear more risk when they drive the tesla themselves. See the bloomburg report on accidents per mile.
Are you referring to the one where a Waymo, and several other cars, were stopped at a traffic light, when another car (incidentally, a Tesla) barreled into the traffic stack at 90 MPH, killing several people?
Because I am not aware of any other fatal accidents where a Waymo was even slightly involved. I think it's, at best, misleading to refer to that in the same sentence as FSD-involved fatalities where FSD was the direct cause.
They key difference is that the Teslas killed their passengers, the Waymo hit someone outside the car (and it wasn't the Waymo's fault, it was hit by another car).
Yes. [1] That incident got considerable publicity in the San Francisco media. But not because of the Waymo.[2][3]
Someone was driving a Tesla on I-280 into SF. They'd previously been involved in a hit-and-run accident on the freeway. They exited I-280 at the 6th St. off ramp, which is
a long straightaway. They entered surface streets at 98 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, ran through a red light, and reached the next intersection, where traffic was stopped at a red light. The Tesla Model Y plowed into a lane of stopped cars, killing one person and one dog, injuring seven others, and demolishing at least six vehicles. One of the vehicles waiting was a Waymo, which had no one on board at the time.
The driver of the Tesla claims their brakes failed. "Police on Monday booked Zheng on one count of felony vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving causing injury, felony vandalism and speeding."[2]
The question should be less who was at fault and more would a human driver have reacted better in that situation and avoided the fatality. I'm not sure why you think that whether the fatality occurred inside or outside of the car changes the calculus, but in that case only one of the two documented Tesla FSD-related fatalities killed the driver. Judging by the incident statistics of Tesla's Autopilot going back over half a decade, I'm pretty sure it's significantly safer than the average human driver and continues to improve, and the point of comparison in the original post was with human driving rather than Waymo. I have no doubt that Waymo, with its constrained operating areas and parameters, is safer in aggregate than Tesla's general-purpose FSD system.
FSD is not Autopilot despite the names being conflated today, but even if you want to count all 28, it's not enough to compare raw numbers of fatal incidents without considering the difference in scale. That's not to justify taking your eyes off the road when enabling FSD on a Tesla, but the OP did not suggest that either anyway.
There is no world in which New York lets Teslas drive autonomously in the next decade. Had they not been grandfathered in in California, I doubt politics there would have allowed it either.
Are you trying to draw a distinction between sleeping versus looking away from the road and not paying attention to it? I expect both situations to have similar results with similar levels of danger in a Tesla, and the latter is the bare minimum for autonomous/unattended.
No, rather, if the manufacturer of the self-driving software doesn't take full legal liability for actions taken by the car, then it's not autonomous. This is the once and final criterion for a self-driving vehicle.
Right now, Tesla skirts legal liability by saying that the driver needs to watch the road and be ready to take control, and then uses measures like detecting your hand on the wheel and tracking your gaze to make sure you're watching the road. If a car driving on FSD crashes, Tesla will say it's the driver's fault for not monitoring the drive.
Hell, they'll even hold a press conference touting (selective data from) telemetry to say "The vehicle had been warning him to pay attention prior to the accident!"
And then four months later when the actual accident investigation comes out, you'll find out that yes, it had. Once. Eighteen minutes prior to the accident.
And then to add insult to that, for a very long time, Tesla would fight you for access to your own telemetry data if, for example, it was needed in a lawsuit against someone else for an accident.
I was in a Waymo in SF last weekend riding from the Richmond district to SOMA, and the car actually surprised me by accelerating through two yellow lights. It was exactly what I would have done. So it seems the cars are able to dial up the assertiveness when appropriate.
It doesn't seem impossible technically to up the assertiveness. The issue is the tradeoffs: you up the assertiveness, and increase the number of accidents by X%. Inevitably, that will contribute to some fatal crash. Does the decision maker want to be the one trying to justify to the jury knowingly causing an expected one more fatal incident in order to improve average fleet time to destination by 25%?
Reinforcement learning is a helluva drug. I'm sure by now Waymos can time yellows in SF to within a nanosecond, whereas humans will only ever drive through so many yellows will never get that much training data.
A human can know the yellows on a few routes. A Waymo can pull over, observe a given intersection for an hour, and tell every other Waymo that exists precisely how long that light lasts.
It's not just collecting the information; it's the ability to spread it.
I'm sure "timing of yellow" is only a few parameters in its network at this point. And it's continuously training, it can probably one-shot the timing changes ( one taxi ride through maybe 3 lights ).
When red-light cameras are installed at an intersection, the number of rear-end accidents typically increases as drivers unexpectedly slow down instead of speeding up at yellow lights.
The cost of these accidents is borne by just about everyone, except the authority profitably operating the red lights. (To be fair, some statistics also show a decrease in right-angle collisions, which is kinda the point of the red-light rules to begin with.)
That seems only like a temporary problem until people get used to actually stopping at red lights, as they are supposed to. After the initial acceptance phase, it should minimise accidents over the longer term.
Unless there is a warning of how long is left on the yellow light, it’s an unsolvable problem because there is an asymmetric risk of stopping vs accelerating
The lights should be designed so that if you don't have enough space to stop with a mild deceleration you should just go through. If a mild deceleration get you rear ended then of course that's an unsolvable problem
No one wants to risk a ticket with a guess at how long the yellow is going to be, or whether they’ll make it thru or not. That is the unsolvable part. Yellows are inconsistent , and you aren’t accounting for slow-moving traffic ahead of you that might cause you to block the intersection, etc.
There was actually a scandal in Chicago were a study found that the city systematically reduced the length of yellows only on lights that had red light cameras in order to harvest tickets.
I feel like the subtext of all these concerns is that you'd need to drive very carefully to reliably avoid camera tickets... and nobody wants to drive that carefully. I get it, I don't either, and I do get occasional camera tickets. But like: I should also be driving more carefully.
My memory may be outdated or only local to my jurisdiction but my understanding is that yellow means “do not enter the intersection” where “intersection” begins before the box, usually with some alternate street indicator, like broken white lines turning to solid, at a braking distance that accounts for posted speed limit and yellow light duration.
Each Waymo is equipped with multiple cameras (potentially LPR), LIDAR, etc. The car knows when the vehicles around it are breaking traffic laws and can provide photographic/video evidence of it. Imagine if Waymo cars started reporting violators to the police, and if the police started accepting those reports. Someday they might.
Yes it could potentially be very dystopian for human drivers. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Police departments could make a lot of extra money from the additional traffic tickets; there is a financial incentive for them to do this.
Making money from tickets is supporting the wrong behavior of trying to find excuses to ticket you for anything to get extra money - this is often leading to cops looking for cheap ways to get the extra cash where they can get it easily, instead of doing more important work where their chance to ticket you is lower even if more important for safety.
I had my second Waymo ride in SF 2 weeks ago and I had to press the support button: it was behind a large bus that was backing up to parallel park. The bus was waiting for the Waymo to get out of the way while the Waymo was waiting for the bus to move forward.
It took only a few seconds for a human to answer the support request and she immediately ordered the Waymo to go to a different lane. Very happy with the responsiveness of support, but there's clearly still some situations that Waymo can't deal with.
Eventually the waymo would determine the bus wasn't moving and go around. I had the same situation happen with a garbage truck, but I didn't press the button. It can handle the scenario if you just wait.
>> could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?
I wonder how many Waymos following the rules would be needed to reduce gridlock.
Waymo in SF pretty much drives like a human, and that includes doing human things like cutting lanes, stopping wherever it feels like, driving in the bus lane etc. I think it’ll be fine in NYC
Waymo in LA also drives pretty much like a human here would, which includes: not yielding for pedestrian-only crosswalks, running red lights, driving in the oncoming traffic/suicide/bike lane, occupying two lanes, blocking entrances/driveways/intersections, and stopping/parking in no-stop/parking curbs.
They're only really phenomenal at not hitting things; they really aren't good/courteous/predictable drivers under most conventional definitions.
Still, I think rollout in NYC will be fine. NYC generally drives slower and much less aggressively than LA, and slower gives the Waymo plenty of reaction time to not hit things.
I can attest to that. I live in Orange county and occasionally see Waymos when I go to LA, and they'll do things like merging with very little gap or merging in the middle of interactions.
Traffic? The issue half the time in NYC is the drivers.
I can't compare it to SF since I haven't been there in a while but I still thought it was not as congested to compared to NYC.
NYC has a greater population and also has a greater number of registered cars compare to SF however.
People complain a lot about drivers in dense eastern states, such as Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc. but compare the traffic fatality statistics:
Having grown up driving in these places, I can confirm that people drive a whole lot more aggressively, but what blows my mind driving damn near anywhere else in the country is how inattentive many drivers are. Around here, our turns are tight and twisty, the light cycles at our 6-way intersections are too short, most streets are one lane but on the ones that aren't, lanes disappear without warning, some lanes that are travel lanes during the day have cars parked there at night... all of this means that you need to a) be much more attentive, and b) be more aggressive because that's the only way anybody gets anywhere at all.
It's a cultural difference. Almost any time I've encountered anyone complaining about rudeness in a busy northeastern city it was because they were doing something that inconvenienced other people in a way that wasn't considered rude where they're from: pausing for a moment in a doorway to check a phone message, not immediately and quickly ordering and having their payment method ready when they reached the front of the line at a coffee shop, not staying to the right on escalators if they're just standing there and not climbing/descending... all things that are rude in this environment and people are treated the same way rude people are treated anywhere else.
That culture expresses itself in the driving culture. If those 3 extra people didn't squeeze through after that red for 3 or 4 light cycles, suddenly you're backed up for an entire light cycle which is bad news.
Waymo cars are designed for a different style of driving. I'm skeptical that they will easily adapt.
This is an interesting point of view, and I think it intuitively makes sense. But it breaks down when considering people who block the flow of traffic by running red lights and clogging the intersection - that's just straightforwardly worse for everyone except the blocker.
People do that everywhere I’ve ever driven. Not getting in other people’s way is a core cultural tenet here more than most places but there are self absorbed jerks everywhere. Consider the vitriol unleashed on people that do that. It’s not acceptable.
Tried Waymo in SF and LA, and the service was great. The only problem I noticed is that sometimes it tells you they'd pick you up in 5 minutes, and then when it's almost over they tell you "sorry, it's actually going to be 20 minutes now". Since it's still new technology, I always gave it enough buffer so it never actually was a problem for me, but they probably could do better than that... Another weird thing was it chooses strangest places to stop. E.g. I asked it to pick me up at the hotel once, and it drove right past the hotel way to the end of the block where by coincidence a couple of homeless people were camping. Not that it led to any problems, just weird, it could have stopped right where hotel had a convenient place for loading/offloading of people. Maybe eventually that gets sorted out.
I was on Market Street yesterday on my bike next to a Waymo. A bunch of cars were blocking the intersection when we had the green. The light turned red and the cars blocking the intersection were able to move. I decided to stay, but the Waymo sped through despite the light being red. I regretted not crossing.
Honestly the train system in NYC is so good, I have only taken a cab a few times since I moved here. I’ll probably take a waymo once if they roll it out here for the novelty of it, but I’d rather see people getting exciting about public transit. Life is so much better when you don’t have to depend on cars to get you places.
Driving in most of the city isn't that bad. Even most of Manhattan is fairly regular driving compared to most of the country. It really isn't until you're near midtown that the insanity kicks up.
It's fascinating seeing all the comments elsewhere anytime Waymo starts testing in another city along the lines of, "ah, but how will they handle X, Y, and Z here?? Checkmate, robots!" despite having already launched service in several other cities.
Granted, NYC is the biggest city in the US, so maybe that sort of reaction is more reasonable there than when people in Dallas or Boston do it.
NYC is a new set of challenges. As you already mentioned snow and ice is new. But also missing the high density of people and cars per square area. Behavior of drivers and pedestrians are different and much less polite. I can see it working in NYC but "just fine" is a bit of an over confidence... at least not for the first few years before they learn to deal with these issues that they don't face yet in LA and SF.
We do have narrow streets in LA with double parked cars, cars parked in the street only allowing one car through the middle at a time, and plenty of construction closures and obstacles.
Why do so many NYC people think there’s comically no cars in LA or neighborhood streets?
Also, I can assure you LA drivers are a tad bit more aggressive than NYC drivers (less honking and flicking off though, LA people are more a drive you off the road or into the shoulder sort of passive aggressive).
I was born and raised in NYC and have lived in LA for quite some time, still going home often for family. I’m really struggling with reading these “NYC is unique” comments regarding Waymo traffic.
Having driven in both LA and NYC+NJ, LA drivers feel almost serenely calm to me most of the time.
In LA, as long as you don't do anything obviously stupid and give plenty of room for people to see you coming, people will just chill and leave you be. Every now and then I will see someone do something unfathomably crazy though.
In NYC (NJ especially), this didn't work. I had to be actively psychologically manipulating other drivers in order to get even a simple lane change done. Make the other guy think he won by signaling earlier than normal so he'll gun it sooner and leave space behind him, or don't signal until I'm halfway into the lane already.
>Also, I can assure you LA drivers are a tad bit more aggressive than NYC drivers (less honking and flicking off though, LA people are more a drive you off the road or into the shoulder sort of passive aggressive).
>I was born and raised in NYC and have lived in LA for quite some time, still going home often for family. I’m really struggling with reading these “NYC is unique” comments regarding Waymo traffic.
Slightly OT, but that reminds me of a cartoon I saw many years ago (I can't remember the publication though :( )
It had two identical panels with two cars and two drivers on a road:
One panel was marked "Los Angeles" where the driver of one car had a "speaking" bubble that said "Have a nice day!" and that same driver had a "thought" bubble saying "Fuck you!"
The other panel was marked "New York," where the driver noted above's "speaking" bubble said "Fuck you!" and the the "thought" bubble said "Have a nice day!"
I've always thought it was a great metaphor. Then again, I'm a native NYer. ;)
People in LA wait to jaywalk on the street or even in the suicide lane all the time. The Waymos handle it fine; generally by asserting it has right of way unless collision is obviously imminent. They'll even happily swerve around you if you're too far out.
What snow and ice? We don't get much of that anymore.
That was actually the last thing I am worried about here. I really want to see how Waymo does with NYC drivers and obstacles(double parking on block where sometimes you have to pull in your mirrors just to get by(if you even take the chance instead of just laying on your horn). In some neighborhoods it can be so annoying.
I think a well designed winter specific FSD system is probably more safe in snow and ice than a human. For instance downshifting to ensure wheels continue to spin on slippery surfaces, subtle corrective steering to keep the vehicle within its lane, etc. should be easier for a FSD car since it won't panic and over-correct like most people do in those situations.
And if the car reduces speed when appropriate and some assholes start tailgating it, it won't suffer the anxiety of holding up 10 cars that want to drive beyond the safe, reasonable speed for the snowy/icy conditions.
The problem with places that have real winters is that lanes migrate. They are not absolutely positioned. Nor are the sides of the road edges which may project well out into the street and parked cars even further. No road markings visible. Humans make their own lanes. This situation can happen for many weeks-long periods in a typical winter in, say, Minneapolis or Buffalo suburbs.
If a self-driving car does the right thing staying "in lane" while all the human drivers do the wrong thing flocking to new emergent paths (which swing back and forth across the "lanes"), then the self-driving car is wrong and dangerous. I'm not talking about when it's actively snowing either. I mean the snow on the ground just remaining there, covering things.
It's not about dealing with slippage or skill driving, it's about complete lack of context markers. I don't think any current or near future self-driving solution can adapt to this.
That's fair and I've certainly experienced this where I live, which is north of Buffalo in latitude. Also frost heaves are no joke in non-city/non-highway roads and present another obstacle to FSD. I guess my point, if I had one, is I would hope FSD would be programmed to be as conservative as possible in adversarial winter conditions and not overreact to such conditions and that alone is enough to increase safety because humans, for various reasons, are not conservative enough. Hard to imagine for sure.
Pretty much all electric cars have single speed transmissions, so there's no downshifting. And modern vehicles have electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, automatic emergency braking, and several other safety systems. It's pretty hard to overreact with those enabled. The main issue is that people exceed safe speeds for the conditions, making them unable to brake or turn in time to avoid a collision.
Right now, most self-driving software will refuse to activate in conditions of poor visibility. I've had that happen with Tesla's FSD, though in that case it was snowing so much that the road should have been closed. Also when the snow is deep enough that your front bumper becomes a plow, it will refuse to activate.
> And modern vehicles have electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, automatic emergency braking, and several other safety systems
In ice none of these really stop overcorrection, or at least they don't in my 2020 truck on icy hill/mountain roads in Maine. And I've seen nice recent Volvos and BMWs with presumably the best safety tech in ditches up in the ski towns. The correct safe speed to drive on icy roads is not to drive at all of course, but people have to get places and people make mistakes. IME the assistive technology defaults don't do great on ice roads on some kind of up/down grade.
AFAIK drivers can still steer and brake themselves into a loss of control situation on ice regardless of safety features. So I guess I'm hoping once you take those two variables out of their hands, the FSD vehicles will be safer. Who knows though.
I went many years without a loss of control and the one time it did happen (logging roads with ice pack) was enough for me to buy Nokian studded winter tires to minimize the effect of ice as much as possible.
on the contrary, no amount of safety systems can compensate for a loss of traction on ice and snow.
The surest way to be safe on snow covered roads is to not drive at all. Also, none of the electronic trickery is a replacement for real winter tires, which many people do not buy.
> I genuinely think the most complicated challenge for Waymo in NYC will be…winter snow and ice.
Nah, I'm betting it'll be the locals. They'll get pissed off at it remaining stopped when it shouldn't and do shit like start ramming into it. I've had it happen on the island when I stopped at a yellow. NYC is a lot more chaotic than any other US city I've driven.
My point wasn’t to say they are the same, more that SF and LA (I would guess) have covered and defeated almost every single challenge and obstacle for an urban environment (sans..weather).
LA also has far denser areas than SF, places like DTLA and Koreatown are more dense than most boroughs in NYC (sans Manhattan).
My point was that it will be interesting to see how well it works in NYC where the only way to drive is aggressively in city streets breaking the rules. LA has its share of aggressive driving but as someone who has driven in both, NYC felt like I had to break the rules to go anywhere, LA not so much.
Hard to really compare a tiny piece of LA and say it’s more dense and compare it to borough that is in the same range but also magnitudes larger total pop.
Not sure why you have the impression Waymos follow written driving rules. Here in LA they break every rule that LA drivers would with the aggressiveness to match. It really does seem like they try to make them drive as "human" as possible, with all the typical behavior found in the locale. I can't imagine it'd be any different in NYC.
My experiences have been different with Waymo. It drives with far less aggression than NYC, like I already said. It will be interesting to see as I see NYC as an interesting challenge.
The thing is waymo at least in LA specifically geolocks you from those hilly areas. Imo it also is not assertive enough and drivers seem to be learning one can bully a waymo on the road.
Oof I don’t know about that. Driving in NYC is much different than San Francisco. Frequent lane departures, cutting into heavy traffic despite technically lacking right of way, and other moderate rule breaking is required to get anywhere. Boston will be even more challenging due to the hundreds of convoluted intersections.
We've been getting less and less of those, though. And even then, it's just for a few days. Last year was a bit worse, but two years ago it was very, very mild, I think. Yay global warming?
Traffic on the sidewalk is a daily occurrence and often necessity in NYC. I'm not sure exactly how every area in LA is but often (as in pretty much constantly every day) in Manhattan or Brooklyn drivers don't obey the lines on the road, don't care to bump objects and cars to fit into a spot, literally threaten to hit other cars to get anywhere.
There's a bit of a "do what you have to" mentality with NY traffic that I haven't seen in any other east coast or mid-western city. I think that poses some unique challenges that I've often seen video of Waymos freezing up when facing similar scenarios, which could cause huge issues in most of the city.
LA is extremely similar. Often can only make unprotected turns at lights while it’s red and you’re in the box, you have to wait at the top of a hill and have your car sideways while the oncoming car has space to drive up a hill, cars trying to give you space so you can drive through a line of traffic into the adjacent traffic pattern.
The “freezing” issues are very real though (and frustrating), and it’s what most everyone who uses Waymo in any city right now jokes/complains about. Waymo can often get into a weird game of “chicken” when there’s a four way stop with pedestrians, and any slight movement from the intersection can often make the car stop - so the pedestrian stops - the the Waymo finally moves again, but then pedestrian also started moving so the Waymo stops again and the pedestrian stops caring.
All this to say, I really don’t think there’s much that will be different. Go to Hollywood or Santa Monica
Here in Santa Monica, the Waymos will happily cut off pedestrians in crosswalks as soon as it decides it has waited reasonably long enough and it won't hit them.
Same with 4-way stops: once it thinks it waited long enough, it doesn't matter whose turn it rightfully is, if it sees an open path it will just take it.
there is nowhere in LA with the complex intermingling of pedestrian, car, bicycle, and motorbike traffic of anywhere in the boroughs other than Staten.
LA it’s gridlock or go. There’s nothing complicated about it other than strategizing where is gridlock and where is Go.
Crossing the street as a pedestrian without a walk signal in NYC goes:
- look in the direction of oncoming traffic as you approach the intersection, cross if you think you can make it without breaking your stride
- if there is traffic, step off the curb into the street and wait for a large enough gap in traffic to walk against the light
- if there is backed up traffic, find a gap to walk in between
Wait until New Yorkers figure out that Waymos will detect you and yield in order to avoid hitting you. People will just disregard and cross right in front of them.
Also, yes, you can walk in LA, but the major difference here is that the sidewalks are for commuting here in NYC. We don't just walk for pleasure.
> Wait until New Yorkers figure out that Waymos will detect you and yield in order to avoid hitting you. People will just disregard and cross right in front of them
This is true everywhere. Waymos have learned to time an aggressive run up. Same as every New York driver.
Yeah it’ll be interesting to see how it deals with our pedestrian traffic. I’m sure they’ll figure it out, but pedestrians are a whole different sort of thing here than on the west coast. I notice I don’t really jaywalk in LA, and do less in SF, but here in NYC it’s just what everyone does at every intersection in the entire city.
NYC is also one of the most regularly built out cities, in stark contrast to Boston, for instance. OTOH roads here may be 3 or even 4 levels high at the same point (e.g. where Manhattan bridge meets Brooklyn), and GPS is sometimes way off in canyons between skyscrapers.
> OTOH roads here may be 3 or even 4 levels high at the same point
And here I thought Chicago was complex with lower lower Wacker (just 3 levels).
> GPS is sometimes way off in canyons between skyscrapers
This is probably very challenging for human drivers using navigation, but probably no nearly as much of a problem for a Waymo car with onboard 3D maps of the entire operating area.
I think the main difference for NYC is that quite a few streets and intersections routinely have 10x to 100x the pedestrian traffic of the busiest such intersections in pretty much any other American city.
That's not to say that I don't think it'll be able to handle it, just that it'll be a new challenge. I wonder if their current program of apparently trying to positively track every single moving object in range will survive that, or whether they'll need to figure out some algorithm to prioritize objects that are more likely to be of concern to it. And there probably are more than a few places where pedestrians are numerous and densely crowded enough that you can't positively track all of them, even with a bunch of LIDAR sensors.
NYC (at least the parts I've spent a bit of time in) is pretty grid like with fairly simple roads. The drivers are the hard part :)
I am excited to see them tackle Boston at some point because of how strange some of those roads are. The first time I had ever been I came to an intersection that was all one ways and there were like 7 entry/exit points. My GPS said turn left, but there were three paths I'd consider left. Thank god I was walking.
And I don't really pose much doubt because it seems like Waymo's rollout plan has been solid, but I'm just interested to see how well they tackle different cities.
Next time go below 14th street. The grid is great but very misleading. NYC has had 400+ years of development, and it's deeply not homogenous in its design.
Yup, the data so far seems to indicate that Waymo is substantially safe than average drivers. Obviously it's not inclusive yet since the tech is still new (and while the study I'm thinking of was done by a third party, it's still Waymo that handed over the data and paid them to analyze it).
Roads in Texas specifically just seem to do whatever they want, whenever they want. It's really apparent that Texas local roads used to be wagon trails.
The grid system in NYC seems like a good alternative for a rollout. Though the current NYC human drivers will hate these things. I also expect LOTS of vandalism.
There is a question, NYC driving gets by with everyone driving aggressive and breaking road rules. That is something that does not exist as much in other markets.
My complaint with Tesla city FSD is that it’s not quick or aggressive enough. It will come to long and complete stops and other things that will not work well in NYC.
The world, for sure. But not in America. I've driven in most major US cities and I drive daily in NYC. There really is no comparison in any other major US city to how we drive in NYC.
I drive when I travel, though not in NYC these days but being a pedestrian gives you a good enough view. LA from a city driving perspective at least for me is not comparable to most of NYC.
