I just had a thought, wasn't this accident after the Levandowski thing? I wonder if Uber pulled a bunch of code for fear of infringing on waymo and put in this crappy hacky code. They probably didn't want the Levandowski case to appear to slow down their progress.
Lol, people keep taking about Uber building internal products because 3rd party stuff can't "Uber" scale, I think the real drive to build internal apps is to save on licensing costs.
Take chat, hipcat is like 5-10 bucks per month per user. Uber has about 20k FTEs, 40k contractors all use chat. That's 3 to 600k per month just on chat.
Don't forget scale is expensive.
I can't imagine how much that many slack licenses would cost.
Before the Susan fowler thing they had a rule that you had 30 days to exercise your options after you leave or separate as they called it. Since the company's value went up so much most people couldn't afford to pay the tax and because it was private you couldn't sell it (employee lock out is in November). Lots of people were handcuffed because of this, and I know a few that walked away. After the Susan Fowler thing they changed the option thing to like 7 years.
It's weird walking away from 120 million but I think I might get what he was thinking. He was probably over confident with the tech, and thought it was close to roll out. He was also probably thinking the tech was worth billions. I bet Anthony felt he built the tech himself and he owned it. He probably wanted and felt like he deserved a bigger piece of the multi billon dollar self driving pie than just 120 million.
If you read through Autonomy by Lawrence Burns, the author states that Levandowski felt the project was losing focus & getting too bloated, and wanted to disrupt it with a Team Macintosh style parallel project that he would head.
It could've just been part of the big ego'd power struggle that occurred on the project and saw the exit of many early stage employees, but I also wonder if he had a point, looking back today at the stages the project went through. It's hard not to feel like they thought they were close to launch, only to hit some roadblocks and need to rebuild major chunks of it. Speculation. But they're a huge company with a product that is at risk of getting usurped at this point.
If he thought it was close to roll-out and worth billions, he's more a lucky manager than an actual engineer. Which makes his criminality far more understandable.
Much of the vision may have been his, but what he is accused of stealing is the work of 100s (1000s?) of engineers who worked to make those ideas a reality.
Hmm... If Anthony ends up taking a plea deal I wonder if there might be some details about Uber that might come up. I could totally see Anthony selling out Travis at least
What the heck could this be about? They just IPO'd and the investors are mad the stock is down? Why would that be a reason to sue... Or I assume sue... Why would this require an investigation? Might be a dumb question
During the investor pitches there are projections and historical numbers that are provided of they are misleading this where a lawsuit is needed to uncover that.
That's what happened to Snapchat after they ipo. Turns out they had more warning internally that their numbers were slowing that weren't shared.
Oh I didn't hear about a snap lawsuit, I knew their stock tanked but I don't know about the lawsuit. I'll Google it. I figured after they put out the ipo perspective it was "buyer be ware".
But as a bicyclist it's deadly. I'm in SF, it happens all the time on second St and on market. I thought they weren't even allowed to drop off on market but it happens all the time. It happens to me like once every 3 months but I see it every week happening to others. I keep an eye out for those Uber badges and expect to get cut off.
>As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that.
I strongly disagree with this. I've owned an electric scooter for over a year now and I learned real fast that it's super dangerous to ride on the sidewalk.
The problem with pedestrians is that they are not looking out for scooters. People will wander into your path and depending on how fast you're going you may collide.
Also you can't see people walking out onto the sidewalk from doorways and recessed building entrances and around corners. I see people on those scooters going full speed on sidewalks and if someone happens to suddenly walk out doorway they're getting hit.
When people walk out onthe street they should look both ways for cars before stepping on the road. In my opinion it's ridiculous to expect people to peer out of doorway stoops and look for people on scooters barreling down the sidewalk.
I bike commute. I stay on the road as much as possible, but there's parts where it's impractical. So, I get on the sidewalk, go slow, and yield to pedestrians.
That said, Jesus Christ people. Take out your headphones, put your phone away, and freaking pay attention to your surroundings. People wander around like they're the baby from the Popeye cartoons expecting everything else to miraculously flow around them.
Forget about bikes and scooters, it's rude to other pedestrians who may be walking faster, running, or actually paying attention to what they're doing if you're meandering back and forth across the sidewalk and can't even hear someone say "Excuse me". The sidewalk is for walking, yes, but that doesn't mean it's for the exclusive use of any one individual.
