14 ms·

Cruise vehicles practically swarm the area where my office in South SF is. I have to say that they're very annoying to drive around, because as the article stat

Cruise vehicles practically swarm the area where my office in South SF is. I have to say that they're very annoying to drive around, because as the article states, they do not react to surroundings in the same way a human driver probably would. I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself. While I wouldn't say their vehicles make driving more dangerous for human vehicle operators around them, I do believe that they likely increase the risk of minor collisions.

zebnyc 9y ago
Where in South SF? I regularly pickup/drop off my wife from work in South SF and am yet to see one
- sithadmin 9y ago
  Oyster Point area. See quite a few of them puttering around near all the biotech office parks.
  - epoxyhockey 9y ago
    I see them a lot along the 3rd St corridor. Recently saw one almost come to a complete stop at a green light on 3rd in Dogpatch, before the driver took over and gunned the gas pedal.
    - karthikb 9y ago
      Tons along 4th near UCSF and over across 18th in Potrero Hill.
- kcorbitt 9y ago
  I see one 2-3 times a week as I commute by bike up/down Bayshore Blvd.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  I see them in Mission Bay all the time near AT&T.
- batmansmk 9y ago
  11th street and Howard in the heart of SOMA.
mrspeaker 9y ago
Imagine how annoying cars would have been to horse riders when they were first introduced. Startling the horses, likely increasing the risk of minor collisions... What a pain!
- cantrip 9y ago
  Except that we have the value of hindsight and presumably an advanced understanding of risk. Back then it might have been perfectly acceptable to throw a bunch of horses and cars together and risk them crashing into each other. Today it should be unacceptable to throw automated cars in with human drivers and put the onus on the humans to alter their innate understanding of 100 years of traffic flow. Your comment is cheeky and annoyingly inapplicable.
  - eterm 9y ago
    Automation will take over very quickly, humans and machines won't share for long. There's a tipping point where only people who want to drive will still do so which will likely make the insurance costs for those drivers very expensive because they're driving among automated vehicles which increases consequences of bad driving. (Fully automated, machines can talk to each other to avoid collisions). This increased cost of insurance will encourage more people to switch to automated which will further encourage switching. That tipping point is probably a relatively small percentage before it starts snowballing. All it takes is to get to a point where automated drivers are safer enough than driver-based that they can be insured significantly cheaper. It won't take long after 95%+ of people are automated with the remaining 5% causing 90%+ of accidents for manual driving to be banned or shunned as a socially unacceptable risk like smoking. I predict this will happen within 30 years.
    - alando46 9y ago
      Completely agree.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      >costs for those drivers very expensive because they're driving among automated vehicles which increases consequences of bad driving. Or very cheap because the people who self select to drive will be the people who care enough about driving to not do things like text and drive and when they do slip up the machines around them will prevent it from causing problems. >shunned as a socially unacceptable risk like smoking. Among the middle and upper class in Bubble Valley maybe. Everywhere else it's more of a "you do you" thing.
felipemnoa 9y ago
>>I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself How is this possible? I think you may be driving too close to cars.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  :-) You haven't driven around SF much perhaps? But notice he said "almost" not "did" so clearly he is leaving enough space to avoid collisions. The interesting thing for me at various demos has been the car/pedestrian relationship thing. Many humans won't slow for pedestrians unless they are clearly coming off the sidewalk and into the traffic lane, and even then some of them won't slow if they feel like they will be past them before the pedestrian would intersect with their car. Robo cars on the other hand immediately slow down when their algorithms suggest that the human might be about to cross the street. Because of this, another human driver won't expect the car ahead to slow suddenly because of the loitering pedestrian (expected behavior of another human driver) and so will be "surprised" by the braking of the car in front of them. There will be a moment of cognitive dissonance while the human is trying to normalize their perception that slowing down is not 'normal' and the fact that the car ahead is now rapidly approaching their front bumper. At which point the impending collision overrides the dissonance with a self preservation reaction to brake hard and stop.
  - felipemnoa 9y ago
    >>:-) You haven't driven around SF much perhaps? But notice he said "almost" not "did" so clearly he is leaving enough space to avoid collisions. Have driven plenty in big cities and small towns. You should always leave enough space in front of you in case somebody suddenly stops.How much space you leave in front of you depends on how fast you are going. At least that was drilled to me by more experienced drivers. I think it was even part of the DMV exam. I have not driven in San Francisco. How bad is it? Do they drive bumper to bumper?
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      > How much space you leave in front of you depends on how fast you are going. Right? In city traffic of any appreciable density the type of following distance that you can discuss on the internet without getting flak from the holier than thou types will quickly fill itself with cars pulling off of side streets or merging in front of you. "Your safe following distance is my opportunity." -Jeff Bezos