What I don't get about the "checkmate robots" mentality is that, like, get it working in sunny California with no snow, and then get it working in the snow, seems like the way to do it, not, solve all possible problems before anyone knows you're even trying and can make fun of you.
The big difference is that NYC is less law abiding and more devious. Unless you've lived here, you have no idea the lengths new yorkers will go to scam and vandalize.
Source: grew up in NY, moved 25 years in SF. Love Waymo, big investment in Google.
>despite having already launched service in several other cities.
Why does having launched in other cities matter if the new city brings up things that none of the other launched cities do?
For example the first thing I can think of new for New York is snow and ice.
It's my understanding that self-driving cars don't really account their acceleration and braking for roads that could sometimes be very slippery due to snow and ice.
> "Why does having launched in other cities matter if the new city brings up things that none of the other launched cities do?"
New requirements come up all the time in technology. The existence of a new requirement isn't in and of itself justification for skepticism - is there a particular reason to believe that Waymo is not capable of solving for the new requirement?
The answer may be yes, but simply "ahah! It would need to do [new thing]!" is insufficient. "[new thing] is likely intractable because [reason]" would be more justification for skepticism.
> "It's my understanding that self-driving cars don't really account their acceleration and braking for roads that could sometimes be very slippery due to snow and ice."
Sure, but like above - is there a reason this is an intractable problem?
I'll throw this out there: your human-driven car already accounts for acceleration and braking on slippery roads, without the need for the human. Traction control systems and electronic stability control systems exist! They're in fact incredibly common on modern cars.
The interesting snow & ice problem for me is that humans will drive in winter conditions that are unsafe -- for example white-out blizzards. Robocars won't be able to drive in a white-out blizzard, so they'll likely refuse to do so. Humans should also refuse to drive, but people drive anyways.
NYC doesn't generally get white-out blizzards, so refusing to drive in them is quite feasible.
If white-out visibility is the only problem to be addressed then machines seem pretty well placed because they can use very accurate positioning and non-visible light sensors. Unfortunately they probably wouldn't know that there's a 50 yard section of the road that always drifts in when the wind comes from the south and the snow is dry.
I come from way up top on that globe of ours. I have driven in frankly apocalyptic snowstorms. They're an insidious problem to solve, but I remain optimistic. Back home, they will close specific roads due to snowstorms, but what do you do about the cars already on the road? You can't stay put for 16 hours can you? So you move as slow as possible, sometimes as low as 5 kilometres an hour. Cause that's the thing about a snowstorm; it's about visibility. You're not risking your life if a dude in skis can go faster than you.
> You're not risking your life if a dude in skis can go faster than you.
Sure you are. You can still drive off the road and into the ditch where nobody can see you. People then die because they don't clear their tail pipe and get carbon monoxide poisoning or they try and walk for help and freeze to death.
>I'll throw this out there: your human-driven car already accounts for acceleration and braking on slippery roads, without the need for the human. Traction control systems and electronic stability control systems exist! They're in fact incredibly common on modern cars.
These systems don't help with the problems I am talking about.
You have to drive completely differently in heavy snow, significantly slower, brake sooner, turn less sharp, accelerate much slower, leave significantly larger gaps, leave space to move out of the way and be ready to move if someone behind you is coming at you too fast and can't stop in time, etc. I've spend my entire life in the midwest.
The traction control system in my 2023 camry didn't help one bit when I applied the brakes on black ice and the car didn't react at all, it just kept sliding at the same speed across the ice.
That all sounds like something that should be easier for a robot to do than the typical human. If programmed for how to drive in heavy snow, a robot should be able to switch driving modes much easier than the typical human brain.
Waymo has been trained in Buffalo NY for winter conditions, unlike most NYC drivers.
Is it possible to train a machine to drive in snow? Yes. But consider that humans are trained to do so by means of things like: actually crashing, observing others crashing, talking to people who crashed, and all of the above is highly localized. Where I live there are many days in winter when someone not from the immediate area should not drive at all. But I might if there was a good reason because I have 25 years experience with the specific roads, conditions, how those conditions relate to wind and on and on. Training a machine to know all that seems feasible but unlikely to be commercially viable. It's just not a problem that can be solved with a simple closed loop control system like ABS or traction control.
A reasonable counterargument is that autonomous vehicles can actually do that to a degree that is much, much more effective than humans. You might have 25 years of experience, but at 8 hours a day for 365 days of those 25 years we'd only need 8 cars driving for a year to match that. After all, training data and event logs generated by cars can be shared, and models can be upgraded all around. And of course that scales to more than 8 vehicles rather easily.
Launching in other cities with new problems gives experience dealing with new problems, and the meta-learnings transfer to better processes for adapting to new issues. But yeah, ice and snow are definitely major new environmental factors for New York (and DC, and many other places we are starting to see more serious testing).
Autonomous vehicles can and do take into account surface conditions, there’s not really any reason not to. There are pretty good generative models of the physics of vehicles with different surface conditions, and I imagine part of the data collection they are doing is to help build statistical of vehicle performance based on sensed conditions.
A fair point about weather, but a lot of the assertions are like "how will they handle the double parking and suicidal pedestrians jaywalking across the street??" I'd say most of the concerns just don't sound very unique at all.
For weather, Waymo has clearly started out in warmer climates while slowly building out towards places with colder and colder weather, I'm guessing they're just incrementally getting better at it.
This is great long term for having cars that follow traffic laws since human drivers in NYC are awful (kill/injure pedestrians, bikers, and other street users all the time).
Not so great for getting cars out of NYC and pedestrianizing more of the city/moving towards more “low traffic neighborhoods” as I imagine Waymo and other similar companies are going to fight against these efforts.
Edit: Lots of people talking about human drivers taking advantage of self-driving cars being more cautious/timid. Good news is that once you have enough self-driving cars on the road, it probably slows down/calms other traffic (see related research on speed governors).
I'm not sure why you think waymo would fight against that. People getting rid of their own cars for daily use will increase how often a service like waymo is used for occasional usage. In the long run it would be a win for waymo. Not many people are taking taxis on a daily basis in New York for normal driving, they buy a car if they need to do that because even with the parking bill they will still come out ahead. And once they have their own car they feel like they need to get some use out of it.
> not sure why you think waymo would fight against that
If you were to pedestrianize 10% of Manhattan (or for example all of Broadway, which is being considered), then that’s less area for Waymo to operate and make money. To be clear, this is likely more of a long term issue.
It had a lot of on street parking, at least mid town did, when I lived there in 2000 (which admittedly was 25 years ago). It was good enough that my gf at the time was driving from a Columbia dorm to IBM hawthorn.
Waymo would not fight against "people getting rid of their cars", many people in NY who use the incredible public transit system would like to see more car-free streets, which they absolutely would fight against.
Do you mean that in the sense of "anyone getting killed is unacceptable" or the sense of "we need complete separation between cars and pedestrians/bikers, somehow"?
The rule of thumb for almost completely eliminating pedestrian fatalities is complete separation or a 20mph speed limit. A 20mph speed limit is far more feasible for the 5 boroughs than most other American cities.
I think there's a third more charitable reading: that current injury and fatality rates are still too high, even if they compare favorably to the rest of the US's rates. It's unrealistic to have no traffic injuries ever; this doesn't imply that NYC can't do better.
I mean if we required a license to own a bike in NYC we could see a significant reduction in injuries/deaths, same for pedestrians. Cars are already heavily regulated and likely aren't the underlying issue.
There are many ways to interpret data, but one often comes to the conclusion that pedestrians and bikers are the root cause of most accidents.
Cars are only “heavily regulated” in the sense that you pass a test once when you are a teenager and then never have to pass a test again, just pay a nominal fee to renew your license.
I am curious what data you are looking at that gives you the impression pedestrians and bikers are the root cause of most accidents. As a frequent pedestrian / biker here, I see a car doing something unhinged about every mile I walk. On Wednesday I almost got hit by a car flying the wrong way down a one-way street and then running a red.
> the fact that any pedestrians/bikers are killed/injured by cars in NYC is unacceptable.
Then the next step is regulating bikes and pedestrians. I think most studies which are willing to assign blame to bikes find they’re usually at fault or visibility is an issue, both of which come down to the bike. To approach no deaths, we need licenses, lights, increased safety protection, and training. If we’re fine with NYC just being one of the safest cities for bikers and pedestrians, then maybe we don’t have to worry about that
It’s a step in the right direction, but they still pollute (heavy electric vehicles have a lot more tire dust) and take up a lot space (could close roads and build housing or just have more space for the millions of city residents that don’t have/use cars).
> heavy electric vehicles have a lot more tire dust
It would be interesting to know the fleet-level statistics for this. Driven by humans, EV might wear tires faster because of fast starts and the extra weight during stops. It's possible that the Waymo Driver accelerates and decelerates more smoothly, resulting in less tire wear than a human-driven ICE vehicle.
You know what kills or harms people in NYC are the motorized bikes driving the wrong way and putting people in the hospital, with no charges against the operator because they are usually an illegal alien. Not sure Waymo is going to fix that.
Waymo should add a thin layer of "assertiveness" for actual deadlock that their self-driving architecture could cause.
While in Austin, I was in a Waymo that blocked 3 lanes of incoming traffic while attempting to merge into a lane going into the opposite direction. It was a super unorthodox move, but none of the drivers (even while stopped for a red light) would let the Waymo* merge into their lane.
Thank God for the tinted windows, people were pulling their phones out to record (rightly so). It felt like I was responsible for holding up a major portion of Austin 5 pm traffic on a Friday.
Wish it just asserted itself ever-so-slightly to get itself out.
well, just couple weeks ago here on the intersection of Middlefield and Shoreline, half-mile from Google headquarters - 100 million times driven by Waymo cars, thousands by us - midday, perfect visibility, perfect intersection with all the markings, lights, etc., we and a Waymo are doing left turns from dedicated lanes on the opposite directions. We were saved from head on collision by the "lack of assertiveness" on the part of my wife as she swerved last moment as the Waymo apparently decided that its left turn point lies way into, very deep into, our trajectory, and it was assertive enough to not care that we were in its path. I almost soiled my pants upon seeing how it went for barreling into us instead of turning.
It looks like the same extra assertiveness like with Uber back then - i.e. to not have an emergency braking and similar features because it gets too much false positives.
Yeah I admit that "assertiveness" isn't the right word here. I've been in Waymo's that have also tried to dangerous moves in front off busses. Maybe "conscientiousness" would be a better definition?
I find that in LA people routinely cut off the waymo or refuse to let it in. After all why not it is a robot, not someone who might legitimately harm you like a road rager. It also tends to fail the cultural left turns. That is, sending 2-3 cars left during yellow not just one like in other places. Seeing it stuck awkwardly in an intersection for another cycle from failing to make an assertive left turn is somewhat common.
Waymo also avoids certain challenging environments by excluding it from its service coverage, namely hilly neighborhoods.
I think we're going to see more examples of this as Waymo's popularity grows. Basically human drivers taking advantage of Waymo's far more passive driving style. Maybe some rules of the road will have to change, or the Waymos will get dedicated lanes to solve this problem.
You need to think bigger. Once we have separate lanes just for the waymos, we don't need them to be regular roadways. We can scale up the waymo even more and size the lane exactly to the vehicle, maybe even radically redesign the road surface for lower rolling resistance. What a future it will be.
By forming those waymos like aerodynamic bullets, they could reach ridiculously high speeds on those special lanes. Something like 200 mph should be possible.
Maybe the waymos could be powered by overhead wires?
I'm having a hard time even picturing such a thing, but I have no doubt that Waymo could manage to operate them in cities across the nation, with sufficient re-training.
Now, sir, you're in pure fantasy land. Next you'll be asking for columns of them chained together to carry hundreds of people together, stopping at designated locations.
You joke, but the reality is going to be dynamic self-driving buses that don't have preset routes or stops but respond to instant demand.
You'll pay $$$ for a nonstop ride into midtown in a dedicated vehicle, or $ for a short dedicated ride to a self-driving bus you only need to wait a few minutes for, and which will drop you off on your destination block.
So yes -- self-driving buses seamlessly integrated into ride sharing are certainly going to be a major part of 21st century urban transportation. Which will save a ton of time compared to current buses.
I could also see potential efficiencies to scheduling your bus stops in advance, maybe with some configuration to set how far you're willing to walk, how long you're willing to wait, how long a grace period you want in the event that you're running late, what time you need to arrive by, how many seats you need, and whether or not you need access to luggage/bike storage. (Each of these values would of course impact the cost of your trip; in the worst case scenario, if your configuration couldn't be reconciled with enough other people's to fit you into an efficient bus ride, then you might just be offered a regular car ride.)
You could even set that up on a recurring schedule, sort of like a school bus system that dynamically adjusts to everyone's locations and requirements and instantly remaps routes as passengers are added and removed to the schedule.
I would like that just as much as the next guy but the problem of public transport cannot be addressed until you first address the problem of anti social behavior on public transport.
That’s just being around people. We gotta live together as people; the idea that we can atomize ourselves away from the society we live in is more disastrous to the shared social fabric than any amount of people listening to music without headphones.
One of the big, big advantages of Waymo is not being in a car with a stranger. I know quite a few women who don’t mind paying extra for Waymo over Uber/Lyft.
Far more people might able to afford a Waymo than a personal (in person) chauffeur.
This is awful. Your ride takes just a bit longer, so you want it to take more risks in decisions?
This is how you ruin trust. Take the L dude, sit back and relax. You will get to your restaurant or whatever inane activity you are doing for the day/evening.
Biggest thing I'm excited for is knowing what the cost will be ahead of time
Which Uber used to provide... Until they were infected with tipping. Hell, I will gladly pay more than I would've spent on a tip (20%) just to avoid the hassle.
My worst personal quality is that while I tip extremely well for everything (like $15 for a $40 haircut) I absolutely refuse to leave tips almost always for Ubers. I will if it was genuinely good service, a clean car that doesn’t have a gallon of fragrance in it that I’m massively allergic to, and the driver either leaves me alone or has a nice convo with me when it’s clear I’m trying to engage in one, and drives safely. However the combination of these things is really uncommon, and I’m usually very unhappy with at least one aspect of the ride.
On the flip side I very rarely take Ubers so my shitty obstinance here doesn’t have a big impact
I was also really salty when they decided to make tips a huge part of it. I hate tipping culture despite tipping very well. And if you read the subreddit for drivers they are constantly complaining about how people tip, and complaining that even 20% is not anywhere near enough
I’m curious if autonomous cars will become targets for aggressive drivers. Like a driver isn’t going to be as scared cutting off a Waymo or tailgating one because the AI isn’t gonna get road rage or honk like hell. In some places I could see the Waymo’s getting severely bullied if that’s the case.
People tailgate because they're toddlers and locate their locus of control externally - if anything, they'll be very happy tailgating driverless cars because they can throw as big a fit as they want, there will be no consequences, and they'll feel they got to blame something else other than themselves.
Because there’s still someone in the car, they just have no way to defend themselves. You can tailgate and honk at them to your heart’s content. Well at least until they call the police but that’s pretty far. And there are other forms of aggression that do accomplish something. If you cut a Waymo off or beat it to merge, you get ahead of it. In some locales I could see a whole series of cars merging ahead of a Waymo if people are aggressive enough.
You are on to something here. I have started driving a small car in the UK (Ford Fiesta) and have discovered it's a magnet for the road rage people (around 50% of drivers here).
Firstly, I never back down and will come to a complete stop if slowing down doesn't work.
Secondly, I have noticed these drivers feed off any reaction and that avoiding eye contact works very effectively, even if they pull beside you to have a childish rant.
These things have camera all around the vehicle and they are on and recording. So, any incident with aggressive driving, the driver is going to be misbehaving on camera. Doesn't sound like a smart move.
This might actually have the opposite effect: if there are lots of waymos with the cameras everywhere, people might actually feel pressured to behave a little and avoid breaking traffic rules on camera.
They're already learning how to handle this in SF. (I don't live there anymore, so I can't give specific examples.)
Waymo markets itself as an automated driver - same reason they're using off-the-shelf cars and not the cartoony concepts they originally showed. Like real drivers, they take the law as guidelines more than rules.
De jure (what the law says) and de facto (what a cop enforces) rules have had a gap between them for decades. It's built into the system - police judgement is supposed to be an exhaust valve. As a civil libertarian, it's maddening in both directions:
- It's not just that we have a system where it's expected that everyone goes 15mph faster than posted, because it gives police an avenue to harass anyone simply for behaving as expected, and
- It's also dystopian to see police judgement be replaced with automated enforcement. There are whole classes of things that shouldn't be penalized that are technically illegal, and we've historically relied on police to be reasonable about what they enforce. Is it anybody's business if you're speeding where there's nobody to harm? Maybe encoding "judgment" into rules will be more fair in the long run, but it is also coaching new generations to expect there to be more rules and more enforcement. Feels like a ratchet where things that weren't meant to be penalized are becoming so over time, as more rules beget more automated, pedantic enforcement.
A slight digression, and clearly one I have a lot of thoughts on.
It's really interesting to see how automation is handling the other side of this - how you build machines to follow laws that aren't enforced at face value. They can't program them to behave like actual robots - going 24 mph, stopping exactly 12" before the stop line, waiting until there are no pedestrians anywhere before moving. Humans won't know how to interact with them (cause they're missing all the nonverbal communication that happens on the road), and those who understand their limits will take advantage of them in the ways you've stated.
So Waymo is programming a driver, trying to encode the behaviors and nonverbal communication that a human learns by participating in the road system. That means they have to program robots that go a bit over the speed limit, creep into the intersection before the turn is all the way clear, defend against being cut off, etc. In other words, they're building machines that follow the de facto rules of the road, which mean they may need to be ready to break the de jure laws like everyone else does.
TBF the Zeekr minivans are a big step toward a purpose-built Waymo vehicle. I do agree that Zoox has its priorities backwards by going straight for a purpose built robotaxi vehicle. But it has advantages like friendlier ergonomics for the disabled.
Who cares? You are focusing on unimportant issues.
Movement in the USA is heavily outdated. Whether it’s "automated" won’t change anything other than encourage more cars on the road. Great your 5AM commute from the boondocks still takes 2-3 hours but at least you don’t have to put your hands on the wheel!
I would rather every vehicle be high quality autonomous than humans, I think if all cars could signal both their locations and intentions we’d probably never have accidents and save millions of lives
The game-theoretic aspect of this is interesting to me. A lawful robot will never make progress in Manhattan because the people will just walk across its path continuously, forever. To be an effective driver in Manhattan you have to intimate that you're willing to hit people, without ever hitting them. If humans believe that the Waymo will categorically never hit them, then the Waymo will never get a turn.
its interesting. at beginning in SF the waymos would just stop cold anytime they saw a person or a bicyclist. now they're acting a lot more like a person. if I'm in the crosswalk they've started playing chicken just like a normal driver would, starting to go into the turn while watching to see if you're going to stop and give them the right of way. if you keep going, they will stop.
There are still plenty of humans in SF who are on to the nature of the game. A few of the shambling lunatics who inhabit the vicinity of 6th and Jessie know that they can just harass a Waymo and it will stand there forever.
I haven’t lived in NYC, but I have lived in Boston. Isn’t the real concern winter? Has Waymo (or any other self driving tech company) shown that it can handle the snow well: non-visible lanes, downshifting to avoid braking, etc.?
Having a seasonal service is not a bad idea. The big problem with that is cutoff times. Too early and people will complain when they can't get a ride when no snow is on the ground. Too late and you're liable for everything that happens when the road is covered in thin ice or sleet, including leaving someone stranded. You will need very accurate weather predictions for operating over the winter months.
So how are they going to make left turns on two way streets with heavy pedestrian traffic? It is essentially impossible to accomplish that in NYC without skirting the law to turn on red or impede on pedestrian space.
It is, and this is what they will have to do. A lot of left hand turns in NYC - even in the outer skirts of the four major boroughs - cannot be made until the light has turned red, requiring a "New York/Pittsburgh Left".
They will have to route the car around in a manner that allows it turn from the right in that intersection.
The permit gets them into the process for eventually deploying without safety drivers. That includes safety plans, emergency responder plans and training, and periodic reporting.
They could just drive cars around like Tesla, but that wouldn't put them on a path to a fully autonomous service.
It's not insane for cities to permit autonomous vehicle technology. They permit almost every other type of heavy machinery. Even manually driven cars are permitted! (Driver's license test, registration fees, etc.)
I don't thin it's fair to say they are fully automated. There's a large remote operations team for remote assistance to help them get out of tricky situations. The cars can be nudged to perform certain actions.
New York is a long way behind California in regulating autonomous vehicles. Fully driverless vehicles are also illegal there and it will require legislation for Waymo to deploy in the state.
I didn't say testing was stupid. I said permitting only 8 vehicles for human testing from the leader in self-driving cars, years after they've been fully autonomous in other dense cities, isn't the flex he thinks it is.
Would you like to rephrase what you said then? As written, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that you could stand to gain some respect for the long road of research and progress needed to achieve fully autonomous driving fleet. 8 is bigger than 0, and approving any non-zero number is recognizing the value of technology.
I exclusively use Waymo in SF, even if it costs a bit more than Uber. You'll most often get a great human Uber driver, but there's a very real possibility that the person is a bad/unsafe driver or the ride is unpleasant for a myriad of other reasons. With a Waymo, you know exactly what you're buying.
Yea, that's what I figured, but I also wonder how well anyone is driving in the slush and if the LIDAR / cameras are that disrupted by snow / ice / salt.
Lots of comments sharing their waymo experience, so I'll hop on the bandwagon :) I visited Austin for a work trip and went out of my way to get waymo rides for work events, reimbursed of course ;) , managed to score 3 rides.
The airport is out the coverage map so I had a real person behind the wheel both ways. Objectively, the waymo was way safer experience because one driver was a local and drove like one (e.g. rolled through stop signs, drove past a long queue to merge at the end, etc.) and the other smelt like weed in the car. Luckily, both trips we arrived unharmed. In comparison, the Waymo drove pretty well, imo and very consistent. Nothing extra ordinary but no reason to stress.
The difficult part of riding the waymo was all moral cope: it cost just as much (minus tip) as paying a real person, driving past homeless people under a bridge in an autonomous vehicle felt unsettling, and my driver from the airport in my home city was wonderful and hard working. I don't typically like to chat in the cab, and the driver didn't initiate, but I was feeling empathetic and guilty so I struck up a conversation. By the time I got home we were enjoying ourselves and the driver was sharing animal facts because I had learned he was a real enthusiast that could not make a living solely on ecology. We were laughing and joking around together. (Google, if you're reading do NOT try to replicate this experience with AI)
I'm glad I got to try it and out of my system. Still would prefer trains or more public transit over more cars :p
While driving a car, it is possible to do something, even on accident, that can land a person in jail. These crimes do not have the option of paying a fine in lieu of prison time.
A "self-driving" car can cause the same accident but gain advantages over a human driver that the person ultimately responsible is no longer held to the same set of laws.
This seems to undermine foundations of law, placing the owners of those assets into a different legal category from the rest of us.
I think the problem in NYC will be getting medallions, assuming that's what self driving cars will need.
There are already so many (too many?) taxis and car sharing drivers, after TLC's massive increases of the last few years. You can play a game, based on something I read about last year: stand at a corner and count all cars/trucks/for-hire. The first two combined are barely outnumbered by the last group. And the few times I checked, half of taxis and car sharing vehicles were empty. (Of course that's different at peak times or when it rains.)
Will Waymo be allowed to add as many vehicles as they want, like a new class of cars, or will they need to buy out medallions from drivers? The former might undo all the progress in traffic relief that was brought by congestion pricing.
While it could stand to be more aggressive at times, especially at intersections, FSD works fairly well in NYC and can do all of less-than-legal-but-necessary things a normal driver can do (such as cross over a double yellow if there is a double parked car blocking the road) so I don't see why Waymo would have any trouble on that aspect at all.
Funny to see people in this thread about human vs robot driving quality. Anyone that's zipped around ina waymo knows they're pretty great. We should be moving to ban human driving asap. It would be safer, and more relaxing.
I can’t wait until this is available in more rural areas of NY. I would love to be able to take this thing to/from a bar where there’s no public transport and very low density of Uber/Lyft.
Waymo has been testing in snow conditions since 2017 in Michigan and more recently in Chicago, using specialized sensors and machine learning models that can detect road edges and lane markings even when covered with snow.
Downtown Manhattan is the hardest-to-navigate area of NYC. I thought they would start somewhere in Midtown, where the grid is regular, streets wide, and demand for taxis still pretty high.
We already know that Waymo can handle regular American cities quite well. I woul expect them to spend most of their expensive human-supervised training and testing budget in the most unique locations, like downtown Manhattan.
