Hacker News Reader

Comment by CoryG89 | Hacker News Reader

> This kind of turn is one featured in a 2013 blog post that is known to be one of the primary causes of collisions between cars and people who bike resulting in serious injury or fatality.

Perhaps it is the primary cause of collision between bikes and cars being driven by humans. Perhaps the primary cause of collision would be different for self driving cars.

Personally, beyond convention, I don't see why one of these turns would be inherently safer than the other. Either way, you still need to look behind you, in the lane to your right, in order to safely turn.

A self driving car has the advantage of being able to see in all directions at the same time (to the extent that it's sensor array allows). I don't think it's entirely clear that the safest way for a human to drive will always be the safest way for a machine to drive.

View on HN

>I don't see why one of these turns would be inherently safer than the other. Either way, you still need to look behind you, in the lane to your right, in order to safely turn

As a cyclist, the difference is mostly one of expectations. If a car has slid into the bike lane prior to an intersection, I know that they will turn and that I should not try to pass. If the car does not do this, I may continue to bike next to them or even try to pass them in the intersection. This statement of intent is especially useful when the driver does not use their turn signal or uses it when they have already started their turn (which is often).

Also, it's the law [0] so it's not really up for debate.

[0] - http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/vehicle-code/veh-sect-21717.html

As a driver, I am expected to signal. And if I signal my intention to turn right, if cyclist is not already to my right, I expect them not to go to my right, but stay behind me, whether I am in the bike lane or not.

Having said that, of course, I am always on the lookout for cyclists.

I don't understand why TFA does not discuss signaling.

A signal is not priority. If there is a vehicle in the lane to your right they are perfectly free to pass, signal or not.

Indeed they are free to pass legally, and even morally. But as a (mostly former) cyclist and parent, I taught my kid: "The laws of physics trump the laws of the California Republic." Or, as Neil Stephenson put it: act as if the drivers are proactively trying to kill you.

And apart from one unpleasant automobile-bike interaction this (and a helmet) has kept me alive.

One more for your collection: The car always has the right of weight.

While you are free pass, I personally wouldn't do so on a bike. See my other comment on the thread about always assuming the worst behavior in a car. When I first started bike commuting I was nearly on the receiving end of a right hook. If I see that a car signaling to turn, you better believe I'll back off and let them. Better than being correct but dead.

you are also perfectly free to yield and not try and race past a car with its turn signal engaged

This particular self driving car technology has been found running dark red lights [1], fundamentally ignorant of the law [hinc] and the operating company unwilling to meet even the most basic reporting standards that DMV and others require of self-driving cars [2].

Whatever advantages you ascribe to it are the product of science fiction, not the evidence in front of us.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/14/uber-self...

2: http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/16/13990318/uber-refusing-pe...

The advantage of merging first is that you'd only side-swipe a cyclist.

What's the downside?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com