I ride a lot and in traffic. I've occasionally thought the same thought you're thinking here and to be honest, I will do whatever I think is safest for me.
But riding on the sidewalk really does mean that the burden of taking care of pedestrians is all on me. And when I've thought those kinds of thoughts, I have to recognize that it feels very similar to the arguments I hear from motorists when they try and put the burden of safety on cyclists who are legitimately on the roads. If I'm not supposed to be somewhere, it's a bad attitude for me to even start down the road of thought that blames the pedestrians for my treatment of their safety.
> But riding on the sidewalk really does mean that the burden of taking care of pedestrians is all on me.
The thing is, I have more trust in my ability to watch out for pedestrians than I trust drivers to watch out for me.
Fun fact: After I started wearing a reflecting vest when riding my bike, I think drivers have treated me much more considerately. Maybe they are not so bad after all and just did not see me as easily before.
> If you were biking around staring at your phone and weaving into oncoming traffic, is that someone else's fault?
No, because the law states that a bike on the road with cars is equal to other vehicles and has no higher priority in regards to right of way.
In contrast, a biker on a sidewalk is not considered equal to a pedestrian. In fact, it is illegal in most cases, but probably not illegal or dangerous enough to warrant strict enforcement.
I consider pedestrians to have just the responsibility of paying attention to their surroundings to not inconvenience other pedestrians, not bikes or scooters.
>In contrast, a biker on a sidewalk is not considered equal to a pedestrian. In fact, it is illegal in most cases, but probably not illegal or dangerous enough to warrant strict enforcement.
In Washington State this depends heavily on municipality and you need to know exactly which cities you're riding through. State law only says that you have the same duties and rights as a driver when on the road, and that you have the same duties and rights as a pedestrian when on the sidewalk. When I rode to work I checked all three of the cities I rode though and they all allowed bicycles on sidewalks.
I generally choose whew to ride based on the density of traffic. If nobody is on the sidewalk and the sidewalk is in good condition I'll ride on the sidewalk.
I feel like this is the key distinction. I strongly prefer riding on roads, even when other people think it looks unsafe, for the simple reason that people on the road (generally) follow rules. You can, within reason, tell well in advance what someone is about to do.
I feel much safer in an environment where there are clear rules of engagement that are, by and large, respected.
(Anecdote: my most recent crash was with a scooter, the rider of which was very inexperienced in traffic and reacted to a tight spot by doing exactly the opposite of what they teach you in driver's ed. Feel free to guess whether this was on the road or on a bike path...)
Where I'm riding it is completely legal to bike on the sidewalk, so it's not something that should be unexpected.
> I consider pedestrians to have just the responsibility of paying attention to their surroundings
This is what I'm talking about. Many people cannot even be bothered to do that. If you aren't going to take an interest in your own safety, why should anyone else? The sidewalk is not the place to zone out and lose yourself in your Twitter feed.
I'm not sure where that commenter is posting from, but isn't cycling on the sidewalk _illegal_ in most places (except in sidewalk-inset bike lanes)? It's quite reasonable to walk on a sidewalk without expecting bikes to hit you; they shouldn't be there in the first place.
I walk commute often, and especially when I'm traveling. Sure, cars are dangerous, and bicycles are often irresponsible, but pedestrians are the worst. They'll walk four abreast, gather in large groups at chokepoints, block traffic to take photos, stop for no reason. And no one really cares because most of this bad behavior is limited to sidewalks, so it only affects other pedestrians. But it makes it damn difficult to walk at a decent clip. I'd really love to see "walking lanes" introduced, like bike lanes, for people who are actually walking and not treating the sidewalk like a goddamn park. </rant>
Cities can be made to be enjoyable. The pedestrians you describe are doing the right thing. That said, I agree, we should devote less space to inefficient cars, more space/lanes to pedestrians/cyclists/etc.
> I bike commute. I stay on the road as much as possible, but there's parts where it's impractical. So, I get on the sidewalk, go slow, and yield to pedestrians.
Yeah. I bike on the sidewalk sometimes, but when I do I consider it 100% my responsibility to avoid pedestrians. They're not expecting me and they have no reason to look out for me; it's my job to go slow, watch entrances, and not scare people by blowing past 6 inches away from them.
I tried really hard to make it clear that I am looking out for them. Apparently that was insufficient. It is made unnecessarily difficult to look out for someone who is weaving around erratically and completely oblivious to everything around them.