No, especially after congestion pricing, it doesn't get very busy. I assume the car was mapping the area and collecting background truth in general. Downtown and the financial district have interesting peculiarities, like the highly irregular grid and the patches of open air construction that have been in the middle of Greenwich St for many years, exposing tens of pipes and cables carrying who knows what.
Once again, if you're going to test your self driving car on public streets, all data should be open and public. Car companies shouldn't be competing on how to prevent life-or-death incidents, they should be cooperating.
I think taxis have a place even in cities with great transportation. I live in Toronto and 90% of my commuting is walking, 8% public transit and 2% driving. But there are some trips that would be very difficult to do a way other than driving (for example carrying lots of stuff or awkward cargo) and taxis fill that gap wonderfully. Especially if self-driving taxis could handle long trips a lot better as inter-city is a place where Toronto public transit unfortunately sucks (for example visiting my parents in cottage country).
Mass transit only works when there are masses of people, and most of the US doesn't have that. But places like the Great Plains and the rural Northeast already have comprehensive roads systems, and electric robot cars turn those roads into transit for people who, currently, must have cars.
In rural places, not only are there no buses or trains, there's hardly any taxis. Maybe during the day if you wait an hour or two, but you're not getting home at night without your own car.
A couple robot taxis roaming around every rural country in the US comprehensively solves this problem.
Agree. Though I imagine the cost to run robot taxis in low density areas would be much higher than in high density areas, as there'd be a higher distance between rides, and so more wasted time and gas. I suspect that would slow adoption.
Also if we dream big here, I wonder how robot buses would work in low density areas, maybe with dynamic routes and pricing?
This is true for intersection throughput, but I bet full travel throughput (walking to the bus, waiting for the bus/train, walking to your destination) is the same or better with Waymo.
Because half the year it's freezing cold or blistering hot?
With CitiBike and so many bike lanes it basically already is a biker's paradise. Obviously there could be lots more improvements, but the people who want to bike already do.
I doubt that people who bike their kids in baskets daily in Amsterdam would do the same in NYC, given how dangerous it is. The risk tolerance required to bike in NYC is much higher.
I hate to break this to you but outside of microscopic Reddit bubbles like r/fuckcars and similar, people generally don't have a problem with car infrastructure and cars as a whole and most people see cyclists as the vegans of the transport world.
I'm not sure. In any discussion that's somewhat adjacent to transportation there are a lot of pro-car people that discuss the best type of a car (ICE or electric).
There's a great YC saying which approximately says "you should get the easiest customers first". They even made a video about it, saying tech startups sometimes try to go for the hardest customers to "prove themselves" and it just hurts their business.
I sort of wonder if that's happening here. SF, Austin, LA, etc, are all great cities to build autonomous vehicle startups in. There are many more major cities which don't get snow, have minimal rain, and are well thought out in terms of driving layout. NYC seems like the most difficult city to operate in, and while I believe it's a lucrative market it seems like a mistake.
I can't wait to hear how it goes in NYC -- its going to be a total cluster - with the significantly more chaotic behavior on the streets, bike scooters, pedestrians and then the oddness of the streets/aggressive driving necessary behavior.
Give it one month if they saturate it too much there will be political blowback on waymos causing traffic chaos. Queue track record in SF as datapoints.
I don’t think people commenting and downvoting us realize how things are in NYC. Not only do you have to deal with insane chaos you also have to deal with malicious drivers. Hit-and-run in NYC is shockingly high because it’s a no-fault state. People don’t stop after accidents. It’s gotten really bad since the pandemic.
Hardly. I live in downtown Manhattan. I used to live in downtown San Francisco and between the streetcars, cable cars, hills, and the extraordinarily large homeless population, it feels far more chaotic in the denser areas.
NY by comparison is big, flat and orderly. I feel significantly safer as a pedestrian here than I ever did in SF. And it's a much more pleasant place to drive.
Ok. I am glad you feel safe as a pedestrian but what does all that have to do with autonomous vehicles. I am native to NYC. SFO has 800K people. NYC is literally 10x the size. Nice comparison.
What planet do you live on that you think NYC is more orderly than SFO? You sound very sheltered. Have you even been outside of Manhattan? Let alone above midtown? No one who spent a reasonable time outside of a bubble would say NYC is an orderly place. No one. Do you even drive? Have you driven across anywhere during rush hours? Why would you blatantly lie about a city being orderly when it can be easily refuted? 8M people live there to contest whatever you are saying.
I think some people pushing for driverless cars everywhere are assuming it will necessitate much stricter driving laws and penalties for human drivers to make their driving compatible with the robots. And they're fine with that, but they know it's not a selling point, so they don't talk about it.
I live in one of the areas they are actively testing/training in. Their cars consistently behave better and more safely than most human drivers that I’m forced to share the road with.
As semi-autonomous and autonomous cars become the norm, I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging.
The absolute most dangerous drivers I see on the road aren't bad drivers in the sense that they're unskilled at controlling their car. I can't weave between cars at 120 mph or cross three lanes of traffic to make an exit I didn't see until the last second without killing myself, but I routinely see people do that. Sure they don't care about driving safely and/or following the law, but they're probably sane enough to pull it together for a brief driving test.
The other big category of dangerous drivers is drunk/distracted (texting) drivers. Again, most of the people engaging in these behaviors are probably smart enough not to do them during a driving test.
> I think it would be far more effective to make it easier to lose your license than it would be to make getting the license more challenging.
For your system to work, there would actually need to be cops watching traffic.
Since the pandemic, some cities just don't have as many police watching the streets as they used to.
For example, there is virtually no traffic enforcement in Austin now. You see the results with how much people speed now, and how awful some drivers behave on the road.
* Traffic enforcement capacity in Austin dropped significantly -- traffic citations fell about 55% between 2018–2022.
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Audito...
* As a result, speeding tickets, which once averaged 100 per day in 2017, dropped to about 10 per day by 2021 -- a 90% decrease.
https://www.kut.org/transportation/2022-02-24/austin-police-...
But why? Did they fire all the cops? Or did the cops just stop doing their jobs?
They’ve seemingly chosen, en masse, to simply do nothing anymore.
Austin didn't "fire all the cops." What happened was messier.
After 2020, the city council cut about a third of the police budget and paused new cadet classes. At the same time, hundreds of officers retired early or left for better pay elsewhere. By 2023, patrol vacancies were over 30%. With fewer officers, APD stopped handling whole categories of calls -- traffic enforcement, minor crashes, and low-level 911 calls -- because they just didn't have the staff.
Then politics made it worse. Austin leaders (Blue) pushed for more oversight and accountability. The governor (Red) fought back with bills to hide misconduct records and block transparency. The Travis County DA started prosecuting misconduct more aggressively, straining relations even further. The result: a demoralized force, hollowed-out staffing, and a city caught between "fund them less" and "hold them accountable more," while basic policing collapsed.
So no, they weren't fired. But yes, many stopped doing the job -- leaving Austin residents stuck in the middle of a state–city standoff. And honestly, it feels like that was Governor Abbott's goal all along: "If you didn't vote for me, don't expect police to lift a finger for you." These days, even for traffic accidents, assaults, or vandalism, 911 just tells you to file a report online.
San Jose had a similar drama play out. Not the only one either. Fun times.
If only there were other ways of tracking and observing vehicle behavior. And some reliable way of identifying vehicles themselves. Or ways that we could automate this with computers to sort through.
But that's just science fiction. Cars are just going to be cars!
Kinda funny how the HN crowd can both decry and advocate for automated mass surveillance at the same time.
Is this the first time you have encountered a community made up of individuals with different opinions?
The HN crowd wouldn't see the tounge in cheek humor if it hit them in the face.
Vehicles have these things called license plates and take a license to operate. It's not dystopian mass surveillance or a technical challenge to have a camera assigning tickets for operating machinery dangerously in public spaces.
Not funny -- terrifying.
In Texas, traffic cameras that automatically issue tickets are illegal. Courts ruled they violate the constitutional right to face your accuser. And look, that's how it should be.
And I certainly don't want my own car, phone, or anything else I own snitching on me while I drive.
Kinda more dystopian the ads have better tracking of us than law enforcement.
Yes. This. Or that the advertising is the driving force behind surveillance tech
It sounds like you have a problem with the police, ok? Step outside please.
Currently people will just ignore a revoked license the same way they ignore other traffic laws.
So I think ~level 5 self driving cars becoming common + a modification to prevent people using their cars just like we install breathalyzers for habitual DUI drivers is needed before revoking people’s licenses is really a meaningful punishment.
Doubtless some would ignore it, but you can go to jail for driving on a suspended license. I suspect there are a lot more people willing to risk a traffic ticket and a few $100 in fines for speeding, bad lane changes, etc. than there are people willing to risk jail for driving on a suspended license.
Obviously it’s not 100% meaningless, but the kind of people losing their licenses here correlate with the kinds of people who will take these risks.
Thus for many it’s a symbolic gesture until the next time something happens which is little different than simply doing nothing until the next incident like say 3 strike laws.
I think that is probably true now (in the US), but the hypothetical is that it is made easier to lose your license.
DC recently banned "right on red" but it is routinely ignored and the penalty is apparently a $100 fine. If the penalty was loss of license (maybe not on first offense) I think there's a lot of people ignoring the current rule that would not be willing to ignore the possibility of losing their license.
Any US jurisdiction that bans right on red is going to see a lot of violations - mostly from people who are unaware of the law or people who know the law but accidentally do it out of habit. If DC wanted to stop people from turning right on red, signs would be the only effective solution.
At least with Arizona, it's the whole state so most drivers won't have the habit.
Of course, if DC just wants to take in a lot of easy $100 tickets, this is exactly the way to do it.
Right turn on red being prohibited in Arizona is an internet myth, according to https://www.kgun9.com/news/local-news/misinformation-online-..., which links to the statute at https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00645.htm (paragraph A.3(b)).
It might be a myth, but it's certainly not an Internet myth. I first read about it in a Rand MacNally atlas in the 80s.
s/some/plenty/
In Ireland, jail time is rare for such offences sadly. In cases where jail time is sentenced, overcrowding in prisons often results in early release.
But prison is a business in the U.S., so new customers are always welcome.
Don't you think it would be easier and cheaper to gatekeep than to build up an enforcement and judgement workforce.
The people that are good but dangerous drivers will drive well and safely during tests, so you won't catch them.
We need a consistently reliable public transit system before we tell people they can't drive for one reason or another.
Allow drink driving in places with no metro system? There are obviously lines to be drawn in what you allow, for the safety of others, regardless of the alternatives. That said, we can absolutely work on improving public transport at the same time. There's no reason to have to fully solve public transport before trying to tackle dangerous driving.
People don't need to drink. They do need to get to work, pick up the kids from school, buy groceries, etc.
Traffic enforcement, which used to correct some bad driving, has basically evaporated in many parts of the U.S. This has been a long-term trend.
A friend who's a cop told me that only when their department got specific state grants would they set up stings of drivers driving in a pedestrian walkway while someone was crossing the street. Here's an example of one such grant program, which is actually funded by the federal government: https://www.mass.gov/doc/ffy26-municipal-road-safety-grant-a...
Crosswalk Decoy Operations: These operations may involve a plainclothes officer acting as a civilian pedestrian and a uniformed officer making stops OR involve a uniformed officer serving as a spotter to observe and relay violations to an officer making stops. ... All Pedestrian and Bicyclist enforcement must be conducted during overtime shifts, meaning grant-funded activity occurs during hours over and above any regular full-time/part-time schedule.
At other times, he said he would only pull someone over if they were doing something batshit crazy and they happened to be behind the vehicle where it was easy to pull them over. Minor stuff and speeding they would rarely ticket.
The U.S. and other countries need to use automated methods of detecting and applying penalties. Some busy intersections have cameras for this, but it seems to be very limited, maybe because of cost.
Years ago New York used to calculate if you were speeding the NY State Thruway based on the time between toll booths. They cancelled this program for some reason.
Although more recently, the New York State Police have speed cameras set up in a few highway work zones, which is effective (double fines applicable, see https://wnyt.com/top-stories/where-are-automated-speed-camer...) but it still requires a person driving a car to set up the gear.
I grew up in a Texas city, lived abroad for over a decade, and recently moved back to the same city because my girlfriend randomly got a job here.
The number of people who run red lights is giving me culture shock. You have to sit and wait at your own green light because 1-3 vehicles are still running their red light, and it's every time.
As a teen, I saw cops everywhere camping out for traffic violations. I got a few tickets myself for tiny infractions that don't compare to running a red light.
Of course, the icing on the cake is that Texas outlawed red light cameras in court.
I’m in Chicagoland and can report the same. The cops aren’t doing anything. Interestingly, it seems crime is going down while they do nothing. This leads me to believe we don’t actually need huge police forces.
I'm in Chicagoland too, and they're doing basically what they've always done: issue tickets --- automatically, now, as well as manually. What difference are you seeing?
Anecdotally, I have not seen a car pulled over on LSD south of the loop in _years_. That used to be common (my first year in Chicago I got 2 tickets there and don’t think of myself as particularly speedy).
I’ve not seen a single person pulled over in my neighborhood in the same time, another activity that was common.
Meanwhile traffic behavior has reached staggeringly wild levels.
My impression, which is certainly not backed with data, is that CPD no longer polices traffic violations. My cynical view is that it’s a work slow down in protest over all the trouble they’ve gotten in for pretextual stops.
I've been pulled over in Chicago within the last couple months, for whatever that's worth. In Oak Park, this is a hotbutton issue, the belief that since COVID traffic enforcement is sharply down, and, apparently, by the numbers, it isn't.
When I looked into the stats for cpd it was a mess. They got in trouble for monkeying with the stats, so they are already suspicious.
But by their numbers stop rates went way up for the 10 years between 2014-2024. But that was during the period when traffic stops were a primary strategy for crime prevention, that is the pretextual stops they got in trouble for.
Sadly, there was no checkbox for the officer to mark if it was a pretextual stop or not for study purposes.
I could probably isolate by stop location to some degree if I really wanted to do some digging. Maybe I can nerdsnipe ‘chaps into doing it for me.
I do like that plan!
Essentially the same as kasey_junk -- they're missing from the roads entirely. I frequently am in the areas of Lombard & Aurora for work, and I haven't seen a cop on the side of the road with someone pulled over in what feels like years.
I do see the insane driving. People going fast and weaving is the tip of the iceberg. Regularly now I see people using left turn lanes in intersections to pass people on the left and cut them off mid-intersection. Regularly I see people utterly spaced out on their phones, nearly stopped in the middle of the road -- these folks present a unique danger if you're doing the speed limit and not paying really close attention. But just generally, I think "good driving" went out of style during COVID, when a huge swath of people stopped driving.
These sorts of things I feel used to be addressed by the police in a very public way: you'd see that car that was weaving doing dangerous things pulled over a mile up the road as you continued on. THAT is what's changed, for me.
In Miami, there is very little enforcement and reckless driving flourishes. I used to regularly see cars doing 90, weaving, pass cops who did nothing. I've also talked to multiple cops who confirmed that they rarely enforce unless specifically doing traffic duty. Which never made sense to me, since it's a revenue stream. But however the incentives are set up, they motivate cops to do nothing, and drivers know it.
Maybe it's only one part of an overall trend in cultural rot around rule enforcement.
A woman had her dog in the cart at Costco that kept barking at people.
I joked with an employee during check-out "So anyone can bring their dog to the store these days?" and she said they stopped confronting these people because it's not worth it and makes things worse. Worse for who?
Man, I thought that was the exact type of person worth confronting in civilized society. If we can't police minor antisocial behavior, what can we confront? We wait until it's so bad that we have no choice?
The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals—-and even where there are rules, like with learning disabilities, doctors and other professionals act like whores and sell their signatures to anyone with money. It’s widespread bad parenting for generations now. How can a store fight that?
> The woman is going to claim it’s a service animal. There’s no real rules about service animals
I agree with your overall point, but there are actually rules about what types of behavior are unacceptable for service animals. Uncontrolled or disruptive barking is one of those unacceptable behaviors.
The store would be entirely within their right to warn this person and remove the owner and/or ban the “service animal”.
That said, unless you have a legal team that aggressively embraces these sorts of acts against people who abuse the service animal rules, it’s almost always more practical just to let it go. Some of these folks have significant psychological issues, and you’ve already lost once you’ve entered a conflict with an unstable person.
Only if the rest of society won’t back you up. Which is the real issue. Society in general has turned into a bunch of lazy cowards.
If anything, the rest of society acts like you're the one out of line for confronting people who entitle themselves to bring their pet with them.
If you wait until it's so bad you have no choice, you usually lack the ability to enforce the rules.
When I'm in the position that I have to enforce rules, I usually provide an alternative and explain to people that they're not the problem. I spell out that problems arise when you have a dozen people breaking said rule, or when the people who come after them decide to push the limits even further. As long as they see the rules enforced consistently and equally, I rarely encounter any pushback. But until my employer got all of the staff to consistently enforce the rules, things were getting pretty nasty (threats towards staff, people doing stuff that would endager lives, etc.).
> The U.S. and other countries need to use automated methods of detecting and applying penalties. Some busy intersections have cameras for this, but it seems to be very limited, maybe because of cost.
Ultimately, someone still has to send in a check, and if they don't, you go back to the same problem, which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
This isn't as much of a problem in NYC, but here in KC, unfortunately, neither the traffic stop nor the warrant are trivially safe tasks.
NYC seems to have a problem collecting those fines too. Some drivers wrack up hundreds of tickets every year and simply don't pay:
https://www.carscoops.com/2025/04/new-yorks-most-dangerous-d...
Apparently the tickets don't incur any penalties against a driver's license, so these drivers don't face repercussions such as suspension.
> Ultimately, someone still has to send in a check, and if they don't, you go back to the same problem, which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
Here in Argentina they if you don't pay, they just remember until you want to sell the car, or renew your license or a ¿anual? technical review of the vehicle.
You have to pay it sooner or later with late fees. It's not necesary to send a minitank to the front door of the home of the bad drivers.
Normally in the US if you don't pay a fine they just contact your employer and tell them to take the fine from your paycheck.
Missouri has the option of yanking your license [0]
... which kinda makes it hard to drive to work to get the paycheck that you need to pay the fine, at least legally. If you get caught it's a misdemeanor [1]
[0]https://dor.mo.gov/faq/driver-license/fact-nrvc.html [1]https://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/title-xix/chapter-302/...
> which is having police officers interact with random drivers, this time with a no-show warrant.
Impounding vehicles is an option too. Like we do for parking tickets. That is routinely done without police interaction, or interaction at all with the driver.
I know in California if you ignore a red light ticket long enough they'll pull the fines (plus penalties and interest) from your state tax return.
> Years ago New York used to calculate if you were speeding the NY State Thruway based on the time between toll booths. They cancelled this program for some reason.
Did they? The only thing I knew they nailed people for was speeding through the EZPass lanes too fast.
This was decades ago. Maybe the 70s or 80s. My late uncle got busted multiple times.
Have certification (required) for sensor/video recording systems in self driving cars. Make the data admissible in traffic court.
That's because US cops and courts only care about making a profit, and cops issuing speeding tickets and minor traffic infractions don't earn money.
But something like an operating while intoxicated is big bucks, which is why some places have drivers on the road with 12 DUI convictions (tens of thousands in state profit), and now we got cops and courts from legal cannabis states arresting people for smoking 8 hours beforehand because the criteria for guilt is ill-defined but the punishments are massive because they just copied all of the harshest (read expensive) drunk driving laws.
US cops and courts don't care about guilt, they don't care about safety; over and over and over again they have shown themselves to be a profit-seeking racket. Anyone who has ever been in or had access to the the details of someone's criminal case and seen the mountains of ridiculous extra fines and fees and ways to waste money for no gain knows how ridiculous it is.
The real issue is all the current bad drivers. A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society.
I'm from the UK, took driving lessons in the UK but then passed my driving test in the USA (in California).
The USA driving test is so much easier than the UK one!
UK: Varied junctions and roundabouts, traffic lights, independent driving (≈20 minutes via sat nav or signs), one reversing manoeuvre (parallel park, bay park, or pull up on the right and reverse), normal stops and move-offs (including from behind a parked car), hill start, emergency stop.
California: Cross three intersections, three right turns, three left turns, lane change, backing up, park in a bay, obey stop signs and traffic lights.
My understanding is that the USA test is so much easier because it's hard to get by in most of the USA without a car, so if the test was harder people would likely just drive without a license instead.
Not to mention no stick shift. The driving test from hell in hilly Adriatic cities: parallel park facing downhill
To be fair even people who have been driving many years do this by grinding up the clutch.
>To be fair even people who have been driving many years do this by grinding up the clutch.
What would be the alternative? There's no other way to inch uphill than to grind the clutch. It's fine as long as the engine stays below ~2000 rpm.
Right, maybe those words don't express the action correctly: the experienced way to do it is like you say, but it's a little tricky for new drivers. And then there is the noob way where they keep the engine rpm bouncing around 5k and slowly let go the clutch as needed. Can really stink up or even smoke up the street.
It depends on the area. My (rural) test was harder than your CA one. My test was easier than many of my big-city friends' tests.
But I've heard of areas that's it's easier, too, like your CA experience.
Similarly, when I did a US driving test (with a UK license), the examiner himself commented on the relative difficulty.
have you taken the maryland test? no road test. an obstacle course
Complete unrelated, I just wish every driver on the road re-learn that cyclists have the same rights of being on city roads like cars.
How this issue skews probably depends on where you live, but in the area I live, I have the opposite complaint: that bicyclists should re-learn that they are legally required (in my city) to ride on roads, rather than barrelling down sidewalks.
That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us.
I don't personally care whether bikes (or scooters) ride on the road or the sidewalk, but my one ask is that:
If they ride on the sidewalk, they should behave like pedestrians. That is, do not blast into the crosswalk at 20mph (impossible for drivers to safely check for in most environments), do not randomly enter the road from the sidewalk, pass pedestrians at a respectful speed and distance, etc.
If they ride on the road, they should behave similarly to motorists. That is, actually obey stop signs (rolling stop, or even treating it like a yield is okay), and actually obey traffic lights.
I'll even tolerate transitioning from one to the other at appropriate traffic stops. Just please don't get upset if I almost run you over for abruptly taking right of way you never legally had.
Yeah bikes and pedestrians can mix as long as speeds don't. Mixed use paths (like the W&OD in Reston VA) really need something like a 5 mph speed limit.
Biking while respecting traffic rules dramatically increases mortality rates.
No problem, in exchange I just ask that you pass safely (1.5m distance). Since that's not going to happen until hell freezes over, we're gonna have to settle on the current situation.
That's often impossible except at super-off-peak times of day when there's no oncoming cars, except if the cyclist pulls over, but for some reason they never seem to do that.
Where I live, there are definitely places where I end up cycling on the sidewalk, because it would be nigh-suicidal to actually take my bike on the road.
But I don't go barreling past pedestrians, and make sure I give them the right of way.
I have noticed a huge uptick in agressive behaviour from motorists over the past couple of years. By huge uptick, I mean behaviour that I used to see once every couple of weeks I am new facing multiple times daily. Quite bluntly, the politicians in my area are enabling life endangering behaviour towards cyclists by blaming cyclists for traffic congestion that have nothing to do with cyclists (e.g. road construction projects for motorists, or waterworks or building construction that have nothing to do with cyclists).
While I am sticking to the roads, I don't blame other cyclists for seeking refuge on the sidewalks.
Has your city made an effort to make it safe and attractive to ride on every street?
Or is that a de-facto ban on cycling.
And I wish cyclists would re-learn that pedestrians have more rights of being on sidewalks. That said, the bigger plague on sidewalks are e-scooters.
Additionally, most cyclists I see never stop at stop signs no matter how busy the intersection is.
That's the "Idaho stop". You're moving at speeds slow enough to be easily able to check for traffic without stopping, plus losing inertia as a cyclist is much more annoying (and arguably even dangerous) than for a car.
From a driver's perspective, you don't want to wait an extra 5-10 seconds because now the bike in front of you has to get back up to speed. 0-5mph is the slowest change and the most energy
In many places cyclists are not required to stop for stop signs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
> And I wish cyclists would re-learn that pedestrians have more rights of being on sidewalks.
That's not universal, but I do wish they would just learn those laws for their state.
In my state, they have equal rights, and that is that no one has the right of way. If you run into someone, it's your fault full stop. If you couldn't stop in time, then you were travelling too fast for the situation. If someone is blocking the sidewalk, they're a dick, but you can't do anything about it without getting arrested except to find another way around.
Also, if you're on a bike and about to pass a pedestrian, you must give an audible (to the ped) signal so as to warn of your approach. Even then, if you hit them, it's because you were going to fast to stop safely in case they wandered into your path.
I love the laws in my state regarding shared cycling/pedestrian ways, and sidewalks in particular. Very reasonable and fair.
Yep, including not being allowed to run red lights. It would also be great if they had license plates so you could easily report dangerous behaviour.
Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.
>Which state are you in? There are a lot of US states (like, more than 10) where cyclists specifically are permitted to go through red lights in some circumstances.
IIUC, cars are pretty much universally permitted to go through red lights at least 1/3 of the time -- right on red is legal (AFAIK) in all 50 states. In many states, left on red from a one-way street to another one-way street is also legal.
That's true, but there are additional special rules that apply to cyclists, and sometimes motorcyclists, allowing them to go straight at a red light under specific circumstances.
Depends on the state. Some are specifically "if there's a vehicle detection sensor and it doesn't detect your bike after 90 seconds", others are just "cyclists may treat a stop sign as a yield sign and a red light as a stop sign".
Riding a bike without a helmet is permitted in most states, too. Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
That's a new and moved goalpost far from the original discussion, but sure.
Is there a specific state's laws that you think describe a circumstances when a bike may proceed through a red light, but it is unsafe to do so?
If so, how does that unsafety compare to your opinion on cars turning right on red?
Let me be more direct: because it’s legal for cyclists to run red lights, you think they should? I hope you can see what I am getting at now.
You can’t have it both ways. If cyclists are going to use roads designed for and paid by motorists, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations, taxes, and enforcement.
You’re welcome to defend a double standard for cyclists, but it won’t change the fact that it is indeed a double standard and is inherently unfair.
Your implication, without coming out and saying it, is that you think that a cyclist going through a rad light is a bad idea. You've not supported this with anything.
I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cyclists to go through red lights. I think there exist situations where it's reasonable for cars to go through red lights.
Roads are designed for both bikes and cars alike, or do they not have bike lanes where you're from? Since bicycles and cars are fundamentally different vehicles, they should have different sets of laws applied to them. To try to apply the same set of rules would be inherently unfair. You're welcome to try to argue that that's actually fair, but you've currently backed up your stance with nothing but fake leading questions and baseless claims.
"The law prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges"
There was no implication. I was just genuinely curious why you think the double standard should exist and why you think it is fair.
There were no bike lanes in the city I live in until ten years ago. They took lanes on roads that were never designed to accommodate cyclists and and made them bicycle only lanes. The result is increased traffic congestion and more accidents.
The reality is that very few roads in America were ever designed to accommodate cyclists and in order to please a small but very vocal minority of people, lanes were stolen, in the literal sense of the word, from motorists and given to cyclists.
That is what it takes to keep cyclists safe on roads: redistribution of property from those who funded it and for whom it was designed for originally, giving it to cyclists. And even doing that can’t truly protect them when they do dumb things, like run red lights.
The truly unfair and dangerous thing here is propagating the illusion that cyclists can coexist with motorists. They can’t, for all of the reasons you yourself stated.
Obviously I’m discussing things as I believe they should be, not as they are, so I’m not sure what evidence you want me to provide, short of the logic inherent in the arguments I’m making. Feel free to point out where you think there are gaps in the logic.
Plenty of roads were designed for horses. It's clearly unsafe to have paved those roads and allowed automobiles on them, the result of doing so was as you said increased traffic congestion and more accidents.
Why are you okay with the double standard of redistributing property to the motorists, but not redistributing property from the motorists?
I find your position immensely hypocritical.
What do you think is the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45?
Automobiles saved an order of magnitude more lives when they replaced horses because horses leave manure on streets, which breed flies and other insects that can spread deadly diseases like typhoid fever. Cities were littered with horse droppings. The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes.
I know that’s not really what you were getting at with you comment, but it’s worth noting when people try to demonize cars, as cyclists are wont to do: they’re the least bad and most versatile mode of mass transportation available.
The context in which the automobile met horses matters: contrary to your portrayal of roads, very few of them were actually paved in any meaningful sense. They were mostly compacted dirt, sometimes gravel. Lanes existed in a less explicit way, and speeds were much slower because pedestrians were always mixed in as well.
Cars were a vast improvement over this situation along every meaningful axis. They’re faster, don’t leave manure on streets, and are safer when you consider operation. Horses get spooked and buck their riders, they can kick, they weigh hundreds of pounds and can crush you. And most importantly, they were cheaper than owning a horse. People didn’t switch overnight for no reason.
To the heart of your comment, the reason why we have the infrastructure we do is because cars were so much more capable than horses. Traffic signals, lane demarcations, signage: all of these things came about because cars were so much faster than horses. Congestion doesn’t matter if you can get there in half the time.
When you need to get to the hospital, do you ride a bike? When you want to buy a couch at the store, how do you get it home? When you need to visit your grandparents the next state over, how do you get there?
Overwhelmingly, the answer is a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, the value of that vehicle is proportional to the infrastructure available to use it.
Here’s the rub: cycling is a luxury. Access to a motor vehicle when you need it is a neccesity. When you need to get to the ER, the last thing you want to do is be fighting a bunch cyclists to get there. When it’s snowing and -20F outside, you’re only taking the bike if you absolutely have too.
Your freedom of movement depends on infrastructure built for motor vehicles. Your ability to really do anything beyond get to work and back in a city depends on reliable and efficient access to a motor vehicle.
We should stop wasting money on bike lanes and build real public transit in our cities. The reason people feel compelled to use a bike is the alternatives are too awful to be competitive.
If you think that’s hypocritical, I don’t know what to tell you. Cyclists degrade infrastructure built for motorists. Infrastructure you need. Infrastructure they contribute to the upkeep of via gas taxes.
Not sure about the answer to your question without looking it up, but probably “car crash” given the context of our conversation.
> The reduction in deadly disease spread caused by widespread automobile adoption more than outweighed the deaths caused by automobile crashes.
[Citation needed]
That's really a...unique...take. The reduction in disease was due to things like antibiotics and water treatment facilities, and preventing contamination from human sewage. Horse manure does not cause widespread disease.
Are you just making things up? Like, that's LLM-level hallucination right there.
The rest of your comment is just you stating your opinion as though it's fact because I guess you live somewhere 100% car dependent. Just because your freedom of movement and ability to do things other than commute relies on a motor vehicle, does not make that true of others outside your bubble of wealth.
That said, as established above I'm either arguing with a robot or with a person who has no problem inventing swaths of history out of whole cloth, so I guess the joke is on me.
From the Typhoid Fever page on Wikipedia:
“Industrialization contributed greatly to the elimination of typhoid fever, as it eliminated the public health hazards associated with having horse manure in public streets, which led to a large number of flies, which are vectors of many pathogens, including Salmonella spp.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_fever
I appreciate the compliment, but no, I’m not an LLM, just an ordinary guy who has more understanding of these issues than you do.
Here’s a wild idea: fact check the stuff you claim I’m making up before you make a fool of yourself.
I think this conversation is over. You’re clearly an angry, closed minded person. Have a nice day.
Yeah, I think that's wise. The presentation of the single largest non-age-related killer in the western world as something that needs to be protected, for safety's sake, means we're sufficiently far apart on things like the value of a human life that productive discussions are difficult without someone getting frustrated and devolving into listing the sort of person the other is.
None of them, most of the time.
> It would also be great if they had license plates
Lol, like hell it would. The supposed "danger" is not worth more legislation and overreach.
Just think of the YouTube videos though; sovereign citizens on bicycles.
At some intersections the sensor loops literally never activate for bikes (especially carbon bikes with very little metal). If you don't run the red light then you'll be stuck there until a car happens to come along and trip the sensor for you.
Okay, that seems ultra relevant to the ~100% of bikes that routinely run red lights in San Francisco at fully trafficked intersections where the sensors are clearly already tripped.
Who cares about San Francisco? This article is about New York.
So you dismount and cross as a pedestrian. I mostly cycle, and the lack of bike sensors at some intersections is occasionally annoying but not a reason to break the road rules.
I just wish every cyclist would re-learn that they're bound by the same traffics laws as every driver on the road. I'd bet accidents are more often than not mostly their fault.
There is no US state where the traffic laws for cars and cyclists are identical. Where are you located that they are?
> I'd bet accidents are more often than not mostly their fault.
That's actually not true. Most surveys I've seen show that drivers are at fault ~80% of the time.
Surveys?
“Yes I’ve been in an accident on my bike Mr. Poll Taker.”
“What? Of course it was the other guy’s fault!”
No, surveys like where researchers show up to hospitals and look at the police reports for the injured cyclists.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my wording. By "survey" I was trying to point to the specific kind of research methodology where you survey people about what has happened in the past instead of trying to control variables like in a typical experiment.
I wasn't talking about random internet polls or self-reported blame analyses, but actual research papers.
Cyclists contribute to congestion and occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits.
Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.
Cyclists are rarely subjected to traffic law enforcement despite demanding all of the rights that motorists pay for and are licensed for.
Cyclists are a danger to themselves and others while operating in the same area as motorists, but are not required to carry insurance or wear safety equipment, while motorists are held to more stringent regulation.
In a nutshell, cyclists are free-riding risk takers who are arrogant to boot. When they start acting like motorists and pay taxes like motorists and are fined like motorists for violating the law, I will happily change my opinion.
> Cyclists contribute to congestion
How many cyclists can fit in a space of one car? Or, would you rather that every cyclist was in a car instead? Would that increase or decrease congestion?
> occupy road space that was created through taxes on motorists while paying nothing for these benefits
So roads get funded in full by motorists and cyclists can't possibly also own motorized vehicles and they don't pay tax that definitely doesn't contribute to the roads that they surely wear down at a rate that's not on the order of tens to hundreds of thousands lower than cars. Oh and 16 lane highways are built because of all the damn cyclists clogging up the roads.
> Cyclists are not licensed and their bicycles are not tagged or inspected for safe operation on roads, unlike motorists.
A cyclist on the road is only a danger to himself. A motorist can mow down a school trip on a pedestrian crossing on a whim.
The latter two points just repeat the above. Yes, driving a 2 ton machine at 80 mph is going to have be a little more restricted than a 20 kg bicycle at 20 mph.
Cyclists travel slower than the prevailing speed of motorists, and they accelerate from a stop much slower. And while they don’t take up much space, the space they consume is not zero. We can argue the magnitude here, but the effect is obvious to anyone who has shared the road with a cyclist.
Road wear is not the main issue. Roads will deteriorate whether they’re used or not. They will deteriorate faster with heavier traffic, sure. But deterioration from temperature cycling, road salt application, and weather happens whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use this infrastructure, they should contribute to its upkeep.
If cyclists have a car and contribute by paying these taxes and fees, then let’s build a regulatory regime that exempts these users from cyclist fees and taxes. The point here is to make those using the infrastructure pay for their share of upkeep and their contribution to congestion.
Deer are only a danger to themselves too, right? People never experience damage to their vehicle or personal injury when they hit a deer? The damage and risk is not proportional to both parties, sure. But it is false to say that drivers experience no risk of damage or bodily injury when in an accident with a cyclist who disobeys traffic laws. Cyclists should be insured at whatever rate is necessary to protect against this risk.
Your school children example is not really applicable here. We’re discussing cyclists who want to be treated like motorists but refuse to act like them and obey common traffic rules. That is about as far as you can get from from an innocent group of school children crossing the street with the flashing red stop sign on the school bus activated.
Your takes are really, really ignorant.
Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.
Your “obvious” example is something that’s unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.
The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced. The idea that it’s a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput. Having separate rules is entirely consistent here. If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non problem.
> Your takes are really, really ignorant.
Thank you for sharing that. I hope you feel better now.
> Allowing cyclists to run red lights significantly reduces mortality. Waiting at an intersection is provably one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists.
The second sentence of the abstract of this study would imply you're ignorant, but I won't stoop to name calling:
"Red light running violation of bicyclists is the major contributory factor to the crash involvement of bicyclists worldwide."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22143...
> Your "obvious" example is something that's unknowable to you as an individual. You have no knowledge of the effective throughput of the road ahead of you.
If I'm following a cyclist who is going 20mph in a 30mph zone, they're contributing to congestion. This is obvious to every human, even those who have never even seen modern infrastructure or the vehicles that operate on it. It happens when walking in hallways or on stairways. When someone is slow and people can't get around them, you get congestion.
> The disdain you have for cyclists seems bizarre and misplaced
I don't have any disdain for cyclists, only those dumb enough to try and coexist with motorists and arrogant enough to try and change traffic laws and infrastructure to fit their needs at the expense of everyone else.
I ride my bicycle at the park with my kids, and partly why I feel so passionately about this is because I don't want my kids riding in situations where they are very likely to get themselves injured or killed.
You're absolutely right, waiting at an intersection is one of the most dangerous moments for cyclists. This is because riding on roads with motorists is the most dangerous moment for cyclists.
There is no way to make it safe for cyclists to coexist with motorists. Mixing the two results in more people getting injured and dying. This should be reason enough to ban them from roads with motor vehicles, putting aside every other issue I've raised.
Allowing them to run red lights is a recipe for disaster. Use your brain: motorists reasonably and rightfully expect to have the right of way when the light is green. Literally every other moving object yields to them at intersections with a signal. Making an exception for cyclists will result in more people running red lights, and more corresponding injuries and deaths.
> The idea that it's a double standard is wrong — the standards are set to minimize harm and maximize effective throughput.
Go look up what the phrase double standard means. It is by definition a double standard. You can defend the double standard, but that doesn't change the fact that it is one.
> If we subsidized the lifestyle of cyclists as much as motorists, this would be a non-problem.
If by this you mean we should reduce the amount of subsidization to zero for both, I agree completely. Infrastructure should be paid for with use fees. If cyclists want to use it they should pay for it. If motorists want to use it, they should pay for it. Currently motorists contribute, while cyclists do not.
I do pay taxes, just like a motorist might. Where do you live that you think your car or your gas is taxed in a way that contributes to road upkeep? In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades, roadways are maintained out of the common coffers (incl. large federal incentives which come straight out of your income tax payments).
> In the US gas taxes haven't been upped in decades
But the tax is still constantly being collected even though the rate isn't going up. This is like saying electricity must be free if you haven't had a rate hike in a while.
Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it? What exactly is your point?
For the record, I support closing that gap, in addition to taxing the odometer on electric vehicles which don’t contribute to gas tax revenue but use roadways like other motorists.
> Because motorists don’t fund all road upkeep, cyclists who consume those very same roads are entitled to pay none of it?
I don't think you understood what you wrote. Non-motorists subsidize motorists.
Feel free to look up the % of funding for roads that gas tax or w/e accounts for in your country.
Also look up the fourth power law, that'll tell you how much tax a cyclist should pay compared to a driver in terms of road wear. Say a cyclist should pay $1, how much should you?
Then check how many millions it costs to build a mile of highway and internalize the fact that cyclists are not allowed there. Nor do they use car parking. Nor do they cause 40 thousand deaths per year in the USA. What's the cost of human life again?
Once you figure all that out, we'll be ready to start talking about pollution and its effects.
More than half of the US doesn’t pay income taxes. Your point about non-motorists subsidizing motorists is nonsensical in this context. At least some of the taxes motorists pay are directly used for road maintenance.
Roads deteriorate whether they’re used or not. If cyclists want to use them, they should pay to maintain them. I don’t know why you find this idea so controversial. Adjust the fees commensurate with their weight if you want, but by definition those fees should not be zero.
Roads are obviously expensive, hence why it is repulsive that cyclists pay nothing to build or maintain them, but actively increase the danger on them and degrade the efficiency of using them.
Pollution? In what world do cyclists not require fuel to operate? Cyclists use the most expensive fuel possible to operate: consumable calories. We burn fuel to operate machinery to produce food, then transport it to stores and then transport it home, cook it, and then use only a portion of the available calories to operate a bicycle because the human body isn’t 100% efficient.
You’re delusional if you somehow think cycling is good for the environment.
Motorists __DO NOT COVER__ the costs of roads. Your existence as a motorist is entirely subsidized. The cost of driving is borne by government and society. Road infrastructure, maintenance, and space for cars is actually insanely expensive.
What do you think taxes on gasoline are for?
You’re absolutely right, roadways are insanely expensive. That’s why it’s infuriating to see entire lanes expropriated for cyclists.
Road wear is fourth power of axel weight, so trucks/lorries are overwhelmingly the cause of what repair money gets spent on fixing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Complaining about cyclists getting bike lanes is like complaining about pedestrians getting footpaths.
No, it would be like a city building a dog park and then having parents bring their kids to the park and demanding that dog owners keep their dogs on leashes while in the park.
By your logic, this is fine because the kids aren’t pooping in the park which degrades it less.
Never mind that the park was created for dog owners, and their enjoyment of it is impaired by these new restrictions placed on them by people who shouldn’t even be there.
Your analogy is the bad one here.
To be like that, almost everyone would need to own a dog, and everyone including the non-dog-owners would have things delivered by dog, the dog park would have to actively block access to most places, and the fees for the dog owners pay for the dog park would have to be insufficient for the dog park and the park instead subsidised by general taxation even from the people who only get stuff delivered by dog… which would be quite fair and reasonable because almost all the damage to the dog park that the maintenance fees would need to cover, would be due to specifically the delivery dogs.
The actual point of the dog park fees in this scenario would be to reduce the usage of the dog park, due to everyone riding their dogs everywhere. Which is a heck of a mental image.
Roads aren't for pleasure, they're economic infrastructure that some people happen to enjoy.
I'm sorry you aren't able to see the parallels. Let me explain them for you:
Dog owners are the motorists. Dedicated infrastructure was built specifically for them to use.
Parents with kids are the cyclists. They want to restrict how that infrastructure is used so that they can enjoy it in the way that is most convenient for them, at the expense of the dog owners.
Initially, dog owners used the park freely without any interference from parents with kids. But at some point, parents with kids felt they were entitled to use the dog park in ways it was never intended to be used, and changed regulations to restrict dog owners enjoyment of the park.
I intentionally left out any discussion of how these things are paid for to highlight the unfairness of this situation. It doesn't matter how it's paid for, since the infrastructure already exists for a specific purpose and is being used for that purpose.
To include the finance side of things in this analogy, it would be like funding the dog park with a special sales tax on dog food, which increases the unfairness of the whole situation when it's taken over by the parents with kids, who paid nothing to maintain or build it.
In case you don't understand how analogies work, they highlight critical similarities between two situations that are otherwise dissimilar to help understand the underlying concept. They aren't parallel in all respects, nor can they be.
If your best argument against my analogy is to introduce irrelevant dissimilarities to distract from the obvious point of the analogy, I'll take that as an endorsement it was effective.
I think we're ignoring the wider context of this thread, which would be the context of TFA, which is New York City specifically. The roads in NYC predate the existence of the automobile. NYC had a bicycle boom in the late 1800s.
https://www.nytimes.com/1869/03/08/archives/velocipedes-thei... | https://archive.is/UDhZf
Bike cops in NYC in the late 1800s were likely more common than cars.
https://flatironnomad.nyc/history/brief-history-of-bicycling... | https://web.archive.org/web/20250713044710/https://flatironn...
> In 1896, then New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Roosevelt launched the first-ever group of bicycle-riding officers. This team evolved into a 100-member organization with its own station stated Evan Friss, co-curator of the Museum of the City of New York’s 2019 exhibit Cycling in the City: A 200-Year History[0].
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250319112028/https://www.mcny....
By the time this film was created in 1911, cars existed, but they had to share the road with pedestrians, cable cars, and horse carriages.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx5sUa_2SD8
> This documentary travelogue of New York City in 1911 was made by a team of cameramen with the Swedish company Svenska Biografteatern, who were sent around the world to make pictures of well-known places.
> Opening and closing with shots of the Statue of Liberty, the film also includes New York Harbor; Battery Park and the John Ericsson statue; the elevated railways at Bowery and Worth Streets; Broadway sights like Grace Church and Mark Cross; the Flatiron Building on Fifth Avenue; and Madison Avenue. Produced only three years before the outbreak of World War I, the everyday life of the city recorded here—street traffic, people going about their business—has a casual, almost pastoral quality that differs from the modernist perspective of later city-symphony films like Paul Strand and Charles Sheeler’s "Manhatta" (1921). Take note of the surprising and remarkably timeless expression of boredom exhibited by a young girl filmed as she was chauffeured along Broadway in the front seat of a convertible limousine.
Jaywalking wasn't even really a concept until ~1915. It's legal again in NYC as of last year. Jaywalking laws against pedestrians and other non-drivers could be viewed as a taking from or enclosure of the commons; in this case, roads as public thoroughfares for one and all. In this light, the behavior of drivers towards cyclists is a continuation of their hostility towards horse carriage users and pedestrians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
https://www.cnn.com/travel/jaywalking-legalized-new-york-cit... | https://archive.is/Y2MCk
Folks have been cycling in NYC long before cars were common. Before that, folks were using the roads for all manner of pursuits. Roads are tools for living, and they're for everyone who needs them if a better option more suited for your mode of transportation isn't available.
It’s more like the cities have chosen to turn _every public space_ into a dog park that you have no ability to escape. For the pleasure of living in this inefficient landscape, you are charged in the form of taxes to maintain it. Dog owners remain convinced that because they pay sales tax on kibbles, that they have a right to this space. After all, it’s just how places naturally are!
> What do you think taxes on gasoline are for?
Paying for our highways circa 1993 [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_Sta...
You realize states levy taxes on gas too, right? And that those taxes are remitted to city governments to build and maintain infrastructure?
What percentage of the TCO of roads do you think is covered by gas tax?
You are using a state service whenever you use the road. It is a subsidy that people who are the largest offenders consistently choose to entrench.
Not enough. I've been consistently stating throughout this thread that people need to pay for their use. The fact that motorists shoulder some but not all of the cost is not an argument that cyclists should be exempted from paying any of the cost.
> A requirement to start re-testing normal people in addition to the elderly would be a large benefit to society.
1) Are you going to fund that? Because it means a significant increase in testing examiners.
2) The data say over and over and over that the single best traffic safety enhancement would be to ban drivers until they are 21. People have to be in their 80s(!) before they are as bad as drivers in their teens and early 20s.
1. The people who want to drive should fund their own testing. This is how it works for every other heavy equipment operator's license.
2. Sounds good
1) could reasonably be self funded. $150 per driver every 5 years is a rounding error compared to all the other costs of car ownership.
2) how much of this is because the drivers are young, and how much because they are inexperienced? If you ban teenage drivers, your 22-year-old drivers will still be inexperienced.
Is that because they're young, or because they're inexperienced?
I would support re-testing on some interval like every 5 years. That said, so much could be done to make the environment safer. Lower speeds, more traffic calming, safer intersections, safer alternatives (public transit, walking, bicycle).
I can't help but think about the failures of basic human-oriented infrastructure when I can't safely ride my bike to the grocery store 2 miles from my home. I don't know what it'll take to change this in our cities, and it feels like an uphill battle when seemingly very few people care about problems like these.
"Safely" is a subjective term. Plenty of motorists are injured in MVAs on 2 mile drives to get groceries too. What cyclists should pursue is an accident rate equivalent to cars, per hour in traffic.
Everyone agrees to this, the problem is there needs to be a way for this to be done efficiently so it's not another regressive tax on poor people's time and money.
I think the US at least does sight tests periodically? The UK still doesn't do that, you're required to have decent vision to drive, but the license renewals are just paperwork, pay the money and click a web form.
There is talk in the UK of requiring sight tests for the elderly. Historically UK licenses required frequent renewal, when they were centralised for convenience they ceased to have a renewal step, and it was kinda-sorta reintroduced much later once they had photographs because of course a 40 year photo is unrecognisable. But because of the focus on photographs the renewal step is integrated to passports, and is a chain-of-likeness documentation process. If I look a big greyer than last time in the photo I upload, pay, wait a few days, OK, some mix of humans and machines says that's the same guy as the other photo except older, replace image, print new ID.
Since it's aligned with passports (which also care about image similarity) there's no room in that step for like "Do your eyes still work?" let alone "Do you know what this fucking sign means?" or anything resembling mandatory continuing education.
> I think the US at least does sight tests periodically?
Depends on the state because drivers licenses are their remit.
Yeah the mindset is essentially drive to spec in the test and then skirting the law from then on.
I think a lot about this (bad drivers) and I’m not really sure how to fix it since I think it’s really a problem of underlying selfishness and perceived-exceptionalism mixed with overestimation of skill.
Nailed it.
Mostly the selfishness part. The whole idea of being courteous with other people on the road just doesn’t exist.
Sadly, this also extends to bicyclists. Entitled instead of courteous.
cars can easily be programmed to detect bad driving.
Don't you think that the vast majority of dangerous human drivers would be perfectly capable of changing their behavior during a driving test? Even without any malicious intent most people would be more careful during a test.
No, I don't actually. Can't turn off stupid.
You can turn on drunk
I want a camera on every traffic light and stop light - or better, cameras on a random 20% subset of intersections. The system would automatically flag infractions for human review. Combined with docking points off people's licenses and/or fines based on income/wealth percentage, this would be a decent deterrent.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
That shift will happen all by itself. At some point, in a distant future, the price of the insurrance for human-driven cars will be so expensive that people because of that will choose a robot-driven car.