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ajross 9y ago
> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself. Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems. That's easily the simplest collision to detect and avoid for any automated system. I know that sounds glib, but you need to recognize that if your ability to drive safely is so dependent on the "expected" behavior of other drivers, that maybe driving the way you are (which is to say, in the state of being a human) is the wrong way to solve the problem. > I do believe that they likely increase the risk of minor collisions. Pretty sure to the extent that this has been studied, exactly the opposite is true. For every "annoyance glitch" you posit, these things are saving 6-7 "loss of attention" fender benders.
- sciencesage 9y ago
  You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". The product should fit as seamlessly into the world as possible, without forcing less wealthy people to deal with a higher chance of collisions.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Not even just less wealthy people, but anyone who tends to be financially conservative. I don't think there's an economically sensible option to purchase a car like this right now.
  - ajross 9y ago
    > You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". Then it's a good thing I didn't. I was replying (with a bit of humor) to the upthread posters notion that because these cars behave in a way that s/he personally finds confusing they are more dangerous (they aren't) and by extension shouldn't be on the road. And that's ridiculous. And the proof to the contrary is that exactly the kind of unsafe situation the poster was complaining about is something that automated systems can almost completely eliminate.
    - kemitche 9y ago
      Abnormal behavior on the road increases risk by creating unknowns. I don't think we should ban autonomous cars from new behavior, but I think it's just as odd to say that unpredictable but legal behavior is somehow just as safe as predictable legal behavior. Legal != Safe.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
If you rear-end a vehicle that's established in your lane, it's always your own fault, no exceptions. It's your job to follow at a safe stopping distance. The other cars can be blamed for disputing traffic, sure, but you as a driver are responsible for always following at a safe distance and assuming every other car could slam on their brakes at any time.
- ProAm 9y ago
  Are you saying brake checking a tailgater is not illegal? It is the persons fault for not rear ending a vehicle, its also the first drivers responsibility to drive responsibly (i.e. not braking or stopping for things that are imaginary)
  - PacifyFish 9y ago
    Similar to how being an asshole and flipping someone off while driving is not illegal, or how being an asshole and tailgating someone is not illegal, brake checking a tailgater certainly makes you an asshole, but it is not illegal. Social responsibility be damned.
    - ProAm 9y ago
      It is illegal in many states under 'aggressive driving' or 'road rage'.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Feel free to feel smug whole dying in a ditch by the side of a road. Or you know maintain a reasonable following distance so sudden stops are a non issue... Really, when it's ego vs several tons at highway speeds it's not ego that wins. Further, 'I thought I saw something' is a blanket exception for sudden breaking.
        ProAm 9y ago
        Im just saying self driving cars should be required to drive within a reasonable expectation of a normal, safe, predicable manner. If they are not there yet, maybe they shouldn't be on the roads yet.
Nomentatus 9y ago
I'm going to argue that this is a feature, and you're already less likely to die on the road, thanks to those annoyances. We've known that humans tailgate like hell for decades, and haven't found a cure. Cruise vehicles have pointed out that you (like almost everyone else) tailgate to a dangerous degree, and have at least slightly changed that behavior. If that saves you from a violent high-speed collision in a year or two, you owe them your life. Having a sprinkling of more "ethical" vehicles around might be a good thing.
- wovi 9y ago
  On one hand I totally agree with you in that it's your fault if you're tailgating and can't safely stop, regardless of what the vehicle in front of you is doing. However, I totally sympathize with him, living in Pittsburgh and driving in proximity to Uber's and a few other company's cars. There have been times when I've been following an autonomous car and it makes a turn onto a completely clear road, then suddenly slams on the brakes for no observable reason. Yes, I should be ready to handle this situation, but it's certainly not expected. Knowing that Uber safety drivers intervene an average of about once a mile certainly makes me wary of these cars and not enjoy driving around them.
  - foobarian 9y ago
    Interesting, wonder if it will become necessary to build automated car coordination networks past a certain density. Systems like these could get into funny feedback loops where one car stops dead, causing the next one to stop dead, take off, rinse and repeat. Or, my favorite part of living near Boston, the traffic circles; I can't wait for the day a convoy of automated cars deadlocks a rotary :-)
    - aptwebapps 9y ago
      Feedback loops are how we get traffic jams right now. A well-built synchronized system should be less susceptible to them than the current, unsynchronized one.
- schwap 9y ago
vkou 9y ago
> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself. I have never come close to rear-ending anyone... But that may be because I keep a reasonable following distance from the car in front of me. Tailgating is what adds danger to our roadways.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mathattack 9y ago
We'll get used to driving around them. You can cut off the Waymo cars and know they won't bump you.