I bike on the road. I expect cars to look out for me. Nonetheless, I take measures to make it easy for them to do that. I wear reflective gear and have lights at night. I bike in an easily visible space. I signal where I'm going and move in a consistent, predictable manner.
There's absolutely no reason that someone on a sidewalk shouldn't expect that another person, whether walking or on a bike, might also need to use the sidewalk and to leave space for them to do so, or at a bare minimum, maintain a modicum of awareness so that you can see or hear someone else approaching.
The bigger, more dangerous to others vehicle must look out for smaller ones.
You expect cars to look out for bicycle, and should yourself look out for pedestrians.
I live in Copenhagen, on a road that's a pedestrian zone shopping street. It is absolutely unreasonable to expect pedestrians to look out for cyclists - I'm in their space! So on the last 100m of my journey home, I must cycle at half speed or even walking speed, depending how busy it is.
If cyclists stopped being careful, cycling through the pedestrian zone would eventually get banned, like it is in Britain. (Or else enforced, I don't know if its already banned.)
> I take measures to make it easy for them to do that. I wear reflective gear and have lights at night. I bike in an easily visible space. I signal where I'm going and move in a consistent, predictable manner.
Because you're on a road. If you don't do those things, you may die. Pedestrians don't expect to get hit by vehicles on the sidewalk to the same degree. I'm a fast walker, I somewhat know your pain, but you're not entitled to tell people how to walk around, unless it's putting other pedestrians in danger.
> There's absolutely no reason that someone on a sidewalk shouldn't expect that another person, whether walking or on a bike, might also need to use the sidewalk
Is cycling on the sidewalk legal in your location? It isn't in most places, as far as I know.
Don't know about the parent but it's so legal in SF and the Peninsula that plenty of sidewalk spaces have sharrows (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking) or signs indicating cyclists are allowed use of the path. These signs aren't necessary for cyclists to use the sidewalk though: we're simply allowed to unless a sign explicitly prohibits it.
Besides the point isn't that cyclists in these spaces shouldn't have to look out for pedestrians, it's that pedestrians make it hard even for other pedestrians to navigate and that perhaps an inequitable share of responsibility for observing one's surroundings exists.
Same here. If I have to cycle on the sidewalk, I go very slow and I do my best not to scare pedestrians, especially older people who don't feel safe near bikes. Unfortunately, not all cyclists are respectful and it creates tensions. I regularly get scolded by pedestrians.
I schools every cyclist I see on the sidewalk. The two cyclists that ran into me both said they didn't mean to (and didn't apologize, btw), and I use that as motivation for the scoldings.
Most of my walking is near store fronts and it is exceedingly dangerous to blow by open doors at the clip I see these cyclists doing. It is so frustrating to me to watch this.
I was confused about this, too. It's illegal here (unless the sidewalk has an inset bike lane, but they're usually inset to the road instead). You see it occasionally, but I certainly wouldn't expect the people doing it to be so self-righteous about breaking the law.
Indeed, I also bike commute, and when I get onto the sidewalk for any reason, I slow down to a walking pace. I'm also ready to hop off my bike and walk it, so that I am a pedestrian. This seems easier for other pedestrians to deal with.
Pedestrians aren't going to change, they never have and it's just silly to assume they will. That's why I'm a tedious vehicular cyclist. Road is best, fastest, safest, and least infuriating.
Japan solved the problem of sharing crowded streets by putting liability on the vehicle every time.
If you are riding a bicycle on the footpath and hit a pedestrian, it is your fault and you are going to be on the hook for a large amount of money. It's the same if cars hit a cyclist or pedestrian.
It's arbitrary but it also makes it safe to cycle because cars are vigilant to not hit pedestrians (contrast with western countries, my experience is in NZ where car drivers bully cyclists)
I agree this is a good default. But because of this, here in South Korea we have con artist pedestrians getting purposely "bumped" by cars and going off to lie in a hospital bed, leeching medical bills from the driver until he settles.
There are a few exceptions to it. However, that's exactly how it works in The Netherlands. Biker needs to watch out for a pedestrian. Car for bikes and pedestrians, etc. If a car could've avoided the accident no matter if a cyclist was doing something wrong, car is at fault.
This change prevented loads of accidents. Before if a cyclist did something wrong the general thought was "cyclist should've paid attention". But an accident is caused by 2 people, so it makes sense that the one who can cause the most damage is fully aware of that.