It is all about risk (the risk of the insurrance company loosing money) and an error prone and unpreditical human will be a considered high risk in that regard.
Will it though? Surely as driverless cars become viable the "I don't wanna do this, I actively don't care about doing it well" crowd will adopt them and insurance rates for everyone else will likely plummet.
What I would love to see happen from a safety perspective and which I think might happen (but zero timeline on when) is that a human driving a car will be relegated to something people do purely for enjoyment and only in areas designated for human drivers, similar to how you don't see horseback riding anymore except in designated areas or for specific use cases.
If you actually ride in one, you do notice some off behaviors that I didn't pick up while just driving alongside them. That said, I agree that the bad human drivers have done things far, far worse than any of the cars.
The biggest gripe with riding in one is that they're slow, both because of super cautious driving and because they won't take freeways yet.
A month ago I saw a Waymo turn left into a tiny alley in Palo Alto and continue at full 25mph speed, which was alarming. I guess the alley is marked as a regular road in the software? Highlights how even if it's safer than humans on average, they need to minimize these weird behaviors in order to get socially accepted and avoid $$$ liability when there is an accident.
New speedbumps were installed in a school zone near my housing complex recently, we're a heavy Waymo area and I watched one of them launch itself over one without slowing down.
They installed one of those near my friends house. There's a couple mechanic shops in the vicinity used it for diagnosis while driving exactly the posted speed limit. It lasted about a month until the people who complained it into existence complained it out of existence.
I have only taken a couple Waymos but I had the opposite experience. They were much faster and more decisive than I expected. They do apparently learn from surrounding drivers and this was LA so maybe that explains the difference.
It wouldn't surprise me if each Waymo has one of a pool of aggression settings - I've noticed the difference between cars as a rider.
Interesting. I hadn’t considered it but that makes a lot of sense. I wonder if that happens per car or per ride. Do aggression settings adjust to apparent passenger comfort?
Unclear, I’ve noticed both timid and aggressive on the same day in different cars so maybe not?
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty
I have taken driving licence exams in 3 different countries in the world and the NY exams was, by far, the easiest, less stringent one.
For the theory part, you can take the exam from home, on your own laptop and you just have to pinky swear you won't cheat. It's downright silly.
Also, traffic enforcement in NYC feels basically nonexistent. Drivers will run red lights, fail to yield at pedestrian crossings and will park wherever they feel like it. And the police won't do anything - in fact, the police are one of the biggest offenders.
Like "real" safety or like "16yo with a driver's ed instructor in the passenger seat ensuring the follow every law but doesn't really 'get it' yet" safely?
be careful what you wish for, you are giving up your freedom to movement in the name of security. you might make the argument that you can hail a cab. that's more expensive than owning your own car and with self driving cabs you will lose your privacy when you use them. any movement between 2 points will always be recorded with at least video and as you are moving, someone else other than you can pinpoint your exact location. with your own vehicle, you could unplug your phone and car GPS/tracking device and have some privacy.
> you are giving up your freedom to movement in the name of security
Driving in American cities is the opposite of freedom. The necessity of regulating apes piloting heavy machinery in close proximity to each other and society is a major source of our modern police state.
No, it is still freedom.
It is inconvenient freedom, but it’s freedom.
We do not have a freedom to movement _by motor vehicle_ in the US.
It is a privilege licensed by the State and regularly revoked through due process or expiry.
While your concern about mobility and privacy are valid, I would contend that public safety is what it’s to be weighed against. Some people really are better riders than drivers.
We do not have a "right", in practice, we have some degree of practical freedom.
Of course people who really don't like that freedom will play up the privilige vs right angle as they see fit to advance their goals.
Making it more difficult to obtain (or keep) a driver's license is meaningless without tough enforcement. Traffic enforcement in many areas is still way down after the "mostly peaceful" protests in 2020. When police do stop an unlicensed driver they often treat it as a simple citation without even impounding the vehicle.
> would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road
A Manhattan driver’s license addendum might be the way to do it. Keep a low bar for where one might need a car. But to enter Manhattan, you need to be autonomous or specially licensed.
That's gonna be great when other states start doing it and it becomes an absurd maze of predatory fees, reciprocity and political footballs.
Human failures have some, but not total, correlation with each other. A big fear of autonomous driving is some severe failure with total correlation - the whole fleet does the same dumb thing at the same time, in the same place, and/or in the same way.
My aunt's leg was crushed by an NY Taxi blowing a crosswalk. As hard as her recovery was too the legal battle that followed.
^ for context this was about 20 yrs. ago
Hang up man.
Not sure if there’s any real human drivers on the road anymore.
> I would adore to see obtaining a drivers license ratchet up in difficulty in order to remove dangerous human drivers from the road.
I'd like to challenge this part. I don't see the value of increasing the driving license tests. Reckless drivers can be reckless regardless of their initial driving license tests. You just need drivers with sense of responsibilities. they will get to know road norms as they go, which often is far more valuable than the driving license quizzes.
Context: I moved to a new place where acquiring a license can take more than a year. It turns into a game where driving license companies deliberately fail you just to get you to pay more.
I live in the bay and occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time.
I visited NYC a few weeks ago and was instantly reminded of how much the traffic fucking sucks :) While I was there I actually thought of Waymo and how they'd have to turn up the "aggression" slider up to 11 to get anything done there. I mean, could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?
Semi-related, but just once in my life, I want to hear a mayoral candidate say: “I endorse broken windows theory, but for drivers. You honk when there’s no emergency, block the box, roll through a stop sign — buddy that’s a ticket. Do it enough and we’ll impound your car.”
Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…
This always astounds me about cities who have a reputation for people breaking certain traffic laws. In St. Louis, people run red lights for 5+ seconds after it turns red, and no one seems to care to solve it, but if they'd just station police at some worst-offender lights for a couple months to write tickets, people would catch on pretty quickly that it's not worth the risk. I have similar thoughts on people using their phones at red lights and people running stop signs.
It’s amazing how effective even a slight amount of random law enforcement can be.
Several of the hiking trails I frequent allow dogs but only on leash. Over time the number of dogs running around off leash grows until it’s nearly every dog you see.
When the city starts putting someone at the trailhead at random times to write tickets for people coming down the trail with off-leash dogs suddenly most dogs are back on leash again. Then they stop enforcing it and the number of off-leash dogs starts growing.
Random sampling over time is substantially as effective as having someone enforce the law 100% of the time. It's something like how randomized algorithms can be faster than their purely-deterministic counterparts, or how sampling a population is quite effective at finding population statistics.
It feels less fair though. When everyone is driving x mph over the limit but only you get pulled over, it sucks. So I agree for efficiency of enforcement, but I'd rather see 100% enforcement (automated if possible), with more warnings and lower penalties.
It's only unfair if the innocent are punished. Lot of murders go unsolved. Does that mean the murderers that do get caught are treated unfairly?
That's a pretty extreme example, maybe the idea doesn't hold as much there. But yeah, if 99% of murders weren't prosecuted, the 1% who get charged might feel like they were singled out (and maybe they were, because of some bias or discrimination). Again, 100% enforcement is better.
It doesn't just "feel" less fair, it often is -- bc it's not truly random, it's selective enforcement which leads to things like "driving while black".
The problem with 100% enforcement is it doesn't allow law enforcement any discretion, and then you end up having to actually officially change the speed limit which would probably never happen
Definitely true in practice, but I don't think we want discretion. What I mean though is as a deterrent, you can either have a "fair" fine that's enforced 100% of the time, or 2x the "fair" amount with 50% enforcement, etc. When it's 100x the "fair" amount with 1% enforcement, and you see everyone else not being enforced, it feels unfair.
Traffic rules do require some discretion though - if eg you don’t allow crossing a double yellow line but a car is broken down blocking the lane, does that mean that the road is now effectively unusable until that car is towed? Lots of examples.
But I’m with you on more enforcement. I’m totally fine with automated traffic cameras and it was working great when I was in China - suddenly seemingly overnight everyone stopped speeding on the highways when I was in Shanghai, as your chances of getting a ticket were super high.
In europe we use traffic cameras for this. Going through red light? A bill is in your mailbox automatically. No need for a whole police station.
In Massachusetts, USA, red light cameras were illegal until very recently, due to a 70s era law specifying that a live policeman had to issue a citation for something like that. From well before traffic cameras were common.
Before they were common, yes, but they existed in active use back in the 1960s in the Netherlands: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_enforcement_camera
Put a single live policeman in front of 100 camera screens
We had a pilot program in NJ for them, they were universally hated. People would slam brakes on and be hanging over the edge into intersection and throw their car into reverse panicking to avoid the ticket, ended up causing a ton of new accidents so the program was never continued. In newark people shot at the cameras: https://www.nj.com/news/2012/08/shoot_out_the_red_lights_2_t...
That's an insufficient yellow phase rather than a camera problem. Not sure why NJ would think their population are special snowflakes that can't deal with red light cameras otherwise.
Italians?
Hitting the brakes and getting rear ended is barely even a crash compared to T-boning someone or plowing over pedestrians
I didn't say that. I said they'd panic and throw their vehicle into reverse. Cars/trucks can take the hit, motorcycles/bicycles not so much.
Huge skepticism that bicycles and motorcycles were getting backed into in any appreciable quantities.
If not that then rear-ended, here's the state's report on how red light cameras increased accidents: https://dot.nj.gov/transportation/about/publicat/lmreports/p...
How many people you willing to put in the hospital to prevent people from technically running reds on the yellow-red transition?
> in 2023, 1,086 people were killed in crashes that involved red light running
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/red-light-running
So let's use that as an upper bound.
How many people were killed by these backups you're talking about?
Sounds like NJ has some terrible drivers
Thankfully sawzalls are cheap and plentiful so people can use much safer practices to disable/remove them:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/parkside-drive-speed-...
The comments is written as if you specifically advocate for this. Why?
I bet if you come back after they've removed the old one but before they install the new one you can wreck the threads on the threaded anchors by impacting the wrong size higher grade nut on.
We have them in the US too, but it varies widely by jurisdiction because they're regulated at the state level and policed at the local level.
Oh and it's not a bill, it goes through the legal system so people have the right to argue it in court if they want.
Sweden: Their locations are public. There is even an official API.
They are mostly located in sane places.
Apps like Waze consume this API and warn drivers if they’re at risk of getting caught. It’s the deterrence/slowdown at known risky spots they’re after, not the fine, I guess.
I heard that apps warning drivers this way are illegal in Germany?
Aside: what's up with the traffic speed cameras in Sweden? It feels like they're not designed to catch anybody. In my recent drive there it seemed like most of the cameras were in an 80 zone just before it switch to 50 for a tiny town. They wouldn't catch a typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere -- they would likely have already started slowing down for the 50.
In my city in Canada, that camera would be in the 50 zone.
The typical driver who does something like 10 over everywhere is probably not the biggest safety hazard.
When I lived in a small town in Sweden, the problem was that at night some drivers would blow down the country roads and straight through the small towns at crazy speeds assuming that there was nobody around. On some nights/weekends there were also zero police on duty in the whole municipality, they would have to be called in from a neighboring, larger, municipality.
Because the point is to slow the traffic down, not to extract revenue from the peasantry.
Same as the difference between an obvious speed trap and a "gotcha" speed trap.
But does it slow people down? I doubt it has significant effect. Very few people are going to be going over 80 a few meters in front of a 50 sign. You essentially are only catching people who are doing close to double the upcoming speed limit. Those who are willing to do that should be getting much more severe punishment than a speeding ticket.
I think the general idea is strategic speed shaping before spots where lethal accidents are likely.
So nudging, sort of. There’s a lot of public support for that.
NYC is ramping up on this as well.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...
Here in my country they removed the cameras in the second largest city after a trial period. It took too much effort to filter out police colleagues running a red (in police or civilian vehicles).
Ah that is easy here. 1) civilian vehicles never get leeway 2) we know the license plates of all police cars so we just filter it. Or actually only do so when they use proper permission to run a light
Simpler
Plate lookup returns state/municipal as the owner -> ticket gets discarded.
In most the USA, or at least Arizona, you have to serve someone. Just dropping something in a mail box doesn't mean dick. The very people that invented the traffic cameras up in Scottsdale were caught dodging the process servers from triggers from their own camera.
Another words, you have to spend hundreds of dollars chasing someone down, by the time you add that on to how easy it is to jam up the ticket in court by demanding an actual human being accuse you, it's not the easy win some may think. You're basically looking at $500+ to try and prosecute someone for a $300 ticket.
NY is not Arizona. They have the plate and send the fine to whomever the vehicle is registered to. If the fine isn't paid they flag the plate and impound the car if it's driven in their state.
In FL, a speed camera can give a car's owner can a ticket without needing to know he was the driver. Your perspective is not true nation wide.
"The registered owner of the motor vehicle involved in the violation is responsible and liable for paying the uniform traffic citation issued for a violation"
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...
That seems completely fucked to me. Charging people who aren't guilty of any crime with a crime because somebody else was driving their car?
What would be the alternative? Just get who was driving your car to pay you back for the fine. If they are not accountable/honorable enough to back you back, then why were you letting them drive your car in the first place?
The same "alternative" that there is to every other crime in existence, proving the person you charged with a crime actually committed the crime. The default is suppose to be innocence, not guilty. It is the state's responsibility or problem to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not a citizen's responsibility to prove their continued innocence at all times.
I mean, the state obviously has photo evidence. So you need to show that either the photo was taken in error, that it misidentified your vehicle or that you weren't the legal owner at the time.
They have a photo of a car, but the car cannot commit a crime all on its own, someone has to be driving it. And if you have no idea who is driving when you charge them you are inevitably going to be charging innocent people.
When the police come across a car that's parked illegally, do you think they should need to wait around and figure out exactly who left it before issuing a ticket? Of course not; the vehicle owner is responsible for ensuring it's parked legally.
In the same way, it's the vehicle owner's responsibility to make sure their car is not driven through a red light. If they abdicate that responsibility, they aren't innocent!
I got a couple of them like 20 years ago. Picture was terrible. I just through the ticket in the trash and never thought about it again.
That's absolutely hilarious. They take a photo of something approximating your vehicle that shows your plate number, toss it in a mail system that loses more than 0.5% of the class of mail used, then according to another poster in NY they impound your car after all this.
Anyplace with the slightest adherence to the rule of law requires the state to positively identify an actual person, not a vehicle owned by a person, that is responsible for a moving violation. And then personally serve that person rather than just coming up with this absolute bullshit excuse that an unreliable mail system with a letter dropped god knows where somehow is legal service.
A couple things wrong here:
1. Camera-issued tickets are not moving violations
2. Your car will not be impounded for failure to pay (maybe unless you have many, many unpaid tickets)
If the photo is bad, you can dispute it! That isn't presumption of guilt, it's the legal system working exactly as intended: one side presents their evidence, and the other side has a chance to respond.
Even if USPS loses 0.5% of mail (I am skeptical; that seems crazy high) the state sends at least three notices, so the chances of you missing every notice of your infraction is something like one in a million.
Only by the most ridiculous fiction is running a red light or speeding not a moving violation. They've intentionally pretended like it's not to get around the due process involved.
What do you mean by people who aren't guilty? The infraction here is allowing your vehicle to run a red light.
How do you allow a vehicle to run a red light that you aren't driving?
Easy:
1. Allow someone else to drive your vehicle
2. That person runs a red light
Your responsibility as the vehicle owner is to either not do step 1, or only do it for people whom you trust will not do step 2.
You don't even have to 'allow' them. Either you could live in a community property state, where your spouse, even a spouse who has initiated divorce against you, legally also owns the vehicle that is in your name. Or someone could steal it. Or someone could steal or duplicate your plates and put it on a nearly identical car, which happened to a friend who had to spend years fighting all the tickets that were mailed to him when an entirely different car (same make/model) used his same plate numbers.
If you can show that your vehicle or plates were stolen, you won't have to pay the ticket; in NYC that is explicitly listed as a possible defense [1].
The spouse thing honestly seems fine — it just means that you're both responsible for paying the ticket, rather than you alone — but if you have an issue it's with the property laws, not the red light cameras.
[1] https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/vehicles/red-light-camera-v...
My friend "showed" the plates were not his (he couldn't prove the car wasn't stolen because it wasn't -- they only copied his plate) but they kept sending him tickets because apparently it only counts for one ticket. They wanted him to go through a laborious process every time. I think he finally just stopped challenging them because it took too much time, and probably can't go to that state again unless he wants his car seized.
Sounds like the issue here is that the police aren't doing their job!
Arizona also did stakeouts to try and catch this guy:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32806142
In CO we have automatic traffic cameras, and to my knowledge they just mail you the ticket, which is usually only a fine (and no license points). Its one of those “automatic plea” tickets where if you fight it, you fight (and risk conviction on) the actual offense, while if you just pay the ticket it will automatically get downgraded to a less serious offense (IE parking outside the lines).
I live in AZ, try driving on Lincoln in Paradise Valley. Everyone is going at 40mph because of the speed cameras. Most people don't want to be fugitives.
I sometimes use Tatum with PV's speed vans parked on the side of the road to head towards downtown Phx and, yes, the common speed is definitely around 40. But pretty much as soon as past McDonald and on 44th St, I resume the the normalized 7-8 mph over the posted limit because I know there are no more speed cameras.
It's just a process server, not cops. It's just the equivalent of a glorified delivery man looking for you. The general counsel, an executive, and the employees in general of ATS (the company that does the traffic cameras in most of AZ and I think much the USA) dodge the process servers when they get caught by their own cameras. The people that understand how the process works don't seem too bothered being a "fugitive" as it's all a nothing-burger and if you get caught all it means is you need to hire a lawyer to make it go away or pay the ticket.
Not in New Jersey. I visited my parents and didn’t stop for a full three seconds before making a right on red on a deserted road at night and they fined my dad.
This isn't true we've had plenty of programs where red light camera tickets were rolled out.
Voters just really don't like them.
They were rolled out but the mailed tickets are legally meaningless, someone has to actually hunt you down within a short timespan (I think 90 days) to create any binding requirement to address it.
https://rideoutlaw.com/photo-radar-tickets-in-arizona-a-comp...The problem with traffic cameras in the US was that they became outsourced revenue enhancement rather than public safety.
The cameras would get installed at busy intersections with lots of minor infractions to collect fines on rather than unsafe intersections that had lots of bad accidents. And then, when the revenue was insufficient, they would dial down the yellow light time.
Consequently, and rightly, Americans now immediately revolt against traffic cameras whenever they appear.
(San Diego was one particularly egregious example. They installed the cameras on the busy freeway interchange lights when the super dangerous intersection that produced all the T-bone accidents was literally one traffic light up the hill. This infuriated everybody.)
Nobody thinks it's racist to enforce traffic laws. People think it's racist to selectively enforce traffic laws by race, which usually takes the form of police pulling over Black drivers at higher rates. (But it can also mean installing more traffic cameras in minority neighborhoods!)
Try driving anywhere in the world that's not Western Europe or The USA and you'll quickly see how advanced even our worst cities are when it comes to traffic.
Last time I was in China drivers simply go through four way intersections at top speed from all directions simultaneously. If you are a pedestrian I hope you're good at frogger because there is a 0% chance anyone will stop for you. I really wonder how self driving cars work because they must program some kind of insane software that ignores all laws or it wouldn't even be remotely workable.
When I was living in China I got used to crossing large streets one lane at a time. Pedestrians stand on the lane markers with cars whizzing by on either side while they wait for a gap big enough to cross the next lane. It's not great for safety, to put it mildly, but the drivers expect it and it's the only way to get across the road in some places. I was freaked out by it but eventually it became habit.
Then I came back to the US and forgot to switch back to US-style street crossing behavior at first. No physical harm done, but I was very embarrassed when people slammed on their brakes at the sight of me in the middle of the road.
It is kinda funny watching people complain here after visiting almost anywhere in Asia. Can't speak for Japan or Korea though.
I've never been to SK, but in Japan things are -- unsurprisingly, as one might guess -- very orderly. For the most part (in cities at least) you don't jaywalk, even when there are no cars on the road.
Same in Korea, just on the other side of the road, very polite and professional, no one breaks rules for the most part, even in Major Cities.
I know a lot of foreigners like Japan for motorcycling specifically because you can "white line" in most places, and the drivers are attentive.
The one quirk I thought was most interesting was Crab Angle Stops or when at a T shape stop lights that have an additional stop light 20 feet further from the intersection. Sometimes the cars will align diagonally to allow more traffic per light and let whoever is in front have a better angle to see traffic on small roads with poor visibility. Then when the light turns green the diagonally aligned cars move back to normal.
Like ////// to - - - - - -
Officially, the 道路交通法 (Road Traffic Act) doesn’t say “you must angle.” It just requires drivers to stop at the line and confirm safety before entering.
The diagonal stop is more of a local driving custom (practical adaptation) rather than a codified rule.
What the actual rules are matter far less than that traffic is predictable. Like in Boston it's typical for a few cars to get into the intersection to take a left, traffic goes around them in both directions and only on the change to red to they go. Not technically legal but normal. 4-way stops where nobody stops and everyone times their roll unless there's a reason to. Also not technically legal but normal. Nobody with an opinion worth caring about complains about these things. Blowing lights many seconds after they've changed is still wild IMO.
Wait, so all the sibling comments are actually proposing bringing NYC traffic to a gridlock?
People are risking their lives and the lives of others, and a fine is supposed to be the thing that finally gets them to comply?
This is what the points system is for.
Any individual infraction might only be a small fine, but it adds points to your license. Collect enough points and you risk license suspension.
I’ve known a couple people who got close to having enough points for license suspension. They drove perfectly for years.
That sounds reasonable to me. Everybody makes mistakes, but nobody should be consistently making grievous mistakes capable of causing serious injury or death to other motorists on a regular basis.
I'm less concerned with a little speeding than I am with blowing through lights and stop signs.
I think in most areas with cameras where fines are automatically assesed to the vehicle owner (who is not necessarily the driver), there are no points. That way it's just a civil penalty and the burden of proof is low. "We have a photo" is enough.
Yes.
If they run a red light today there is some small chance they will injure/kill someone.
If they run a red light with a camera, there is a 100% chance they will receive a ticket.
The key factor is not the magnitude of the penalty (i.e. whether someone dies or they receive a fine) but the chance that they will encounter the penalty.
You've got me: I believe that people respond to financial incentives. I don't think this is a radical position.
Phone while stopped at a red light is explicitly legal here. I don't think it's been a problem?
New startup idea just dropped.
I think (or at least I hope) St Louis is primarily focused on reducing their sky-high murder rates. But who knows.
Blocking the box is a ticket in London. It works.
Edit: let me clarify: there is a camera on every intersection which automatically gives a ticket to everyone who blocks for >5sec. That works.
It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced. We need a lot more red light cameras.
The nominal regulations on automotive behavior is pretty sufficient throughout the US, the main problem is that in most parts of the country traffic law may as well be a dead letter.
> It is in NYC also, except it's entirely unenforced.
It's enforced in the worst congested zones, the intersections around tunnel entrances and midtown, but as I said in my other comment usually by parking enforcement not NYPD.
A workaround in the law is to throw your turn signal on if stranded in the box, this doesn't count as blocking the box.
It is in NYC as well and it's usually enforced by parking enforcement (doesn't carry points but it has a steep fine), if NYPD writes it also comes with points but in my experience they'd rather let the walking ticket printers do it.
I paid a ticket for this in NYC.
Great! and if enforcement were consistent, rule-breaking behavior would probably decline:
> Quick, clear and consistent also works in controlling crime. It’s not a coincidence that the same approach works for parenting and crime control because the problems are largely the same. Moreover, in both domains quick, clear and consistent punishment need not be severe.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/09/wh...
> Who knows, maybe we’ll start taking our cues from our polite new robot driver friends…
I think this could be an interesting unintended consequence of the proliferation of Waymos: if everyone gets used to drivers that obey the law to letter, it could slipstream into being a norm by sheer numbers.
If you look into the fleet size serving Waymo service areas, it's remarkably small. But because they work 24/7 they serve up a lot of rides, punching way above their weight in terms of market share in ride hailing.
Their effect on traffic and how drivers behave will be similarly amplified. It could turn out to be disastrous for Waymo. But I suspect that low speed limits in New York will work to Waymo's favor.]
Real question for waymo will be snow and ice, or do they just get parked in that situation when demand is highest?
I've seen reports that they've been testing Driver 6 in snowy places like around Lake Tahoe and the upper Midwest last winter. I suppose this year we'll find out how well that went.
Ultimately I wouldn’t support this level of snitching (especially in our current political env) but I’ve had the idea of:
A bounty program to submit dash cam video of egregious driving crimes. It gets reviewed, maybe even by AI initially and then gets escalated to formal ticket if legit. Once ticket is paid, the snitch gets a percentage.