zebnyc 9y ago

Where in South SF? I regularly pickup/drop off my wife from work in South SF and am yet to see one

sithadmin 9y ago
Oyster Point area. See quite a few of them puttering around near all the biotech office parks.
- epoxyhockey 9y ago
  I see them a lot along the 3rd St corridor. Recently saw one almost come to a complete stop at a green light on 3rd in Dogpatch, before the driver took over and gunned the gas pedal.
  - karthikb 9y ago
    Tons along 4th near UCSF and over across 18th in Potrero Hill.
kcorbitt 9y ago
I see one 2-3 times a week as I commute by bike up/down Bayshore Blvd.
notyourwork 9y ago
I see them in Mission Bay all the time near AT&T.
batmansmk 9y ago
11th street and Howard in the heart of SOMA.

mrspeaker 9y ago

Imagine how annoying cars would have been to horse riders when they were first introduced. Startling the horses, likely increasing the risk of minor collisions... What a pain!

cantrip 9y ago
Except that we have the value of hindsight and presumably an advanced understanding of risk. Back then it might have been perfectly acceptable to throw a bunch of horses and cars together and risk them crashing into each other. Today it should be unacceptable to throw automated cars in with human drivers and put the onus on the humans to alter their innate understanding of 100 years of traffic flow. Your comment is cheeky and annoyingly inapplicable.
- eterm 9y ago
  Automation will take over very quickly, humans and machines won't share for long. There's a tipping point where only people who want to drive will still do so which will likely make the insurance costs for those drivers very expensive because they're driving among automated vehicles which increases consequences of bad driving. (Fully automated, machines can talk to each other to avoid collisions). This increased cost of insurance will encourage more people to switch to automated which will further encourage switching. That tipping point is probably a relatively small percentage before it starts snowballing. All it takes is to get to a point where automated drivers are safer enough than driver-based that they can be insured significantly cheaper. It won't take long after 95%+ of people are automated with the remaining 5% causing 90%+ of accidents for manual driving to be banned or shunned as a socially unacceptable risk like smoking. I predict this will happen within 30 years.
  - alando46 9y ago
    Completely agree.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    >costs for those drivers very expensive because they're driving among automated vehicles which increases consequences of bad driving. Or very cheap because the people who self select to drive will be the people who care enough about driving to not do things like text and drive and when they do slip up the machines around them will prevent it from causing problems. >shunned as a socially unacceptable risk like smoking. Among the middle and upper class in Bubble Valley maybe. Everywhere else it's more of a "you do you" thing.

felipemnoa 9y ago

>>I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself How is this possible? I think you may be driving too close to cars.

ChuckMcM 9y ago
:-) You haven't driven around SF much perhaps? But notice he said "almost" not "did" so clearly he is leaving enough space to avoid collisions. The interesting thing for me at various demos has been the car/pedestrian relationship thing. Many humans won't slow for pedestrians unless they are clearly coming off the sidewalk and into the traffic lane, and even then some of them won't slow if they feel like they will be past them before the pedestrian would intersect with their car. Robo cars on the other hand immediately slow down when their algorithms suggest that the human might be about to cross the street. Because of this, another human driver won't expect the car ahead to slow suddenly because of the loitering pedestrian (expected behavior of another human driver) and so will be "surprised" by the braking of the car in front of them. There will be a moment of cognitive dissonance while the human is trying to normalize their perception that slowing down is not 'normal' and the fact that the car ahead is now rapidly approaching their front bumper. At which point the impending collision overrides the dissonance with a self preservation reaction to brake hard and stop.
- felipemnoa 9y ago
  >>:-) You haven't driven around SF much perhaps? But notice he said "almost" not "did" so clearly he is leaving enough space to avoid collisions. Have driven plenty in big cities and small towns. You should always leave enough space in front of you in case somebody suddenly stops.How much space you leave in front of you depends on how fast you are going. At least that was drilled to me by more experienced drivers. I think it was even part of the DMV exam. I have not driven in San Francisco. How bad is it? Do they drive bumper to bumper?
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    > How much space you leave in front of you depends on how fast you are going. Right? In city traffic of any appreciable density the type of following distance that you can discuss on the internet without getting flak from the holier than thou types will quickly fill itself with cars pulling off of side streets or merging in front of you. "Your safe following distance is my opportunity." -Jeff Bezos

