It may result in the opposite effect though: pedestrians more willing to cross the street in front of you, and other cars trying to mess with you. (A friend of mine was telling me how he tried going really fast then braking hard behind a self driving car in front of him). The car swerved into the bike lane and almost hit a bicyclist before the driver regained manual control of the car)

Good thing California requires license plates on the front of vehicles. That way, if the bicyclist was hurt/killed, the video recorded by the self driving car would show your friend was the one liable.

I'm not sure that's correct. The self driving car should have stayed in its lane because an accident between two cars is preferable to an accident between a cyclist and a car, especially if the cyclist is not otherwise involved.

Self driving cars should protect the weaker traffic participants, not use their space as a 'get out of the way' option if that space is occupied.

I think you're right about how the car should ideally respond, but I think most courts would find that aggressive or negligent driving that leads to an accident makes that driver responsible, even if another car makes an accidental breach of rules in response to the threat.

Not entirely sure, but my point was that the accelerating and sudden deacceleration was a dick move.

Absolutely but your friend may have exposed a pretty dangerous bug in the software of that self driving vehicle.

Perhaps the car calculated that it could safely enter the bike lane. It doesn't matter if it was close.

I don't buy that. It could never have predicted how the cyclist would react.

Isn't the driver who hit from behind usually at fault. It does not matter if the car ahead of you hits the break for fun or not, you should always be aware and brake accordingly.

That's Texas law for sure: the car that rear-ends another car is always at fault -- and rightfully so: maintaining correct following distance is a fundamental driving skill, one that is sadly ignored in France where I live now.

The same irresponsible behavior likely would have a similar effect on a human driven car.

> pedestrians more willing to cross the street in front of you

I'd be more afraid of crossing in front of a driver-less car. An automatic vehicle may have better reaction times than a human but I wouldn't want to be the first road fatality from a software bug.

> I wouldn't want to be the first road fatality from a software bug.

The first road fatality from a software bug happened long ago.

How is that worse than being a road fatality from a human driver?

I don't know what it's like in the bay area, but in NYC, everyone is an enemy to cyclists. Granted, it's not all our fault. We have our fair share of wannabe lance armstrongs. But most of us are just trying to get to/from work in a healthy way. People who drive hate us, and people who walk hate us too.

It's a shitty situation here.

London is very much the same. The recent large expansion of cycle routes along the Thames and the resultant roadworks has increased the us vs them sentiment unfortunately :(

It's the same everywhere. I bike to work and hate people in cars. I drive around and hate bicyclists just as much.

A cheaper trick would be to plaster signs on your car saying Self Driving Test Unit - Pre Alpha.

dang, you mean I'm going to have to upgrade my "Student Driver" sign?

i see them all the time skating, and they are already far less scary than normal drivers :)

Since I can no longer delete this, I'll just say, I genuinely thought it was a joke!

Is there a way to express appreciation of humor on HN without getting down voted?

(Obviously 'lol' / 'haha' are looked down upon here)

For what it's worth, it was intended as a joke, and I didn't vote on your comment either way. If I appreciate someone else's joke here, I'll usually just upvote it.

PS -- If anyone actually does this, e.g. by strapping an old SGI Indy and its 90s webcam to their ride, please post photos here!