Again, I am fundamentally against something like this though, especially now.
Snitching... Please. We're not in the school playground any more. We're talking about taking responsibility when it comes to operating a vehicle in public. There's a huge imbalance of power when it comes to car use especially and we need to restore the balance. People need a recourse against irresponsible and bad drivers.
do you actually know every specific vehicle code and regulation everywhere you drive? I constantly remark to my dashcam about people breaking the law in my jurisdiction.
Would you be bothered if someone was following you all day, making recordings every time you didn't signal for exactly 5000ms before a lane change, or 300' before a turn? how about not stopping for a full three seconds, or driving an extra 100' in the left lane than necessary?
three felonies a day
NYPD cops don't like enforcing traffic violations: https://i.redd.it/w6es37v1sqpc1.png (License holders and drivers on the road are up in the same period that summonses are down, too. Traffic is up since pre-covid.)
Now that I live in Toronto we face the same challenges. Politicians may introduce traffic laws to curb dangers and nuisances from drivers, but police refuse to enforce them. As they don't live in the city, cops seem to prefer to side with drivers over local pedestrians, residents or cyclists who they view antagonistically. Broken window works for them because they enjoy harassing pedestrians and residents of the communities they commute into.
So there is a bigger problem to solve than legislation.
Police quiet quitting and arbitrarily choosing what laws they feel like enforcing is a huge problem.
The most effective fix vis a vis traffic is simply automating so much of it with speed averaging cameras and intersection cameras and taking police out of the equation and retasking them to more important things that only they can do.
Don't police have quotas any more? 40 years ago everybody knew not to speed at the end of the month because a cop that would normally give you a warning for a small speed infraction would give you a ticket instead so they could make this month's quota.
Part of the problem is we have police doing far too many jobs. We need to separate out traffic enforcement, mental health responses, and other works into their own focused units. Especially the mental health responses, as far too often police refuse to or (at best) don't know how to de-escalate in those situations.
Bringing a gun and a taser to every problem guarantees that a lot of problems will be "solved" with the wrong tools. It's impossible to train enough people to carry guns and tasers and use them wisely.
It’s also expensive training and on-going cost when you add it all up.
Canada budgeted the cost of arming its border officers at ~$1 billion.
In the first 10 years, they fired them 18 times. 11 were accidents and the rest were against animal, usually to euthanize it rather than defend.
Works out to ~$55 million per bullet.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cbsa-border-guards-guns-1.4...
The current Democratic nominee and frontrunner for NYC mayor plans to do exactly that! He plans to create a Department of Community Safety to take over mental health responses from NYPD.
I agree we need to separate these responsibilities, but when it comes to mental health response, the police themselves are often opposed to alternatives, even while they complain that they're not mental health providers and often can't do anything in those types of situations.
In my city, we've had an underfunded street response program for a few years now, but a lot of people (including a lot of people who don't live here) see it as antagonistic to police and police funding, when really it should just be part of a holistic system to address social issues.
It makes no sense to me that the people who ostensibly care the most about addressing crime and "disorder" on the streets are often the most oppositional to programs that might actually address some of the underlying issues (not all of course, but some).
As a paramedic, multiple times I've watched police walk into a mental health emergency that we were handing satisfactorily, to everyone's contentment, patient, family, bystanders...
... and escalate it into a law enforcement situation.
One situation sticks in my mind. Person had broken a glass bottle on a curb. Family member was sweeping and cleaning that up while we dealt with laceration and planning for in-patient help (they were off their meds).
LE shows up, and immediately starts yelling aggressively at the patient about the broken glass, liability for any tires, injuries. Patient makes some comments back, so LE gets in his face and yells more, leads to patient trying to push off a bit and saying "get out of my face", cop is arresting him for assaulting a police officer.
Only with me and my partner talking to the Sergeant who showed up shortly after did it get de-escalated, but better believe the cop (and even the Sergeant) weren't happy with us about it.
Isn't that what speed cameras are about? Seem a lot more efficient and cheaper. I got a few tickets, nothing too serious just ran the yellow a little too close and 40 in 25. And if def changed my behavior
In many places outside the USA they just use cameras for box blocking, stop sign rolling, speeding...and there is a system for honking also. But many in the states think automation here is too Orwellian.
They do that in NY too. The worst offenders inevitably have fake/defaced/covered/no license plates. That should be cracked down on very hard but the police and prosecutors are strangely reluctant.
A sound solution in general, but the majority of police and firefighters and government employees with a connection to law enforcement cover their license plates with magnetic 'leaves' and so on. It's an undocumented perk for government employees.
We have all of those things in the states too. Just not ubiquitous.
We don't have much of it, not compared to Europe or Australia. This is a solved problem, but we don't want to solve it.
If only Mitch Hedberg was still alive: https://youtu.be/zonQXdmIlqQ?si=EBrpJiCk2XlhGJIs&t=97
We don't go after moving violations anymore (in NYC) because the driver might have a bad reaction. True story.
>We don't go after moving violations anymore (in NYC) because the driver might have a bad reaction. True story.
Who is "we"? And it's not a "true story." In fact, the NYPD issued almost 52,000 moving violation summonses in July 2025 alone and more than 400,000 year to date.[0]
If 400,000 moving violation summonses just this year is your "true story" about moving violations not being issued to avoid "bad reactions", do you believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus as well?
Or are you referring to the policy that NYPD cars shouldn't endanger the lives of everyone by engaging in high-speed chases on city streets?[1] Which is a completely different thing.
[0] https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/traffic_data/m...
[1] https://nypost.com/2025/01/15/us-news/nypd-cops-ordered-not-...
Edit: Clarified prose.
My wife and I took a road trip that included time in SF last year and seeing a Waymo was pretty neat.
To save some money, we stayed in downtown Oakland and took the BART into San Francisco. After getting ice cream at the Ghirardelli Chocolate shop, we were headed to Pier 39. My wife has a bad ankle and can't walk very far before needing a break to sit, and we could have taken another bus, we decided to take a Waymo for the novelty of it. It felt like being in the future.
I own a Tesla and have had trials of FSD, but being in a car that was ACTUALLY autonomous and didn't merely pretend to be was amazing. For that short ride of 7 city blocks, it was like being in a sci-fi film.
Why does tesla pretend to be autonomous? My friends with tesla fsd use it fully autonomously. It even finds a spot and parks for them.
The company selling the car is adamant that none of their cars are fully autonomous in every single legal or regularity context. Any accident caused by the car is 100% the fault of the driver. But the company markets their cars as fully autonomous. That's pretty much the definition of pretending to be autonomous.
It's a level 2 system, it can't be operated unattended. Your friends are risking thier lives as several people (now dead) have found out.
I think we are at the point where the data suggests they bear more risk when they drive the tesla themselves. See the bloomburg report on accidents per mile.
Wikipedia lists two fatal crashes involving Tesla FSD and one involving Waymo.
> one involving Waymo
Are you referring to the one where a Waymo, and several other cars, were stopped at a traffic light, when another car (incidentally, a Tesla) barreled into the traffic stack at 90 MPH, killing several people?
Because I am not aware of any other fatal accidents where a Waymo was even slightly involved. I think it's, at best, misleading to refer to that in the same sentence as FSD-involved fatalities where FSD was the direct cause.
They key difference is that the Teslas killed their passengers, the Waymo hit someone outside the car (and it wasn't the Waymo's fault, it was hit by another car).
Yes. [1] That incident got considerable publicity in the San Francisco media. But not because of the Waymo.[2][3]
Someone was driving a Tesla on I-280 into SF. They'd previously been involved in a hit-and-run accident on the freeway. They exited I-280 at the 6th St. off ramp, which is a long straightaway. They entered surface streets at 98 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, ran through a red light, and reached the next intersection, where traffic was stopped at a red light. The Tesla Model Y plowed into a lane of stopped cars, killing one person and one dog, injuring seven others, and demolishing at least six vehicles. One of the vehicles waiting was a Waymo, which had no one on board at the time.
The driver of the Tesla claims their brakes failed. "Police on Monday booked Zheng on one count of felony vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving causing injury, felony vandalism and speeding."[2]
[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/waymo-multi-car-wr...
[2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/crash-tesla-waymo-inj...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULalTHBQ3rI&
The question should be less who was at fault and more would a human driver have reacted better in that situation and avoided the fatality. I'm not sure why you think that whether the fatality occurred inside or outside of the car changes the calculus, but in that case only one of the two documented Tesla FSD-related fatalities killed the driver. Judging by the incident statistics of Tesla's Autopilot going back over half a decade, I'm pretty sure it's significantly safer than the average human driver and continues to improve, and the point of comparison in the original post was with human driving rather than Waymo. I have no doubt that Waymo, with its constrained operating areas and parameters, is safer in aggregate than Tesla's general-purpose FSD system.
Only one of the two, and it's not nearly enough data to draw a conclusion one way or another in any case.
Wikipedia lists at least 28 fatal crashes involving Tesla FSD:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_Autopilot_crashe...
FSD is not Autopilot despite the names being conflated today, but even if you want to count all 28, it's not enough to compare raw numbers of fatal incidents without considering the difference in scale. That's not to justify taking your eyes off the road when enabling FSD on a Tesla, but the OP did not suggest that either anyway.
If Waymo were operating at 1000 times the scale then I suppose their total fatalities would be somewhere in the ballpark of 0 x 1000.
There is no world in which New York lets Teslas drive autonomously in the next decade. Had they not been grandfathered in in California, I doubt politics there would have allowed it either.
Sources? Havent heard of deaths except total idiots sleepping at 80mph.
If the car needs any occupant to be awake, it is not an autonomous vehicle.
Some of the best marketing ever behind convincing people that the word "autonomous" does not mean what we all know it means.
Are you trying to draw a distinction between sleeping versus looking away from the road and not paying attention to it? I expect both situations to have similar results with similar levels of danger in a Tesla, and the latter is the bare minimum for autonomous/unattended.
You don't need to cite accidents when you're stating the true fact that the system is not approved for unattended use.
It's just pretending to do that, seemingly?
If I can't use the center console to pick a song on Spotify without the car yelling at me to watch the road, it's not autonomous.
No, rather, if the manufacturer of the self-driving software doesn't take full legal liability for actions taken by the car, then it's not autonomous. This is the once and final criterion for a self-driving vehicle.
Sounds like we're in agreement then.
Right now, Tesla skirts legal liability by saying that the driver needs to watch the road and be ready to take control, and then uses measures like detecting your hand on the wheel and tracking your gaze to make sure you're watching the road. If a car driving on FSD crashes, Tesla will say it's the driver's fault for not monitoring the drive.
Hell, they'll even hold a press conference touting (selective data from) telemetry to say "The vehicle had been warning him to pay attention prior to the accident!"
And then four months later when the actual accident investigation comes out, you'll find out that yes, it had. Once. Eighteen minutes prior to the accident.
And then to add insult to that, for a very long time, Tesla would fight you for access to your own telemetry data if, for example, it was needed in a lawsuit against someone else for an accident.
That is for the lawyers not indicative of capability
I’ve taken a nap in my Waymos. One can’t in a Tesla. That is a difference in capability.
There are news articles of people doing that on the 5 freeway
I was in a Waymo in SF last weekend riding from the Richmond district to SOMA, and the car actually surprised me by accelerating through two yellow lights. It was exactly what I would have done. So it seems the cars are able to dial up the assertiveness when appropriate.
It doesn't seem impossible technically to up the assertiveness. The issue is the tradeoffs: you up the assertiveness, and increase the number of accidents by X%. Inevitably, that will contribute to some fatal crash. Does the decision maker want to be the one trying to justify to the jury knowingly causing an expected one more fatal incident in order to improve average fleet time to destination by 25%?
Nah, it's not that simple. Excessive passiveness causes ambiguity which causes its own risks.
You want the cars to follow norms, modifying them down slightly for safety in cases where it's a clear benefit.
Reinforcement learning is a helluva drug. I'm sure by now Waymos can time yellows in SF to within a nanosecond, whereas humans will only ever drive through so many yellows will never get that much training data.
A human can know the yellows on a few routes. A Waymo can pull over, observe a given intersection for an hour, and tell every other Waymo that exists precisely how long that light lasts.
It's not just collecting the information; it's the ability to spread it.
An autonomous vehicle's hivemind knows the exact duration of all yellow lights, even ones that vary based on traffic flow.
Not if they change the timing.
I'm sure "timing of yellow" is only a few parameters in its network at this point. And it's continuously training, it can probably one-shot the timing changes ( one taxi ride through maybe 3 lights ).
When red-light cameras are installed at an intersection, the number of rear-end accidents typically increases as drivers unexpectedly slow down instead of speeding up at yellow lights.
The cost of these accidents is borne by just about everyone, except the authority profitably operating the red lights. (To be fair, some statistics also show a decrease in right-angle collisions, which is kinda the point of the red-light rules to begin with.)
That seems only like a temporary problem until people get used to actually stopping at red lights, as they are supposed to. After the initial acceptance phase, it should minimise accidents over the longer term.
Unless there is a warning of how long is left on the yellow light, it’s an unsolvable problem because there is an asymmetric risk of stopping vs accelerating
> it’s an unsolvable problem because there is an asymmetric risk of stopping vs accelerating
This just sounds like everyone is speeding and/or distracted.
The lights should be designed so that if you don't have enough space to stop with a mild deceleration you should just go through. If a mild deceleration get you rear ended then of course that's an unsolvable problem
No one wants to risk a ticket with a guess at how long the yellow is going to be, or whether they’ll make it thru or not. That is the unsolvable part. Yellows are inconsistent , and you aren’t accounting for slow-moving traffic ahead of you that might cause you to block the intersection, etc.
There was actually a scandal in Chicago were a study found that the city systematically reduced the length of yellows only on lights that had red light cameras in order to harvest tickets.
I feel like the subtext of all these concerns is that you'd need to drive very carefully to reliably avoid camera tickets... and nobody wants to drive that carefully. I get it, I don't either, and I do get occasional camera tickets. But like: I should also be driving more carefully.
Slamming on the breaks because you’re anxious about a yellow light is not careful driving. But that’s what red light cameras do
Then they shorten the yellow so that it isn't "with a mild deceleration" but a full-on stomp-on-the-brakes stop.
>speeding up at yellow lights
I remember reading somewhere accelerating at orange light is actually a ticket-able offense?
My memory may be outdated or only local to my jurisdiction but my understanding is that yellow means “do not enter the intersection” where “intersection” begins before the box, usually with some alternate street indicator, like broken white lines turning to solid, at a braking distance that accounts for posted speed limit and yellow light duration.
Each Waymo is equipped with multiple cameras (potentially LPR), LIDAR, etc. The car knows when the vehicles around it are breaking traffic laws and can provide photographic/video evidence of it. Imagine if Waymo cars started reporting violators to the police, and if the police started accepting those reports. Someday they might.
Isn't it too dystopian to have cars follow you around and report you to authorities? I can easily imagine some bad scenarios.
Yes it could potentially be very dystopian for human drivers. That doesn't mean it won't happen. Police departments could make a lot of extra money from the additional traffic tickets; there is a financial incentive for them to do this.
Making money from tickets is supporting the wrong behavior of trying to find excuses to ticket you for anything to get extra money - this is often leading to cops looking for cheap ways to get the extra cash where they can get it easily, instead of doing more important work where their chance to ticket you is lower even if more important for safety.
I had my second Waymo ride in SF 2 weeks ago and I had to press the support button: it was behind a large bus that was backing up to parallel park. The bus was waiting for the Waymo to get out of the way while the Waymo was waiting for the bus to move forward.
It took only a few seconds for a human to answer the support request and she immediately ordered the Waymo to go to a different lane. Very happy with the responsiveness of support, but there's clearly still some situations that Waymo can't deal with.
Eventually the waymo would determine the bus wasn't moving and go around. I had the same situation happen with a garbage truck, but I didn't press the button. It can handle the scenario if you just wait.
>> could you imagine the audacity of actually not driving into an intersection when the light is yellow and you know you're going to block the crossing traffic?
I wonder how many Waymos following the rules would be needed to reduce gridlock.
Waymo in SF pretty much drives like a human, and that includes doing human things like cutting lanes, stopping wherever it feels like, driving in the bus lane etc. I think it’ll be fine in NYC
Waymo in LA also drives pretty much like a human here would, which includes: not yielding for pedestrian-only crosswalks, running red lights, driving in the oncoming traffic/suicide/bike lane, occupying two lanes, blocking entrances/driveways/intersections, and stopping/parking in no-stop/parking curbs.
They're only really phenomenal at not hitting things; they really aren't good/courteous/predictable drivers under most conventional definitions.
Still, I think rollout in NYC will be fine. NYC generally drives slower and much less aggressively than LA, and slower gives the Waymo plenty of reaction time to not hit things.
I can attest to that. I live in Orange county and occasionally see Waymos when I go to LA, and they'll do things like merging with very little gap or merging in the middle of interactions.
SF traffic is but a single speck of nyc
Traffic? The issue half the time in NYC is the drivers. I can't compare it to SF since I haven't been there in a while but I still thought it was not as congested to compared to NYC.
NYC has a greater population and also has a greater number of registered cars compare to SF however.
As a comparison, I feel safe riding a motorcycle in SF. I don’t think I would ever ride a motorcycle in NYC.
Riding safely requires predicting what the cars around you are about to do. I find it an order of magnitude harder to predict driver behavior in NYC.
the solution to traffic is transit, not computers driving cars.
People complain a lot about drivers in dense eastern states, such as Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc. but compare the traffic fatality statistics:
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
Having grown up driving in these places, I can confirm that people drive a whole lot more aggressively, but what blows my mind driving damn near anywhere else in the country is how inattentive many drivers are. Around here, our turns are tight and twisty, the light cycles at our 6-way intersections are too short, most streets are one lane but on the ones that aren't, lanes disappear without warning, some lanes that are travel lanes during the day have cars parked there at night... all of this means that you need to a) be much more attentive, and b) be more aggressive because that's the only way anybody gets anywhere at all.
It's a cultural difference. Almost any time I've encountered anyone complaining about rudeness in a busy northeastern city it was because they were doing something that inconvenienced other people in a way that wasn't considered rude where they're from: pausing for a moment in a doorway to check a phone message, not immediately and quickly ordering and having their payment method ready when they reached the front of the line at a coffee shop, not staying to the right on escalators if they're just standing there and not climbing/descending... all things that are rude in this environment and people are treated the same way rude people are treated anywhere else.
That culture expresses itself in the driving culture. If those 3 extra people didn't squeeze through after that red for 3 or 4 light cycles, suddenly you're backed up for an entire light cycle which is bad news.
Waymo cars are designed for a different style of driving. I'm skeptical that they will easily adapt.
This is an interesting point of view, and I think it intuitively makes sense. But it breaks down when considering people who block the flow of traffic by running red lights and clogging the intersection - that's just straightforwardly worse for everyone except the blocker.
People do that everywhere I’ve ever driven. Not getting in other people’s way is a core cultural tenet here more than most places but there are self absorbed jerks everywhere. Consider the vitriol unleashed on people that do that. It’s not acceptable.
Tried Waymo in SF and LA, and the service was great. The only problem I noticed is that sometimes it tells you they'd pick you up in 5 minutes, and then when it's almost over they tell you "sorry, it's actually going to be 20 minutes now". Since it's still new technology, I always gave it enough buffer so it never actually was a problem for me, but they probably could do better than that... Another weird thing was it chooses strangest places to stop. E.g. I asked it to pick me up at the hotel once, and it drove right past the hotel way to the end of the block where by coincidence a couple of homeless people were camping. Not that it led to any problems, just weird, it could have stopped right where hotel had a convenient place for loading/offloading of people. Maybe eventually that gets sorted out.
I was on Market Street yesterday on my bike next to a Waymo. A bunch of cars were blocking the intersection when we had the green. The light turned red and the cars blocking the intersection were able to move. I decided to stay, but the Waymo sped through despite the light being red. I regretted not crossing.
Honestly the train system in NYC is so good, I have only taken a cab a few times since I moved here. I’ll probably take a waymo once if they roll it out here for the novelty of it, but I’d rather see people getting exciting about public transit. Life is so much better when you don’t have to depend on cars to get you places.
Driving in most of the city isn't that bad. Even most of Manhattan is fairly regular driving compared to most of the country. It really isn't until you're near midtown that the insanity kicks up.
occasionally ride Waymo in SF and I pretty much always have a good time
Surreal. You have to step back and absorb what you just said. We have self driving cars, insane.
Imagine somewhere like Bangkok with millions of motorcycles that completely ignore traffic laws.
Self-driving is a non starter in many parts of the world.
It's fascinating seeing all the comments elsewhere anytime Waymo starts testing in another city along the lines of, "ah, but how will they handle X, Y, and Z here?? Checkmate, robots!" despite having already launched service in several other cities.
Granted, NYC is the biggest city in the US, so maybe that sort of reaction is more reasonable there than when people in Dallas or Boston do it.
Since Waymo is very reliable in LA and SF, you will be just fine in NYC.
Your grid system is far less of a challenge than the amount of hills, twists, narrow streets and low visibility back streets in California.
I genuinely think the most complicated challenge for Waymo in NYC will be…winter snow and ice.
NYC is a new set of challenges. As you already mentioned snow and ice is new. But also missing the high density of people and cars per square area. Behavior of drivers and pedestrians are different and much less polite. I can see it working in NYC but "just fine" is a bit of an over confidence... at least not for the first few years before they learn to deal with these issues that they don't face yet in LA and SF.
We do have narrow streets in LA with double parked cars, cars parked in the street only allowing one car through the middle at a time, and plenty of construction closures and obstacles.
Why do so many NYC people think there’s comically no cars in LA or neighborhood streets?
Also, I can assure you LA drivers are a tad bit more aggressive than NYC drivers (less honking and flicking off though, LA people are more a drive you off the road or into the shoulder sort of passive aggressive).
I was born and raised in NYC and have lived in LA for quite some time, still going home often for family. I’m really struggling with reading these “NYC is unique” comments regarding Waymo traffic.
There's a weird thing where people like to brag(?) that their city has the craziest, worst, drivers/roads.
Having driven in both LA and NYC+NJ, LA drivers feel almost serenely calm to me most of the time.
In LA, as long as you don't do anything obviously stupid and give plenty of room for people to see you coming, people will just chill and leave you be. Every now and then I will see someone do something unfathomably crazy though.
In NYC (NJ especially), this didn't work. I had to be actively psychologically manipulating other drivers in order to get even a simple lane change done. Make the other guy think he won by signaling earlier than normal so he'll gun it sooner and leave space behind him, or don't signal until I'm halfway into the lane already.
>Also, I can assure you LA drivers are a tad bit more aggressive than NYC drivers (less honking and flicking off though, LA people are more a drive you off the road or into the shoulder sort of passive aggressive).
>I was born and raised in NYC and have lived in LA for quite some time, still going home often for family. I’m really struggling with reading these “NYC is unique” comments regarding Waymo traffic.
Slightly OT, but that reminds me of a cartoon I saw many years ago (I can't remember the publication though :( )
It had two identical panels with two cars and two drivers on a road:
One panel was marked "Los Angeles" where the driver of one car had a "speaking" bubble that said "Have a nice day!" and that same driver had a "thought" bubble saying "Fuck you!"
The other panel was marked "New York," where the driver noted above's "speaking" bubble said "Fuck you!" and the the "thought" bubble said "Have a nice day!"
I've always thought it was a great metaphor. Then again, I'm a native NYer. ;)
Don't forget the unique NYC challenge of people waiting to cross the street not on the sidewalk but just into the street itself.
People in LA wait to jaywalk on the street or even in the suicide lane all the time. The Waymos handle it fine; generally by asserting it has right of way unless collision is obviously imminent. They'll even happily swerve around you if you're too far out.
What is a "suicide lane"?
A single middle lane shared by both directions for left turns. Also unofficially used as parking for food/package delivery drivers in LA.
Shared turning lane.
Pedestrians always have the right of way on city streets. Jaywalking is just walking.
This is what they tell you in driver's education to try and reduce the odds you hit pedestrians, but it's not legally true in most jurisdictions.
No, you cannot just step in front of a moving car such that they cannot stop.
What snow and ice? We don't get much of that anymore. That was actually the last thing I am worried about here. I really want to see how Waymo does with NYC drivers and obstacles(double parking on block where sometimes you have to pull in your mirrors just to get by(if you even take the chance instead of just laying on your horn). In some neighborhoods it can be so annoying.
I think what OP means is Waymo's most challenging rollouts will be to places that do get lots of snow and ice.
I think a well designed winter specific FSD system is probably more safe in snow and ice than a human. For instance downshifting to ensure wheels continue to spin on slippery surfaces, subtle corrective steering to keep the vehicle within its lane, etc. should be easier for a FSD car since it won't panic and over-correct like most people do in those situations.
