Bicyclist suffers brain, spine injuries from Waymo “Safe Exit” malfunction
A cyclist in San Francisco filed a lawsuit against Waymo and its parent Alphabet, alleging that a malfunction in the autonomous vehicles’ “Safe Exit” system led to her being injured by a vehicle door while cycling in a marked lane. What happened While riding in a designated San Francisco bike lane, Jenifer Hanki was struck when the rear door of a Waymo robocab abruptly opened in her path, throwing her into the lane and causing her to collide with another Waymo vehicle also encroaching on the bike lane. Hanki suffered serious injuries including brain and spinal trauma, and required emergency care. Why it happened Hanki’s lawsuit alleges that Waymo’s “Safe Exit system”, which is intended to warn passengers against opening doors into bike lanes, failed to function, and that the lack of human oversight exacerbated the situation. The claim further argues that Waymo’s operational and safety practices do not meet the necessary standards for public safety and may have misrepresented system capabilities to regulators. The absence of human accountability in the vehicle led to confusion among passengers and a lack of immediate reporting or assistance for Hanki by those involved. What it means The incident highlights real risks that cyclists sharing roads with autonomous vehicles must endure. Given the expansion of autonomous vehicle services, it highlights the need for robust testing, accountability, and regulatory oversight. System 🤖 Safe Exit 🔗 Developer: Waymo Country: USA Sector: Automotive Purpose: Anticipate hazards Technology: Prediction algorithm; Machine learning Issue: Accountability; Accuracy/reliability; Liability; Safety; Transparency Regulation ⚖️ California Vehicle Code Section 38750 Legal, regulatory 👩🏼⚖️ Hanki v Waymo
- Date it happened
- 2025-02-01
- Organisation involved
- Jenifer Hanki
- Product, system or model
- Safe Exit
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.