Liable? That's why cars have mandatory insurance. The amount of damage which can be done is way higher than e.g. 2 cyclists hitting each other.
That's a pretty crucial distinction from strict liability, and is much closer to what we have in the US (at least on paper, you have a duty to avert a collision if you can, regardless of right of way).
Unless you mean the most trivial sense of "you could have avoided the accident by not driving."
"Needs to watch out for" is quite different from "is always at fault if it collides with."
The impression I get from statement made here it actually seems to be hugely different. Too much of "should watch out", etc. It's more of a "in case cannot be proven, car is in the wrong". In practice, good luck proving that the bike was doing something weird. As result, they watch out.
I don't understand your comment of "strict liability" btw. It's not black/white situation. However, in general they rule against the car. As result, people on bicycles abuse this (especially in Amsterdam). But there's the benefit of a super huge bicycle usage, so although it's not perfect, it seems worth it.
strict liability is a legal term of art that means something along the lines of "you are guilty no matter what the reason."
It's used in North America can be found often in things like traffic tickets or regulatory offences. For example, if you were speeding, it doesn't matter what the reason is, for example it doesn't matter if your odometer was broken or if the posted street signs were impossible to see due to fog or whatever, all the prosecution has to prove is that you were going at a certain speed and you are automatically guilty no matter what.
The individual you are replying to was saying that comments here made it sound like strict liability for drivers and cyclists. That even if you were driving as carefully as possible, if a cyclist suddenly appears from behind a bush and cuts exactly in front of your car while you were doing 80 km an hour and you did everything humanly possible to stop and avoid him, you would still be at fault. He's saying later comments seem to suggest otherwise.
If your society considers a particular transportation mode so antisocial that people who choose it are automatically guilty regardless of the specifics of the incident, no one should ever make that mode choice. It's tantamount to a ban. You aren't perfect, and other people sometimes behave far outside the bounds of what any reasonable person expects (and sometimes do so deliberately to commit insurance fraud). If there's no standard like "reasonable caution" or "due care" to save you, then it doesn't matter how cautious you are, making that mode choice is playing with fire.
Parent said that cyclists who hit pedestrians are automatically liable, then turned around and called bicycling "safe." That's a bizarre interpretation - with that law, Japan is messaging that Japanese people ought to stay far, far away from bicycling unless they have particularly extreme appetite for risk.
To answer your question, modern cities need some method of transportation faster than walking. At speed, injuring the pedestrians who get in your way is an inevitability. Either you have a tax on the unlucky (and unable to afford real estate in the pedestrian core), or you give at least one such method immunity. In Japan, that method is trains. Japan takes the pedestrian victim-blaming even further than necessary in this case, and bills their families for the cleanup costs.
> At speed, injuring the pedestrians who get in your way is an inevitability
Well, that's the point. You are supposed to be riding or driving at a speed that you can safely stop if you need to. This is the same in every country, right?
> Japan is messaging that Japanese people ought to stay far, far away from bicycling unless they have particularly extreme appetite for risk.
Bicycling to work or school is very common here
> Japan takes the pedestrian victim-blaming even further than necessary in this case, and bills their families for the cleanup costs.
They sue for damages because they have to arrange buses for tens of thousands of people. It's not cheap
If you're on a 45mph road and someone puts themselves in your path 10 feet ahead, no, we don't say that you should have actually been going 5mph just in case something like this was going to happen. You're required to yield at crosswalks, but there's an expectation that mutual acknowledgement between you and the pedestrian happens at a reasonable distance before the pedestrian enters the roadway. Similarly, if someone enters an intersection on red, you have a duty to try and avoid the crash, but if it's too late, that's on them.
> If you're on a 45mph road and someone puts themselves in your path 10 feet ahead
This is why roads should be designed not to cause such a situation. If you have a pedestrian path really close to a 45mph road the design is bad. I'm not aware of anywhere having such a high speed road where a pedestrian could walk along side it (in Netherlands). Usually it's more closed off with pedestrians being banned.
30 seconds of Googling suggests (and a comment upthread) suggest that a defense based on reasonable expectations and circumstances beyond one's control is available to drivers in The Netherlands. The stakes are also much lower when the thing you're assigning is an insurance company payout. Cyclists presumably aren't insured when they hit pedestrians. If there were no defense available, cycling would be a bad idea.