And if the car reduces speed when appropriate and some assholes start tailgating it, it won't suffer the anxiety of holding up 10 cars that want to drive beyond the safe, reasonable speed for the snowy/icy conditions.
The problem with places that have real winters is that lanes migrate. They are not absolutely positioned. Nor are the sides of the road edges which may project well out into the street and parked cars even further. No road markings visible. Humans make their own lanes. This situation can happen for many weeks-long periods in a typical winter in, say, Minneapolis or Buffalo suburbs.
If a self-driving car does the right thing staying "in lane" while all the human drivers do the wrong thing flocking to new emergent paths (which swing back and forth across the "lanes"), then the self-driving car is wrong and dangerous. I'm not talking about when it's actively snowing either. I mean the snow on the ground just remaining there, covering things.
It's not about dealing with slippage or skill driving, it's about complete lack of context markers. I don't think any current or near future self-driving solution can adapt to this.
That's fair and I've certainly experienced this where I live, which is north of Buffalo in latitude. Also frost heaves are no joke in non-city/non-highway roads and present another obstacle to FSD. I guess my point, if I had one, is I would hope FSD would be programmed to be as conservative as possible in adversarial winter conditions and not overreact to such conditions and that alone is enough to increase safety because humans, for various reasons, are not conservative enough. Hard to imagine for sure.
Pretty much all electric cars have single speed transmissions, so there's no downshifting. And modern vehicles have electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, automatic emergency braking, and several other safety systems. It's pretty hard to overreact with those enabled. The main issue is that people exceed safe speeds for the conditions, making them unable to brake or turn in time to avoid a collision.
Right now, most self-driving software will refuse to activate in conditions of poor visibility. I've had that happen with Tesla's FSD, though in that case it was snowing so much that the road should have been closed. Also when the snow is deep enough that your front bumper becomes a plow, it will refuse to activate.
> And modern vehicles have electronic stability control, anti-lock brakes, automatic emergency braking, and several other safety systems
In ice none of these really stop overcorrection, or at least they don't in my 2020 truck on icy hill/mountain roads in Maine. And I've seen nice recent Volvos and BMWs with presumably the best safety tech in ditches up in the ski towns. The correct safe speed to drive on icy roads is not to drive at all of course, but people have to get places and people make mistakes. IME the assistive technology defaults don't do great on ice roads on some kind of up/down grade.
AFAIK drivers can still steer and brake themselves into a loss of control situation on ice regardless of safety features. So I guess I'm hoping once you take those two variables out of their hands, the FSD vehicles will be safer. Who knows though.
I went many years without a loss of control and the one time it did happen (logging roads with ice pack) was enough for me to buy Nokian studded winter tires to minimize the effect of ice as much as possible.
on the contrary, no amount of safety systems can compensate for a loss of traction on ice and snow.
The surest way to be safe on snow covered roads is to not drive at all. Also, none of the electronic trickery is a replacement for real winter tires, which many people do not buy.
> I genuinely think the most complicated challenge for Waymo in NYC will be…winter snow and ice.
Nah, I'm betting it'll be the locals. They'll get pissed off at it remaining stopped when it shouldn't and do shit like start ramming into it. I've had it happen on the island when I stopped at a yellow. NYC is a lot more chaotic than any other US city I've driven.
I would argue those two areas are very different though. The Bay Area is not as dense or as many aggressive drivers as NYC.
My point wasn’t to say they are the same, more that SF and LA (I would guess) have covered and defeated almost every single challenge and obstacle for an urban environment (sans..weather).
LA also has far denser areas than SF, places like DTLA and Koreatown are more dense than most boroughs in NYC (sans Manhattan).
My point was that it will be interesting to see how well it works in NYC where the only way to drive is aggressively in city streets breaking the rules. LA has its share of aggressive driving but as someone who has driven in both, NYC felt like I had to break the rules to go anywhere, LA not so much.
Hard to really compare a tiny piece of LA and say it’s more dense and compare it to borough that is in the same range but also magnitudes larger total pop.
Not sure why you have the impression Waymos follow written driving rules. Here in LA they break every rule that LA drivers would with the aggressiveness to match. It really does seem like they try to make them drive as "human" as possible, with all the typical behavior found in the locale. I can't imagine it'd be any different in NYC.
My experiences have been different with Waymo. It drives with far less aggression than NYC, like I already said. It will be interesting to see as I see NYC as an interesting challenge.
The thing is waymo at least in LA specifically geolocks you from those hilly areas. Imo it also is not assertive enough and drivers seem to be learning one can bully a waymo on the road.
Oof I don’t know about that. Driving in NYC is much different than San Francisco. Frequent lane departures, cutting into heavy traffic despite technically lacking right of way, and other moderate rule breaking is required to get anywhere. Boston will be even more challenging due to the hundreds of convoluted intersections.
We've been getting less and less of those, though. And even then, it's just for a few days. Last year was a bit worse, but two years ago it was very, very mild, I think. Yay global warming?
LA and SF are not close to close to the complexity of nyc traffic and pedestrian culture
TIL.
LA doesn’t have complex traffic? What sort of traffic do we have in LA then?
LA is walkable, it’s lazy (and mostly incorrect) to say LA isn’t walkable.
LA County is massive, and depending on where you want to pick a comparison from, you may prove yourself either right or wrong.
Traffic on the sidewalk is a daily occurrence and often necessity in NYC. I'm not sure exactly how every area in LA is but often (as in pretty much constantly every day) in Manhattan or Brooklyn drivers don't obey the lines on the road, don't care to bump objects and cars to fit into a spot, literally threaten to hit other cars to get anywhere.
There's a bit of a "do what you have to" mentality with NY traffic that I haven't seen in any other east coast or mid-western city. I think that poses some unique challenges that I've often seen video of Waymos freezing up when facing similar scenarios, which could cause huge issues in most of the city.
You articulated this very well, thanks.
LA is extremely similar. Often can only make unprotected turns at lights while it’s red and you’re in the box, you have to wait at the top of a hill and have your car sideways while the oncoming car has space to drive up a hill, cars trying to give you space so you can drive through a line of traffic into the adjacent traffic pattern.
The “freezing” issues are very real though (and frustrating), and it’s what most everyone who uses Waymo in any city right now jokes/complains about. Waymo can often get into a weird game of “chicken” when there’s a four way stop with pedestrians, and any slight movement from the intersection can often make the car stop - so the pedestrian stops - the the Waymo finally moves again, but then pedestrian also started moving so the Waymo stops again and the pedestrian stops caring.
All this to say, I really don’t think there’s much that will be different. Go to Hollywood or Santa Monica
Here in Santa Monica, the Waymos will happily cut off pedestrians in crosswalks as soon as it decides it has waited reasonably long enough and it won't hit them.
Same with 4-way stops: once it thinks it waited long enough, it doesn't matter whose turn it rightfully is, if it sees an open path it will just take it.
there is nowhere in LA with the complex intermingling of pedestrian, car, bicycle, and motorbike traffic of anywhere in the boroughs other than Staten.
LA it’s gridlock or go. There’s nothing complicated about it other than strategizing where is gridlock and where is Go.
Crossing the street as a pedestrian without a walk signal in NYC goes:
- look in the direction of oncoming traffic as you approach the intersection, cross if you think you can make it without breaking your stride
- if there is traffic, step off the curb into the street and wait for a large enough gap in traffic to walk against the light
- if there is backed up traffic, find a gap to walk in between
Wait until New Yorkers figure out that Waymos will detect you and yield in order to avoid hitting you. People will just disregard and cross right in front of them.
Also, yes, you can walk in LA, but the major difference here is that the sidewalks are for commuting here in NYC. We don't just walk for pleasure.
> Wait until New Yorkers figure out that Waymos will detect you and yield in order to avoid hitting you. People will just disregard and cross right in front of them
This is true everywhere. Waymos have learned to time an aggressive run up. Same as every New York driver.
Yeah it’ll be interesting to see how it deals with our pedestrian traffic. I’m sure they’ll figure it out, but pedestrians are a whole different sort of thing here than on the west coast. I notice I don’t really jaywalk in LA, and do less in SF, but here in NYC it’s just what everyone does at every intersection in the entire city.
is it just me or its common that in nyc people bike in most cases like there is no traffic lights at all? this to me is prob the most challenging
NYC is also one of the most regularly built out cities, in stark contrast to Boston, for instance. OTOH roads here may be 3 or even 4 levels high at the same point (e.g. where Manhattan bridge meets Brooklyn), and GPS is sometimes way off in canyons between skyscrapers.
> OTOH roads here may be 3 or even 4 levels high at the same point
And here I thought Chicago was complex with lower lower Wacker (just 3 levels).
> GPS is sometimes way off in canyons between skyscrapers
This is probably very challenging for human drivers using navigation, but probably no nearly as much of a problem for a Waymo car with onboard 3D maps of the entire operating area.
HD mapping gives much better than GPS I would imagine.
I think the main difference for NYC is that quite a few streets and intersections routinely have 10x to 100x the pedestrian traffic of the busiest such intersections in pretty much any other American city.
That's not to say that I don't think it'll be able to handle it, just that it'll be a new challenge. I wonder if their current program of apparently trying to positively track every single moving object in range will survive that, or whether they'll need to figure out some algorithm to prioritize objects that are more likely to be of concern to it. And there probably are more than a few places where pedestrians are numerous and densely crowded enough that you can't positively track all of them, even with a bunch of LIDAR sensors.
NYC (at least the parts I've spent a bit of time in) is pretty grid like with fairly simple roads. The drivers are the hard part :)
I am excited to see them tackle Boston at some point because of how strange some of those roads are. The first time I had ever been I came to an intersection that was all one ways and there were like 7 entry/exit points. My GPS said turn left, but there were three paths I'd consider left. Thank god I was walking.
And I don't really pose much doubt because it seems like Waymo's rollout plan has been solid, but I'm just interested to see how well they tackle different cities.
Next time go below 14th street. The grid is great but very misleading. NYC has had 400+ years of development, and it's deeply not homogenous in its design.
Yeah I’m skeptical that robots will ever be perfect drivers but the bar isn’t perfect it’s better than human and that’s certainly possible.
Yup, the data so far seems to indicate that Waymo is substantially safe than average drivers. Obviously it's not inclusive yet since the tech is still new (and while the study I'm thinking of was done by a third party, it's still Waymo that handed over the data and paid them to analyze it).
Roads in Texas specifically just seem to do whatever they want, whenever they want. It's really apparent that Texas local roads used to be wagon trails.
The grid system in NYC seems like a good alternative for a rollout. Though the current NYC human drivers will hate these things. I also expect LOTS of vandalism.
There is a question, NYC driving gets by with everyone driving aggressive and breaking road rules. That is something that does not exist as much in other markets.
My complaint with Tesla city FSD is that it’s not quick or aggressive enough. It will come to long and complete stops and other things that will not work well in NYC.
I think you'd be surprised how aggressive driving has become normalized throughout the world?
The world, for sure. But not in America. I've driven in most major US cities and I drive daily in NYC. There really is no comparison in any other major US city to how we drive in NYC.
I drive when I travel, though not in NYC these days but being a pedestrian gives you a good enough view. LA from a city driving perspective at least for me is not comparable to most of NYC.
What I don't get about the "checkmate robots" mentality is that, like, get it working in sunny California with no snow, and then get it working in the snow, seems like the way to do it, not, solve all possible problems before anyone knows you're even trying and can make fun of you.
I don't think they've really launched anywhere challenging yet though. Nothing like London for example, and that's probably middle of the scale.
Obviously starting in the easy places is the right move, but I don't think you can dismiss the comments like that.
The big difference is that NYC is less law abiding and more devious. Unless you've lived here, you have no idea the lengths new yorkers will go to scam and vandalize.
Source: grew up in NY, moved 25 years in SF. Love Waymo, big investment in Google.
This type of edge case covering is pretty essential to the jobs of most on this board. It doesn't surprise me to see it.
>despite having already launched service in several other cities.
Why does having launched in other cities matter if the new city brings up things that none of the other launched cities do?
For example the first thing I can think of new for New York is snow and ice.
It's my understanding that self-driving cars don't really account their acceleration and braking for roads that could sometimes be very slippery due to snow and ice.
> "Why does having launched in other cities matter if the new city brings up things that none of the other launched cities do?"
New requirements come up all the time in technology. The existence of a new requirement isn't in and of itself justification for skepticism - is there a particular reason to believe that Waymo is not capable of solving for the new requirement?
The answer may be yes, but simply "ahah! It would need to do [new thing]!" is insufficient. "[new thing] is likely intractable because [reason]" would be more justification for skepticism.
> "It's my understanding that self-driving cars don't really account their acceleration and braking for roads that could sometimes be very slippery due to snow and ice."
Sure, but like above - is there a reason this is an intractable problem?
I'll throw this out there: your human-driven car already accounts for acceleration and braking on slippery roads, without the need for the human. Traction control systems and electronic stability control systems exist! They're in fact incredibly common on modern cars.
The interesting snow & ice problem for me is that humans will drive in winter conditions that are unsafe -- for example white-out blizzards. Robocars won't be able to drive in a white-out blizzard, so they'll likely refuse to do so. Humans should also refuse to drive, but people drive anyways.
NYC doesn't generally get white-out blizzards, so refusing to drive in them is quite feasible.
If white-out visibility is the only problem to be addressed then machines seem pretty well placed because they can use very accurate positioning and non-visible light sensors. Unfortunately they probably wouldn't know that there's a 50 yard section of the road that always drifts in when the wind comes from the south and the snow is dry.
> Robocars won't be able to drive in a white-out
My Subaru can lane keep in Wyoming blizzards better than I can because it follows the car in front with radar.
Also snow and ice in NYC is a rare event now, not a given like it used to be.
I come from way up top on that globe of ours. I have driven in frankly apocalyptic snowstorms. They're an insidious problem to solve, but I remain optimistic. Back home, they will close specific roads due to snowstorms, but what do you do about the cars already on the road? You can't stay put for 16 hours can you? So you move as slow as possible, sometimes as low as 5 kilometres an hour. Cause that's the thing about a snowstorm; it's about visibility. You're not risking your life if a dude in skis can go faster than you.
> You're not risking your life if a dude in skis can go faster than you.
Sure you are. You can still drive off the road and into the ditch where nobody can see you. People then die because they don't clear their tail pipe and get carbon monoxide poisoning or they try and walk for help and freeze to death.
>I'll throw this out there: your human-driven car already accounts for acceleration and braking on slippery roads, without the need for the human. Traction control systems and electronic stability control systems exist! They're in fact incredibly common on modern cars.
These systems don't help with the problems I am talking about.
You have to drive completely differently in heavy snow, significantly slower, brake sooner, turn less sharp, accelerate much slower, leave significantly larger gaps, leave space to move out of the way and be ready to move if someone behind you is coming at you too fast and can't stop in time, etc. I've spend my entire life in the midwest.
The traction control system in my 2023 camry didn't help one bit when I applied the brakes on black ice and the car didn't react at all, it just kept sliding at the same speed across the ice.
That all sounds like something that should be easier for a robot to do than the typical human. If programmed for how to drive in heavy snow, a robot should be able to switch driving modes much easier than the typical human brain.
Waymo has been trained in Buffalo NY for winter conditions, unlike most NYC drivers.
Is it possible to train a machine to drive in snow? Yes. But consider that humans are trained to do so by means of things like: actually crashing, observing others crashing, talking to people who crashed, and all of the above is highly localized. Where I live there are many days in winter when someone not from the immediate area should not drive at all. But I might if there was a good reason because I have 25 years experience with the specific roads, conditions, how those conditions relate to wind and on and on. Training a machine to know all that seems feasible but unlikely to be commercially viable. It's just not a problem that can be solved with a simple closed loop control system like ABS or traction control.
> talking to people who crashed
A reasonable counterargument is that autonomous vehicles can actually do that to a degree that is much, much more effective than humans. You might have 25 years of experience, but at 8 hours a day for 365 days of those 25 years we'd only need 8 cars driving for a year to match that. After all, training data and event logs generated by cars can be shared, and models can be upgraded all around. And of course that scales to more than 8 vehicles rather easily.
Launching in other cities with new problems gives experience dealing with new problems, and the meta-learnings transfer to better processes for adapting to new issues. But yeah, ice and snow are definitely major new environmental factors for New York (and DC, and many other places we are starting to see more serious testing).
Autonomous vehicles can and do take into account surface conditions, there’s not really any reason not to. There are pretty good generative models of the physics of vehicles with different surface conditions, and I imagine part of the data collection they are doing is to help build statistical of vehicle performance based on sensed conditions.
A fair point about weather, but a lot of the assertions are like "how will they handle the double parking and suicidal pedestrians jaywalking across the street??" I'd say most of the concerns just don't sound very unique at all.
For weather, Waymo has clearly started out in warmer climates while slowly building out towards places with colder and colder weather, I'm guessing they're just incrementally getting better at it.
This is great long term for having cars that follow traffic laws since human drivers in NYC are awful (kill/injure pedestrians, bikers, and other street users all the time).
Not so great for getting cars out of NYC and pedestrianizing more of the city/moving towards more “low traffic neighborhoods” as I imagine Waymo and other similar companies are going to fight against these efforts.
Edit: Lots of people talking about human drivers taking advantage of self-driving cars being more cautious/timid. Good news is that once you have enough self-driving cars on the road, it probably slows down/calms other traffic (see related research on speed governors).
I'm not sure why you think waymo would fight against that. People getting rid of their own cars for daily use will increase how often a service like waymo is used for occasional usage. In the long run it would be a win for waymo. Not many people are taking taxis on a daily basis in New York for normal driving, they buy a car if they need to do that because even with the parking bill they will still come out ahead. And once they have their own car they feel like they need to get some use out of it.
> not sure why you think waymo would fight against that
If you were to pedestrianize 10% of Manhattan (or for example all of Broadway, which is being considered), then that’s less area for Waymo to operate and make money. To be clear, this is likely more of a long term issue.
They will probably gain way more by the removal of parking lots that comes with it than by losing rides to pedestrian traffic or bikes.
> will probably gain way more by the removal of parking lots
Or remove street-side parking.
NYC doesn’t have a lot of surface parking lots.
It had a lot of on street parking, at least mid town did, when I lived there in 2000 (which admittedly was 25 years ago). It was good enough that my gf at the time was driving from a Columbia dorm to IBM hawthorn.
Waymo would not fight against "people getting rid of their cars", many people in NY who use the incredible public transit system would like to see more car-free streets, which they absolutely would fight against.
Believe it or not, NYC is actually the safest city in the country for pedestrians and bicyclists.[1]
[1]https://www.wagnerreese.com/most-dangerous-cities-cyclists-p...
I’d believe it, but the fact that any pedestrians/bikers are killed/injured by cars in NYC is unacceptable.
Do you mean that in the sense of "anyone getting killed is unacceptable" or the sense of "we need complete separation between cars and pedestrians/bikers, somehow"?
The rule of thumb for almost completely eliminating pedestrian fatalities is complete separation or a 20mph speed limit. A 20mph speed limit is far more feasible for the 5 boroughs than most other American cities.
I think there's a third more charitable reading: that current injury and fatality rates are still too high, even if they compare favorably to the rest of the US's rates. It's unrealistic to have no traffic injuries ever; this doesn't imply that NYC can't do better.
I mean if we required a license to own a bike in NYC we could see a significant reduction in injuries/deaths, same for pedestrians. Cars are already heavily regulated and likely aren't the underlying issue.
There are many ways to interpret data, but one often comes to the conclusion that pedestrians and bikers are the root cause of most accidents.
Cars are only “heavily regulated” in the sense that you pass a test once when you are a teenager and then never have to pass a test again, just pay a nominal fee to renew your license.
I am curious what data you are looking at that gives you the impression pedestrians and bikers are the root cause of most accidents. As a frequent pedestrian / biker here, I see a car doing something unhinged about every mile I walk. On Wednesday I almost got hit by a car flying the wrong way down a one-way street and then running a red.
Well if this is the standard we’re going for
> the fact that any pedestrians/bikers are killed/injured by cars in NYC is unacceptable.
Then the next step is regulating bikes and pedestrians. I think most studies which are willing to assign blame to bikes find they’re usually at fault or visibility is an issue, both of which come down to the bike. To approach no deaths, we need licenses, lights, increased safety protection, and training. If we’re fine with NYC just being one of the safest cities for bikers and pedestrians, then maybe we don’t have to worry about that
> pedestrianizing more of the city
Replacing dangerous, dirty, noisy cars with safe, clean, and quiet ones seems like a huge pedestrianizing step.
What's a "low traffic neighborhood"? Does that allow busses or deliveries?
It’s a step in the right direction, but they still pollute (heavy electric vehicles have a lot more tire dust) and take up a lot space (could close roads and build housing or just have more space for the millions of city residents that don’t have/use cars).
LTN still allow buses, emergency vehicles, deliveries, etc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Traffic_Neighbourhood
> heavy electric vehicles have a lot more tire dust
It would be interesting to know the fleet-level statistics for this. Driven by humans, EV might wear tires faster because of fast starts and the extra weight during stops. It's possible that the Waymo Driver accelerates and decelerates more smoothly, resulting in less tire wear than a human-driven ICE vehicle.
That would be great! Even if EV pollution is zero, cars still take up a lot of space in a city where space is very limited.
EV's have less tire & brake dust than ICE vehicles. https://ev.com/news/study-reveals-evs-produce-less-brake-and...
EVs usually produce much less brake dust, not more, than combustion vehicles.
More tire dust on EVs tho cuz of the added weight and ability to accelerate a lot faster. EVs can really chew through tires.
Brake dust composition is improving tho: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/copper-free-brake-initiative
Thanks for the correction. Updated.
> Not so great for getting cars out of NYC
This will never happen. Not in our lifetimes. And as I get older and less able to walk, I don't want it to happen.
It just means that feral bikers will take over the roads ;)
You know what kills or harms people in NYC are the motorized bikes driving the wrong way and putting people in the hospital, with no charges against the operator because they are usually an illegal alien. Not sure Waymo is going to fix that.
Waymo should add a thin layer of "assertiveness" for actual deadlock that their self-driving architecture could cause.
While in Austin, I was in a Waymo that blocked 3 lanes of incoming traffic while attempting to merge into a lane going into the opposite direction. It was a super unorthodox move, but none of the drivers (even while stopped for a red light) would let the Waymo* merge into their lane.
Thank God for the tinted windows, people were pulling their phones out to record (rightly so). It felt like I was responsible for holding up a major portion of Austin 5 pm traffic on a Friday.
Wish it just asserted itself ever-so-slightly to get itself out.
>Waymo should add a thin layer of "assertiveness"
well, just couple weeks ago here on the intersection of Middlefield and Shoreline, half-mile from Google headquarters - 100 million times driven by Waymo cars, thousands by us - midday, perfect visibility, perfect intersection with all the markings, lights, etc., we and a Waymo are doing left turns from dedicated lanes on the opposite directions. We were saved from head on collision by the "lack of assertiveness" on the part of my wife as she swerved last moment as the Waymo apparently decided that its left turn point lies way into, very deep into, our trajectory, and it was assertive enough to not care that we were in its path. I almost soiled my pants upon seeing how it went for barreling into us instead of turning.
It looks like the same extra assertiveness like with Uber back then - i.e. to not have an emergency braking and similar features because it gets too much false positives.
Yeah I admit that "assertiveness" isn't the right word here. I've been in Waymo's that have also tried to dangerous moves in front off busses. Maybe "conscientiousness" would be a better definition?
According to this article, they are doing some of that already. Presumably it will improve:
> Waymos are getting more assertive. Why the driverless taxis are learning to drive like humans
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/waymo-robotaxis-drivi...
Oh very cool. My only complaint is that it didn't lay on the horn for the last example of the reckless driver nearly causing an accident.
I wonder if this is related to the Foundation Model: https://waymo.com/blog/2024/10/ai-and-ml-at-waymo
I find that in LA people routinely cut off the waymo or refuse to let it in. After all why not it is a robot, not someone who might legitimately harm you like a road rager. It also tends to fail the cultural left turns. That is, sending 2-3 cars left during yellow not just one like in other places. Seeing it stuck awkwardly in an intersection for another cycle from failing to make an assertive left turn is somewhat common.
Waymo also avoids certain challenging environments by excluding it from its service coverage, namely hilly neighborhoods.
I think we're going to see more examples of this as Waymo's popularity grows. Basically human drivers taking advantage of Waymo's far more passive driving style. Maybe some rules of the road will have to change, or the Waymos will get dedicated lanes to solve this problem.
Imagine if we had dedicated lanes for giant Waymos, that could hold dozens of people. The future of transport.
