Hacker News Reader

Comment by obilgic | Hacker News Reader

Misleading/Exaggerated HN title. Not an illegal turn. No turn sign applies to the left lane, and it's a one way street

It looks like any entry of the car into the crosswalk would be illegal at that point. RCW 46.61.235, "Crosswalks", states:

> (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

The street it was turning and/or veering into is a one-way street abd so the entire width counts as "half of the roadway" and thus any pedestrian in the crosswalk counts as being "upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning".

You can only drive into the crosswalk if it is a two-way road, no pedestrians are in the part of the crosswalk on the side that you are driving, there are at least two lanes going the other way, and none of the pedestrians on the other side are in the lane on that side that is adjacent to your side.

> Not an illegal turn.

[edit] I linked to the law from the wrong state. Here's the right one:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.305

RCWs > Title 46 > Chapter 46.61 > Section 46.61.305

(1) No person shall turn a vehicle or move right or left upon a roadway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety nor without giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided.

(2) A signal of intention to turn or move right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

Every other state has similar laws.

The Tesla was not signaling before or during that turn. That on its own makes the turn illegal.

I don't think that is California though..

Yes, that's Seattle.

You're right! Someone else says it's Seattle, so let's see...

https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.305

RCWs > Title 46 > Chapter 46.61 > Section 46.61.305

(2) A signal of intention to turn or move right or left when required shall be given continuously during not less than the last one hundred feet traveled by the vehicle before turning.

Do we think that every state in the US doesn't have a similar law?

This is pedantic. Human drivers routinely don’t use their turn signals.

What is the end-game here? What do you possibly want to argue? The car was perfectly aware it was making a turn, but decided to not use the turn signal because.. peer pressure?

It's baffling.

Do you believe you should turn your signal on before swerving to avoid a crash?

Isn't that just "failing to signal a turn"? If you told me someone made an "illegal turn", I'd think they made right on a intersection with a non right turn sign.

> Isn't that just "failing to signal a turn"?

You mean "making the turn illegally"? Potato potato.

> California Vehicle Code

This is Seattle, under the monorail (5th Ave).

You're right and I noted the section of the washington state driving code that applies. I'm pretty sure that every state in the US has a variant of this same law and picking the wrong one doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread.

Sure, but it's weird to bring up CA vehicle law, specifically, when it's completely irrelevant. You could have made the broader point without the irrelevant detail.

You're right again. I've edited the first comment since this is clearly a problem.

Agree, it didn't hit anything, even though it might've without intervention. "into" is the misleading part.

Right, and it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn.

The pedestrians had just started crossing, so it was in the wrong, but barely. It's the sort of manoeuvre that you see human drivers do all the time.

The entire talking point of FSD is that it's supposed to be better than human drivers. This ain't it.

>it didn't "veer" either, it performed a normal turn.

The definition of veer is "to change direction". This did that. Stop arguing semantics.

>The pedestrians had just started crossing

I fail to see how this matters at all. Even if the pedestrians hadn't started crossing yet, and were still on the sidewalk, it would have been wrong for the Tesla to make the turn without yielding to the peds.

> I fail to see how this matters at all.

Contrast it to "running into the pedestrians"...

> The entire talking point of FSD is that it's supposed to be better than human drivers. This ain't it.

the entire point of a beta is that it's supposed to be production grade software?

The Twitter user is located in MA, and the driver handbook says (https://www.mass.gov/doc/drivers-manual/download, page 85):

"You must yield to pedestrians entering or using a crosswalk in your travel path."

At least one pedestrian was unambiguously "using a crosswalk" in the car's travel path, and the other one was entering the crosswalk as well. I wouldn't consider this a marginal case.

I think Teslas are otherwise great cars but I would never use FSD in a million years. I think it should be banned on public streets until it's gone through testing that is far more rigorous.

The video is from Seattle, but the same yield-to-pedestrians-in-crosswalks applies here, too.

By the way, the "safer than the mean human driver" bit is irrelevant when you consider the distribution of human drivers. They need to be safer than (say) the 95th percentile of human drivers, which is a far higher bar to clear than the mean.

> so it was in the wrong, but barely

when it comes to hitting pedestrians, i dont think you can shade that in terms of "barely". either it is or isnt

It fundamentally didn't hit pedestrians though, and wasn't on a course to.

It was on a course to illegally cut off some pedestrians.

If you look at the blue track on the screen, the car is indicating it's going to go straight, not that it plans to turn right. I think the word veer is applicable because it is sudden and unexpected. If this was only a mistimed right turn, I might feel differently.

I mean it does look like it got lost, but the blue line in the "this is what I'm sensing and going to do in the next 30 seconds" view started indicating a full turn the instant it started turning.

I'm talking about on the right-hand-side, where it shows the route it's going to take. There's no indication on there it should turn right at this location. It looks like it should go straight through the intersection.

I see the display on the left side, which shows the car's trajectory, and it shows it's going to continue going straight and then suddenly switches to a turn. I would expect it to show that the turn is going to happen sooner, not suddenly switch from straight to turning.

what good is a blue line of what it’s planning, if the blue line changes the instant a new plan is made, such that the driver is surprised their car is making a right turn?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com