We're under no illusions that cycling presents a danger to others in the same way that driving does. When we say cycling is unsafe, we mean it's unsafe for the cyclist.
The point is that your experience in a society that privileges automobile driving has left you with misleading impressions of how other societies function. In other places poor drivers are held responsible for their poor driving, and the sky has not fallen.
> In other places poor drivers are held responsible for their poor driving
As they should be everywhere. What seems crazy, though, is the belief that every collision is necessarily an instance of a poor driver committing poor driving, with no reference to how a reasonable person would have handled the situation differently.
Because responsibility should be based on what you do, and whether you did anything wrong, and not based solely on what mode of transportation you were using.
That's exactly the situation in China. When you are on the sidewalk you must walk in a straight line. If you make any sudden moves to the left or right then you are liable to get run over. You can't even hear the electric scooters and drivers here go way too fast. I don't wish them on Americans.
How long you live(d) there? It freak me out at first, like many things that are different, but after getting acclimated for a few years I actually think it works out pretty well. I had to get used to the "flow" and get used to being aware.
It now kinda freaks me out to be back in the US... realizing that everyone involved in traffic has their own assumptions of what is supposed/going to happen and won't necessarily be looking around all the time at what's actually going on, and I have to guess and premeditate that for everyone.
It's not a big problems when density is small and there is only one significant traffic element (cars) that's relatively predictable, but if the US is going to scale it's cities they're going to have to figure out how to deal with how to increase traffic density, and it doesn't seem very feasible to add more car roads and sidewalks in metropolitan areas (let's not touch on subways for the moment because that's what communism or Euro-effeminism or just too damn hard or whatever).
It's pretty easy to fit more people on those streets, all ya have to do is:
1. Slow down
2. Look around
3. Take a bit of the chip off the shoulders
Which I feel like all pretty much fly in the face of everything back-to-back World War champions cherish (and great prospects for this upcoming season!).
But I think the point of the article was "look both ways before you cross the street" was total bullshit when it was introduced... and now it's dogma. I don't necessarily wish metropolitan progress and growth on Americans, but I guess I kinda secretly hope for it.
I've been in Shenzhen eight years now as my primary home and work location. Long enough to get trained to turn around and look before I step left or right.
Everything you said about scooter applies, and has always applied, to bicycles. This is not a new problem. It's now more prevalent because more people ride scooters. It would also have been a problem if more people rode bikes.
The solution is consideration and attentiveness from pedestrians, people riding scooters, and people riding bikes.
If I ride my bike on the street, I pay attention to the rules of the road as well as possible dangers. These include cars ignoring the right of way, pedestrians walking onto the street suddenly between parked cars, and people opening car doors.
If I ride my bike on the sidewalk, I ride slower, and am attentive to people walking unpredictably, coming out of doorways, or coming around corners full speed.
I would like for pedestrians to behave more responsibly, both on the sidewalk and on the street. I am doing my part. No one is "king of the road/sidewalk". You can't put all the blame on any on party. Everyone needs to adjust their behavior for a safe society.
Agreed, if I go on the sidewalk I never go faster than walking speed but only if the sidewalk is clear. I'll walk it if there's people on the sidewalk.
One solution is to have lines for bikes and scooters.
In fact, for example in Paris (where I live), there is a lot of dedicated lines for bikes, and there are also dedicated bus lanes that bikes can take. When I commute by bike, I think only 1/3 of the road is actually in the main traffic.
Also as a pedestrian, bikes and scooters are a bit of a nightmare. Personally I instinctively rely on hearing when crossing a street, and because bike and electric scooter move silently it's not difficult to miss them, specially as there are also smaller than cars, so also more difficult to see.
> I strongly disagree with this. I've owned an electric scooter for over a year now and I learned real fast that it's super dangerous to ride on the sidewalk.
What speed do you travel at? Max, average, and typical speeds?
Scooters barreling down the sidewalk should use the far side, away from blind doorways, and, obviously, should barrel a lot slower when there are a lot of people out.
Yea I've never seen anyone riding with a helmet on these scooters. U see them all over south park bear the ball park.
I've rode a personal electric scooter for over a year now and I can say a helmet is a must. The biggest dangers I've seen is clueless uber/ lyft drivers cutting you off (happens a lot) and pot holes / cracks in the pavement. They travel at 10+ mph so if you hit a big enough pot hole your going to eat it.