You need to think bigger. Once we have separate lanes just for the waymos, we don't need them to be regular roadways. We can scale up the waymo even more and size the lane exactly to the vehicle, maybe even radically redesign the road surface for lower rolling resistance. What a future it will be.
By forming those waymos like aerodynamic bullets, they could reach ridiculously high speeds on those special lanes. Something like 200 mph should be possible.
Maybe the waymos could be powered by overhead wires?
I'm having a hard time even picturing such a thing, but I have no doubt that Waymo could manage to operate them in cities across the nation, with sufficient re-training.
Now, sir, you're in pure fantasy land. Next you'll be asking for columns of them chained together to carry hundreds of people together, stopping at designated locations.
We could even install metal rails into the ground to meet this rolling resistence requirement.
This is surely impossible. Such a thing has never been tried, it could never work.
You joke, but the reality is going to be dynamic self-driving buses that don't have preset routes or stops but respond to instant demand.
You'll pay $$$ for a nonstop ride into midtown in a dedicated vehicle, or $ for a short dedicated ride to a self-driving bus you only need to wait a few minutes for, and which will drop you off on your destination block.
So yes -- self-driving buses seamlessly integrated into ride sharing are certainly going to be a major part of 21st century urban transportation. Which will save a ton of time compared to current buses.
I could also see potential efficiencies to scheduling your bus stops in advance, maybe with some configuration to set how far you're willing to walk, how long you're willing to wait, how long a grace period you want in the event that you're running late, what time you need to arrive by, how many seats you need, and whether or not you need access to luggage/bike storage. (Each of these values would of course impact the cost of your trip; in the worst case scenario, if your configuration couldn't be reconciled with enough other people's to fit you into an efficient bus ride, then you might just be offered a regular car ride.)
You could even set that up on a recurring schedule, sort of like a school bus system that dynamically adjusts to everyone's locations and requirements and instantly remaps routes as passengers are added and removed to the schedule.
I would like that just as much as the next guy but the problem of public transport cannot be addressed until you first address the problem of anti social behavior on public transport.
That’s just being around people. We gotta live together as people; the idea that we can atomize ourselves away from the society we live in is more disastrous to the shared social fabric than any amount of people listening to music without headphones.
That isn’t what they meant, and you know it.
One of the big, big advantages of Waymo is not being in a car with a stranger. I know quite a few women who don’t mind paying extra for Waymo over Uber/Lyft.
Far more people might able to afford a Waymo than a personal (in person) chauffeur.
This already exists outside of America and is abundant and cheap. It's called public transit.
that was the joke, yes
Public transit doesn't always have dedicated lanes. That's BRT.
Imagine if we went further and put them on rails and interconnected them. Maybe even built dedicated tunnels for them.
What does it mean to “merge into a lane going into the opposite direction”?
This is awful. Your ride takes just a bit longer, so you want it to take more risks in decisions?
This is how you ruin trust. Take the L dude, sit back and relax. You will get to your restaurant or whatever inane activity you are doing for the day/evening.
Man I love Waymo everytime I'm in SF. Truly feel like I'm living in the future when I sit in one
Biggest thing I'm excited for is knowing what the cost will be ahead of time
Which Uber used to provide... Until they were infected with tipping. Hell, I will gladly pay more than I would've spent on a tip (20%) just to avoid the hassle.
My worst personal quality is that while I tip extremely well for everything (like $15 for a $40 haircut) I absolutely refuse to leave tips almost always for Ubers. I will if it was genuinely good service, a clean car that doesn’t have a gallon of fragrance in it that I’m massively allergic to, and the driver either leaves me alone or has a nice convo with me when it’s clear I’m trying to engage in one, and drives safely. However the combination of these things is really uncommon, and I’m usually very unhappy with at least one aspect of the ride.
On the flip side I very rarely take Ubers so my shitty obstinance here doesn’t have a big impact
I was also really salty when they decided to make tips a huge part of it. I hate tipping culture despite tipping very well. And if you read the subreddit for drivers they are constantly complaining about how people tip, and complaining that even 20% is not anywhere near enough
> Until they were infected with tipping
I and most of my friends stopped tipping Ubers in New York after ride-share drivers won hourly wage minimums.
Just don't tip then
Remove the social obligation to subsidize poor wages and I would.
Also remove the passenger rating system, because drivers ding you if you don't.
But I suspect they will not do these things, hence why I would rather use a service that doesn't have this.
I’m curious if autonomous cars will become targets for aggressive drivers. Like a driver isn’t going to be as scared cutting off a Waymo or tailgating one because the AI isn’t gonna get road rage or honk like hell. In some places I could see the Waymo’s getting severely bullied if that’s the case.
But why would you tailgate a driverless car? I think usually people tailgate to intimidate the person ahead of them to drive faster.
People tailgate because they're toddlers and locate their locus of control externally - if anything, they'll be very happy tailgating driverless cars because they can throw as big a fit as they want, there will be no consequences, and they'll feel they got to blame something else other than themselves.
Because there’s still someone in the car, they just have no way to defend themselves. You can tailgate and honk at them to your heart’s content. Well at least until they call the police but that’s pretty far. And there are other forms of aggression that do accomplish something. If you cut a Waymo off or beat it to merge, you get ahead of it. In some locales I could see a whole series of cars merging ahead of a Waymo if people are aggressive enough.
Because that works every time?
Or maybe the agressive drivers get a kick out of inciting a reaction, which they won't get from a robot
If they don't get any feedback, they might not get anything from it anymore.
You are on to something here. I have started driving a small car in the UK (Ford Fiesta) and have discovered it's a magnet for the road rage people (around 50% of drivers here).
Firstly, I never back down and will come to a complete stop if slowing down doesn't work. Secondly, I have noticed these drivers feed off any reaction and that avoiding eye contact works very effectively, even if they pull beside you to have a childish rant.
"Don't engage" are words to live by on the roads
These things have camera all around the vehicle and they are on and recording. So, any incident with aggressive driving, the driver is going to be misbehaving on camera. Doesn't sound like a smart move.
This might actually have the opposite effect: if there are lots of waymos with the cameras everywhere, people might actually feel pressured to behave a little and avoid breaking traffic rules on camera.
I think most drivers are too indifferent or lazy to notice or care about the other cars around them most of the time.
Plus, what's to stop a harassed Waymo from recording dangerous behaviour and calling the cops?
They're already learning how to handle this in SF. (I don't live there anymore, so I can't give specific examples.)
Waymo markets itself as an automated driver - same reason they're using off-the-shelf cars and not the cartoony concepts they originally showed. Like real drivers, they take the law as guidelines more than rules.
De jure (what the law says) and de facto (what a cop enforces) rules have had a gap between them for decades. It's built into the system - police judgement is supposed to be an exhaust valve. As a civil libertarian, it's maddening in both directions:
- It's not just that we have a system where it's expected that everyone goes 15mph faster than posted, because it gives police an avenue to harass anyone simply for behaving as expected, and
- It's also dystopian to see police judgement be replaced with automated enforcement. There are whole classes of things that shouldn't be penalized that are technically illegal, and we've historically relied on police to be reasonable about what they enforce. Is it anybody's business if you're speeding where there's nobody to harm? Maybe encoding "judgment" into rules will be more fair in the long run, but it is also coaching new generations to expect there to be more rules and more enforcement. Feels like a ratchet where things that weren't meant to be penalized are becoming so over time, as more rules beget more automated, pedantic enforcement.
A slight digression, and clearly one I have a lot of thoughts on.
It's really interesting to see how automation is handling the other side of this - how you build machines to follow laws that aren't enforced at face value. They can't program them to behave like actual robots - going 24 mph, stopping exactly 12" before the stop line, waiting until there are no pedestrians anywhere before moving. Humans won't know how to interact with them (cause they're missing all the nonverbal communication that happens on the road), and those who understand their limits will take advantage of them in the ways you've stated.
So Waymo is programming a driver, trying to encode the behaviors and nonverbal communication that a human learns by participating in the road system. That means they have to program robots that go a bit over the speed limit, creep into the intersection before the turn is all the way clear, defend against being cut off, etc. In other words, they're building machines that follow the de facto rules of the road, which mean they may need to be ready to break the de jure laws like everyone else does.
TBF the Zeekr minivans are a big step toward a purpose-built Waymo vehicle. I do agree that Zoox has its priorities backwards by going straight for a purpose built robotaxi vehicle. But it has advantages like friendlier ergonomics for the disabled.
Who cares? You are focusing on unimportant issues.
Movement in the USA is heavily outdated. Whether it’s "automated" won’t change anything other than encourage more cars on the road. Great your 5AM commute from the boondocks still takes 2-3 hours but at least you don’t have to put your hands on the wheel!
Hope this does well but the subway + walking is the way to go. Uber, taxis, etc are way too slow getting around manhattan per my recent trip.
As a regular bike rider, I'd rather take the lane in front of Waymo vehicle than a human driver.
I would rather every vehicle be high quality autonomous than humans, I think if all cars could signal both their locations and intentions we’d probably never have accidents and save millions of lives
you could just stick a transponder in the car, but it would be very dystopian
You mean like the one we carry on us 24 7?
The game-theoretic aspect of this is interesting to me. A lawful robot will never make progress in Manhattan because the people will just walk across its path continuously, forever. To be an effective driver in Manhattan you have to intimate that you're willing to hit people, without ever hitting them. If humans believe that the Waymo will categorically never hit them, then the Waymo will never get a turn.
its interesting. at beginning in SF the waymos would just stop cold anytime they saw a person or a bicyclist. now they're acting a lot more like a person. if I'm in the crosswalk they've started playing chicken just like a normal driver would, starting to go into the turn while watching to see if you're going to stop and give them the right of way. if you keep going, they will stop.
There are still plenty of humans in SF who are on to the nature of the game. A few of the shambling lunatics who inhabit the vicinity of 6th and Jessie know that they can just harass a Waymo and it will stand there forever.
I haven’t lived in NYC, but I have lived in Boston. Isn’t the real concern winter? Has Waymo (or any other self driving tech company) shown that it can handle the snow well: non-visible lanes, downshifting to avoid braking, etc.?
Definitely interested in how this turns out.
They tested in Buffalo last year and have in tested Michigan.
https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/inside-the-self-driving...
Didn’t know that. Good for them!
Even if they never actually solve winter driving, they could just… not drive during the winter?
If there’s a high probability of below freezing temperatures, cars can just make their way out of the city to some parking lot to hunker down.
Or move them elsewhere in the country during the winter months.
Having a seasonal service is not a bad idea. The big problem with that is cutoff times. Too early and people will complain when they can't get a ride when no snow is on the ground. Too late and you're liable for everything that happens when the road is covered in thin ice or sleet, including leaving someone stranded. You will need very accurate weather predictions for operating over the winter months.
Probably just don't have them drive during snowy conditions. Roads are fine almost all the time during normal hours
GM and Ford do quite a lot of self-driving testing in Michigan.
downshifting? these are all electric vehicles IIUC
So how are they going to make left turns on two way streets with heavy pedestrian traffic? It is essentially impossible to accomplish that in NYC without skirting the law to turn on red or impede on pedestrian space.
I imagine that at least most of the time it's possible to just drive a different route that takes more time.
Is it not?
It is, and this is what they will have to do. A lot of left hand turns in NYC - even in the outer skirts of the four major boroughs - cannot be made until the light has turned red, requiring a "New York/Pittsburgh Left".
They will have to route the car around in a manner that allows it turn from the right in that intersection.
It's insane that they need permits for 8 cars that have humans driving them in 2025, when they're already fully automated in SF.
> We’re a tech-friendly administration
Clearly not.
I think caution is good here. We all saw what reckless admin + Uber did before they shut it down for good.
The permit gets them into the process for eventually deploying without safety drivers. That includes safety plans, emergency responder plans and training, and periodic reporting.
They could just drive cars around like Tesla, but that wouldn't put them on a path to a fully autonomous service.
It's not insane for cities to permit autonomous vehicle technology. They permit almost every other type of heavy machinery. Even manually driven cars are permitted! (Driver's license test, registration fees, etc.)
> already fully automated in SF
I don't thin it's fair to say they are fully automated. There's a large remote operations team for remote assistance to help them get out of tricky situations. The cars can be nudged to perform certain actions.
New York is a long way behind California in regulating autonomous vehicles. Fully driverless vehicles are also illegal there and it will require legislation for Waymo to deploy in the state.
You sound like a junior admin. "Why do we need to keep testing? It works in the SF office?"
Because they are completely different environments.
I didn't say testing was stupid. I said permitting only 8 vehicles for human testing from the leader in self-driving cars, years after they've been fully autonomous in other dense cities, isn't the flex he thinks it is.
Would you like to rephrase what you said then? As written, it’s hard to come to any conclusion other than that you could stand to gain some respect for the long road of research and progress needed to achieve fully autonomous driving fleet. 8 is bigger than 0, and approving any non-zero number is recognizing the value of technology.
8 is probably Waymo's choice. It's not said anywhere that it's the permit limit.
There's gonna be people driving them? What's the point then?
Sounds like it's a person actively monitoring but not driving. The point is minimizing risk until safety can be proven.
I exclusively use Waymo in SF, even if it costs a bit more than Uber. You'll most often get a great human Uber driver, but there's a very real possibility that the person is a bad/unsafe driver or the ride is unpleasant for a myriad of other reasons. With a Waymo, you know exactly what you're buying.
Is this the first time Waymo is doing winter / snow testing at scale?
I think some of the Pittsburgh-based self-driving firms may have tried this, but unaware how far they got.
We'll see what happens when there is snow in the forecast. They might just call them all back for the storm.
Yea, that's what I figured, but I also wonder how well anyone is driving in the slush and if the LIDAR / cameras are that disrupted by snow / ice / salt.
Waymo has done some winter testing in Buffalo NY.
Man I would Be nice if children could play outside again . Cars are the single biggest reason I don’t let my kids roam free
Gemini has an API for gesture recognition. It might come in handy.
Saw my first Waymo car yesterday in Manhattan (SoHo) and wasn't sure if it was finally happening! Super excited!
Lots of comments sharing their waymo experience, so I'll hop on the bandwagon :) I visited Austin for a work trip and went out of my way to get waymo rides for work events, reimbursed of course ;) , managed to score 3 rides.
The airport is out the coverage map so I had a real person behind the wheel both ways. Objectively, the waymo was way safer experience because one driver was a local and drove like one (e.g. rolled through stop signs, drove past a long queue to merge at the end, etc.) and the other smelt like weed in the car. Luckily, both trips we arrived unharmed. In comparison, the Waymo drove pretty well, imo and very consistent. Nothing extra ordinary but no reason to stress.
The difficult part of riding the waymo was all moral cope: it cost just as much (minus tip) as paying a real person, driving past homeless people under a bridge in an autonomous vehicle felt unsettling, and my driver from the airport in my home city was wonderful and hard working. I don't typically like to chat in the cab, and the driver didn't initiate, but I was feeling empathetic and guilty so I struck up a conversation. By the time I got home we were enjoying ourselves and the driver was sharing animal facts because I had learned he was a real enthusiast that could not make a living solely on ecology. We were laughing and joking around together. (Google, if you're reading do NOT try to replicate this experience with AI)
I'm glad I got to try it and out of my system. Still would prefer trains or more public transit over more cars :p
While driving a car, it is possible to do something, even on accident, that can land a person in jail. These crimes do not have the option of paying a fine in lieu of prison time.
A "self-driving" car can cause the same accident but gain advantages over a human driver that the person ultimately responsible is no longer held to the same set of laws.
This seems to undermine foundations of law, placing the owners of those assets into a different legal category from the rest of us.
FYI if you live near a Waymo charging and cleaning station, it will be constant BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP and shopvacs running all the time.
Very cool. I wonder what scale it has to hit for this to become a profitable line item for Google and what their revenue targets are for it.
I think the problem in NYC will be getting medallions, assuming that's what self driving cars will need.
There are already so many (too many?) taxis and car sharing drivers, after TLC's massive increases of the last few years. You can play a game, based on something I read about last year: stand at a corner and count all cars/trucks/for-hire. The first two combined are barely outnumbered by the last group. And the few times I checked, half of taxis and car sharing vehicles were empty. (Of course that's different at peak times or when it rains.)
Will Waymo be allowed to add as many vehicles as they want, like a new class of cars, or will they need to buy out medallions from drivers? The former might undo all the progress in traffic relief that was brought by congestion pricing.
While it could stand to be more aggressive at times, especially at intersections, FSD works fairly well in NYC and can do all of less-than-legal-but-necessary things a normal driver can do (such as cross over a double yellow if there is a double parked car blocking the road) so I don't see why Waymo would have any trouble on that aspect at all.
Hoping and voting for Mamdani in the hopes that he bans Waymo to protect drivers who are trying to earn a living.
Funny to see people in this thread about human vs robot driving quality. Anyone that's zipped around ina waymo knows they're pretty great. We should be moving to ban human driving asap. It would be safer, and more relaxing.
I hope Waymo can get their cars to stop blocking crosswalks and running red lights.
I can’t wait until this is available in more rural areas of NY. I would love to be able to take this thing to/from a bar where there’s no public transport and very low density of Uber/Lyft.
I'm mostly curious how they'll handle winter.
Waymo has been testing in snow conditions since 2017 in Michigan and more recently in Chicago, using specialized sensors and machine learning models that can detect road edges and lane markings even when covered with snow.
I saw one of these on Chambers Street just yesterday afternoon, but it must have been in manual mode, of course.
Downtown Manhattan is the hardest-to-navigate area of NYC. I thought they would start somewhere in Midtown, where the grid is regular, streets wide, and demand for taxis still pretty high.
We already know that Waymo can handle regular American cities quite well. I woul expect them to spend most of their expensive human-supervised training and testing budget in the most unique locations, like downtown Manhattan.
Midtown on a busy Saturday or Sunday afternoon with a driverless vehicle would be... amusing. No one-including busses-give af about traffic rules.
The Waymo’s I see in Austin just circle the same path to pump the number of miles their fleet is training on. Unless they are on an actual ride.
Is Chambers St busy during the afternoons?
No, especially after congestion pricing, it doesn't get very busy. I assume the car was mapping the area and collecting background truth in general. Downtown and the financial district have interesting peculiarities, like the highly irregular grid and the patches of open air construction that have been in the middle of Greenwich St for many years, exposing tens of pipes and cables carrying who knows what.
I saw them in downtown Jersey city right across the Holland tunnel. I guess that's where they are parked when the human operator is off duty.
I would expect an "automatic, but human ready to intervene" mode for development and testing.
Once again, if you're going to test your self driving car on public streets, all data should be open and public. Car companies shouldn't be competing on how to prevent life-or-death incidents, they should be cooperating.
Only one company still pushing for autonomous testing on public roads has not been committed to transparency, and it ain't Waymo.
Forcing people to tackle the problem from different angles without sharing is the best way to avoid local minimum.
the local minimum is that any single company monopolizes self-driving cars, using the data as a moat.
I would wager Waymo fails to integrate in NYC. Austin, and SF are child’s play.
How much? What time horizon?
This makes a lot of sense in the outer boroughs
I'm cautiously optimistic about this self-driving thing. Waymo at least seems to have figured out a lot of it.
Would it be way better to make walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use developments, and reliable and frequent public transit?
Yes. Yes it would.
But, in lieu of that, self-driving has a lot of advantages in the long run, even if the technology isn't 100% perfect right now.
I think taxis have a place even in cities with great transportation. I live in Toronto and 90% of my commuting is walking, 8% public transit and 2% driving. But there are some trips that would be very difficult to do a way other than driving (for example carrying lots of stuff or awkward cargo) and taxis fill that gap wonderfully. Especially if self-driving taxis could handle long trips a lot better as inter-city is a place where Toronto public transit unfortunately sucks (for example visiting my parents in cottage country).
In most respects, Waymo is the modern version of reliable and frequent public transit, with a lot of additional benefits.
The modern version of reliable and frequent public transit is reliable and frequent public transit.
Mass transit only works when there are masses of people, and most of the US doesn't have that. But places like the Great Plains and the rural Northeast already have comprehensive roads systems, and electric robot cars turn those roads into transit for people who, currently, must have cars.
Not in terms of throughput though. Buses and trains still have em beat.
In rural places, not only are there no buses or trains, there's hardly any taxis. Maybe during the day if you wait an hour or two, but you're not getting home at night without your own car.
A couple robot taxis roaming around every rural country in the US comprehensively solves this problem.
Agree. Though I imagine the cost to run robot taxis in low density areas would be much higher than in high density areas, as there'd be a higher distance between rides, and so more wasted time and gas. I suspect that would slow adoption.
Also if we dream big here, I wonder how robot buses would work in low density areas, maybe with dynamic routes and pricing?
This is true for intersection throughput, but I bet full travel throughput (walking to the bus, waiting for the bus/train, walking to your destination) is the same or better with Waymo.
> Would it be way better to make walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use developments, and reliable and frequent public transit?
This x10000
if these take over, people are just going to walk in the street in front of traffic (even more) since they know they'll stop lol
Prioritizing pedestrian right of way sounds like a perk to me.
NYC is so dense it could be a bikers' paradise in the US. Why are we supporting even more car infrastructure :/
Bike infra is forever stuck in the limbo of building half-assed solutions and then complaining not enough ridership is taking it up.
Because half the year it's freezing cold or blistering hot?
With CitiBike and so many bike lanes it basically already is a biker's paradise. Obviously there could be lots more improvements, but the people who want to bike already do.
I doubt that people who bike their kids in baskets daily in Amsterdam would do the same in NYC, given how dangerous it is. The risk tolerance required to bike in NYC is much higher.
Every fall on Brussels there's an ad for public bikes. It reads "Ride a bike, it warms you up" (Faites du vélo, ça réchauffe).
A slogan doesn't make something true.
And more specifically, your torso can be roasting while the freezing wind is giving your face frostbite, and your legs are frigid.
There's a reason why skiers wear face masks and huge goggles and snow pants. Not usually very practical in cities, however.
I hate to break this to you but outside of microscopic Reddit bubbles like r/fuckcars and similar, people generally don't have a problem with car infrastructure and cars as a whole and most people see cyclists as the vegans of the transport world.
HN loathes cars.
I'm not sure. In any discussion that's somewhat adjacent to transportation there are a lot of pro-car people that discuss the best type of a car (ICE or electric).
if it can do WDC or NYC it can drive anywhere
No chance Waymo can operate in many parts of NYC. Good luck getting through double parked cars in Astoria and elsewhere.
There's a great YC saying which approximately says "you should get the easiest customers first". They even made a video about it, saying tech startups sometimes try to go for the hardest customers to "prove themselves" and it just hurts their business.
I sort of wonder if that's happening here. SF, Austin, LA, etc, are all great cities to build autonomous vehicle startups in. There are many more major cities which don't get snow, have minimal rain, and are well thought out in terms of driving layout. NYC seems like the most difficult city to operate in, and while I believe it's a lucrative market it seems like a mistake.
That's why Waymo started in Phoenix. They're well past that phase.
Maybe not immediately but gathering the data on those areas will eventually lead to their ability to drive there.
That type of tolerance in moving vehicles will take at least a decade.
I can't wait to hear how it goes in NYC -- its going to be a total cluster - with the significantly more chaotic behavior on the streets, bike scooters, pedestrians and then the oddness of the streets/aggressive driving necessary behavior.
Give it one month if they saturate it too much there will be political blowback on waymos causing traffic chaos. Queue track record in SF as datapoints.
I don’t think people commenting and downvoting us realize how things are in NYC. Not only do you have to deal with insane chaos you also have to deal with malicious drivers. Hit-and-run in NYC is shockingly high because it’s a no-fault state. People don’t stop after accidents. It’s gotten really bad since the pandemic.
> insane chaos
Hardly. I live in downtown Manhattan. I used to live in downtown San Francisco and between the streetcars, cable cars, hills, and the extraordinarily large homeless population, it feels far more chaotic in the denser areas.
NY by comparison is big, flat and orderly. I feel significantly safer as a pedestrian here than I ever did in SF. And it's a much more pleasant place to drive.
Ok. I am glad you feel safe as a pedestrian but what does all that have to do with autonomous vehicles. I am native to NYC. SFO has 800K people. NYC is literally 10x the size. Nice comparison.
My point was clear - NYC is a more orderly place for a car to operate.
What planet do you live on that you think NYC is more orderly than SFO? You sound very sheltered. Have you even been outside of Manhattan? Let alone above midtown? No one who spent a reasonable time outside of a bubble would say NYC is an orderly place. No one. Do you even drive? Have you driven across anywhere during rush hours? Why would you blatantly lie about a city being orderly when it can be easily refuted? 8M people live there to contest whatever you are saying.
So many questions, such little coherency.
I think some people pushing for driverless cars everywhere are assuming it will necessitate much stricter driving laws and penalties for human drivers to make their driving compatible with the robots. And they're fine with that, but they know it's not a selling point, so they don't talk about it.