Anecdotally, as someone who bikes a lot in SF, Waymo's are a lot safer than human drivers simply because they follow the letter of traffic laws. Stopping at stop signs, waiting for pedestrians to clear the box, following the posted speed limits, etc.
Just following the letter of the law is so huge. Even people who think they're being nice by doing something out of the ordinary make the situation so much more dangerous because now you don't know what's going to happen. Even if they weren't great drivers, the consistency makes so much of a difference.
There's some nuance to it. You're first at a light and a semi across from you is trying to take a left, the right thing to do is to wave him through rather than mat it when it turns green. You don't stop a line of traffic to be nice to someone who can take their own damn turn. As with everything else, people who don't Get It(TM) ruin it for everyone.
I was just on a business trip to San Francisco for a few days, and I observed the near opposite of this from the Waymo fleet in SoMa:
* Waymo vehicle creeping into the pedestrian crosswalk (while the pedestrians had right of way to cross), which caused someone to have to walk around the car into the intersection ahead of the Waymo.
* Waymo vehicle entering a dedicated bike lane and practically tailgating the bicyclist that was ahead of it.
These might be safer than human drivers in aggregate and normalized by kilometer driven, but they drive like humans — greedily and non-defensively. I wouldn't want one these anywhere near a high-pedestrian traffic area ever, and I feel the same about human-driven cars, too.
In California, California Vehicle Code § 21209(a)(3) expressly permits a motor vehicle to enter a bicycle lane “to prepare for a turn within a distance of 200 feet from the intersection” -- among other cases. (The vehicle must yield to cyclists in the lane.)
The vehicle code not only permits cars to enter the bike lane prior to a turn, it requires them to do so (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....). My brother failed his first driving test because he didn’t know that he had to enter a bike lane on the left side of Fell St right outside the DMV (back before they separated the bike lane).
I hope that means yield to cyclists ahead of them. To me the whole point of getting in the bike lane is to avoid cases where the cyclist going straight is in a blind spot during the car's right turn. As a cyclist I'll sometimes get into the car lane at intersections to make sure I'm seen. seems like the car being required to let the bike behind them go straight is exactly what you'd want to avoid
Merging into the bike lane before turning right is safer for cyclists. Drivers are supposed to do shoulder checks when changing lanes (I mean they're also supposed to do them when turning but you know) so they likely won't hit a cyclist when merging into the lane.
Once the car is in the bike lane, any bike going straight is forced to remain safely behind the car until the car completes its turn.
> I wouldn't want one these anywhere near a high-pedestrian traffic area ever, and I feel the same about human-driven cars, too.
Much of San Francisco is a "a high-pedestrian traffic area" and Waymos operate in those areas constantly and more or less flawlessly. As someone who lived carless in SF for nearly 15 years, I see nothing but upside from more Waymos and less human drivers on those busy streets.
Note that you have to enter a painted bike lane before turning, because it's safer to do it that way rather than crossing the bike lane right at the turn.
I know it can seem discourteous to cyclists, but it really is the smarter way.
Neither of the examples you cite strike me as particularly dangerous nor even illegal. The pedestrians were given the right of way. And entering bike lanes is fine for crossing or short distances where merited unless grade separated.
A vehicle that becomes blocked in a crosswalk is unsafe for pedestrians who want to use that crosswalk if it forces the pedestrians to walk around the blocking vehicle. There are crosswalks in SoMa that provide for 45 seconds or more of crossing time. A Waymo that enters one of these crosswalks after 15 seconds into the 45 seconds allocation blocks the crosswalk for the remainder of the 30 seconds. This presents an unsafe situation for all existing and future pedestrians (e.g., a pedestrian who inadvertently steps into the intersection while trying to go around the blocking vehicle).
We also know that in North America that the municipal services skimp on grade separation for bike lanes for budget and political reasons. I did bike in San Francisco when I lived there, and these non-shared colored lanes never ever felt safe.
I can guarantee that if you leave your North American context for a couple of years and come back to it you'll find CA Vehicle Code § 21453 unsatisfactory.
I totally agree that grade-separated bike and pedestrian lanes would be better. What I’m arguing against is that this behaviour by Waymo is less safe than San Francisco’s human drivers given the rules as they are.
Don't think for a minute I want human drivers anywhere near bicyclists or pedestrians or assume they are anywhere better for general-purpose driving. Human drivers are awful, but I'd posit the behavior of these automated vehicles isn't much better toward making a welcoming road environment as they are programmed. The laws — particularly for California and what is treated as standard in North America — don't help matters at all.
entering a bike lane is safer, as many others noted.
sorry but many of us live here and interact with these cars daily. they are realky good, can't really see any situation in which they initiate a pedestrian collision
