https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmofgf-Y3Mc&t=45
This is a promotional video produced by Uber. It clearly shows the vehicle illegally entering a crosswalk containing pedestrians. That's not a great start, and not particularly good advertising.
This is a promotional video produced by Uber. It clearly shows the vehicle illegally entering a crosswalk containing pedestrians. That's not a great start, and not particularly good advertising.
(If the software was designed not to do this but failed to behave appropriately, then the situation deserves addressing.)
Also note Google's cars are explicitly programmed to exceed the speed limit in order to track with a lead car in order to get better info on road conditions ahead. [1] Technically illegal, but this both increases safety and is well within the bounds of normal human driving behavior.
To me it looks like they were fully inside the intersection before the car began the turn, so it was a violation (if very technical and unenforced).
>Sure there's a "letter of the law/intent of the law" distinction here, but I don't see this as a particularly egregious action, especially when compared to normal human behavior (human drivers do this often, and with much narrower margins).
Absolutely -- and as a pedestrian, I would prefer drivers punch through if they have sufficient clearance, rather than pointlessly sit there and watch me walk through.
But there's a difference between
a) "everyone has to do it even though it's not technically allowed", vs
b) "hey, let's showcase this as a prime example of our advanced technology in action"
I think it was wrong to do it as b), since it looks like some elderly people were cut off.
Otherwise, it would be practically impossible to make turns in a city...
If the intersection is wide enough that you can turn while maintaining a safe distance, then what purpose would such a law serve? Why increase congestion for little or no benefit?
But an officer, unidentifiable in the dark some hundred feet behind me, cited me for "not stopping at a red light" due to the fact my vehicle did not come to a complete stop.
Arizona has a state law, named after an unfortunate little girl killed by an asshole who blew through a red light, which makes any "red light violation" an automatic 3 points on your license and applies some certain minimum fine. (8 points triggers a suspension.)
Now despite the fact that there is an entire world of difference between (A) running a red light into cross traffic and (B) performing a California stop at an empty intersection, when I showed up to contest the ticket, the judge mocked me for my suggestion that, as I had endangered no one and not been reckless, I had not violated the spirit of the law and that the ticket should be dismissed. I had to pay the fine and accept the points. State law.
"Irrational" may well be the word I should have used, but it changes nothing. What purpose, indeed, was served by such a strict interpretation of the law?
-- Jean-Luc Picard
I agree, a law that serves no purpose shouldn't exist (the only purpose that one served was probably political). That's part of the reason why I find it hard to believe there are laws stating you must wait for pedestrians who are on the far side of the road. I searched but couldn't find them... and since such laws would do little or nothing to enhance safety while significantly increasing congestion (which is dangerous in itself), I think it's reasonable to conclude there are none.
People are probably interpreting the word 'yield' far too generously.
I was always taught that from the moment the pedestrian steps off the curb, you cannot turn in front of them. They have the right-of-way.
In LA, if you did this you'd cause significant traffic issues.