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ajross 9y ago

> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself. Then clearly you need to get a car with better proximity detection systems. That's easily the simplest collision to detect and avoid for any automated system. I know that sounds glib, but you need to recognize that if your ability to drive safely is so dependent on the "expected" behavior of other drivers, that maybe driving the way you are (which is to say, in the state of being a human) is the wrong way to solve the problem. > I do believe that they likely increase the risk of minor collisions. Pretty sure to the extent that this has been studied, exactly the opposite is true. For every "annoyance glitch" you posit, these things are saving 6-7 "loss of attention" fender benders.

sciencesage 9y ago
You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". The product should fit as seamlessly into the world as possible, without forcing less wealthy people to deal with a higher chance of collisions.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Not even just less wealthy people, but anyone who tends to be financially conservative. I don't think there's an economically sensible option to purchase a car like this right now.
- ajross 9y ago
  > You can't just tell every person to "get a car with better proximity detection systems". Then it's a good thing I didn't. I was replying (with a bit of humor) to the upthread posters notion that because these cars behave in a way that s/he personally finds confusing they are more dangerous (they aren't) and by extension shouldn't be on the road. And that's ridiculous. And the proof to the contrary is that exactly the kind of unsafe situation the poster was complaining about is something that automated systems can almost completely eliminate.
  - kemitche 9y ago
    Abnormal behavior on the road increases risk by creating unknowns. I don't think we should ban autonomous cars from new behavior, but I think it's just as odd to say that unpredictable but legal behavior is somehow just as safe as predictable legal behavior. Legal != Safe.

ClassyJacket 9y ago

If you rear-end a vehicle that's established in your lane, it's always your own fault, no exceptions. It's your job to follow at a safe stopping distance. The other cars can be blamed for disputing traffic, sure, but you as a driver are responsible for always following at a safe distance and assuming every other car could slam on their brakes at any time.

ProAm 9y ago
Are you saying brake checking a tailgater is not illegal? It is the persons fault for not rear ending a vehicle, its also the first drivers responsibility to drive responsibly (i.e. not braking or stopping for things that are imaginary)
- PacifyFish 9y ago
  Similar to how being an asshole and flipping someone off while driving is not illegal, or how being an asshole and tailgating someone is not illegal, brake checking a tailgater certainly makes you an asshole, but it is not illegal. Social responsibility be damned.
  - ProAm 9y ago
    It is illegal in many states under 'aggressive driving' or 'road rage'.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Feel free to feel smug whole dying in a ditch by the side of a road. Or you know maintain a reasonable following distance so sudden stops are a non issue... Really, when it's ego vs several tons at highway speeds it's not ego that wins. Further, 'I thought I saw something' is a blanket exception for sudden breaking.
      - ProAm 9y ago
        Im just saying self driving cars should be required to drive within a reasonable expectation of a normal, safe, predicable manner. If they are not there yet, maybe they shouldn't be on the roads yet.

Nomentatus 9y ago

I'm going to argue that this is a feature, and you're already less likely to die on the road, thanks to those annoyances. We've known that humans tailgate like hell for decades, and haven't found a cure. Cruise vehicles have pointed out that you (like almost everyone else) tailgate to a dangerous degree, and have at least slightly changed that behavior. If that saves you from a violent high-speed collision in a year or two, you owe them your life. Having a sprinkling of more "ethical" vehicles around might be a good thing.

wovi 9y ago
On one hand I totally agree with you in that it's your fault if you're tailgating and can't safely stop, regardless of what the vehicle in front of you is doing. However, I totally sympathize with him, living in Pittsburgh and driving in proximity to Uber's and a few other company's cars. There have been times when I've been following an autonomous car and it makes a turn onto a completely clear road, then suddenly slams on the brakes for no observable reason. Yes, I should be ready to handle this situation, but it's certainly not expected. Knowing that Uber safety drivers intervene an average of about once a mile certainly makes me wary of these cars and not enjoy driving around them.
- foobarian 9y ago
  Interesting, wonder if it will become necessary to build automated car coordination networks past a certain density. Systems like these could get into funny feedback loops where one car stops dead, causing the next one to stop dead, take off, rinse and repeat. Or, my favorite part of living near Boston, the traffic circles; I can't wait for the day a convoy of automated cars deadlocks a rotary :-)
  - aptwebapps 9y ago
    Feedback loops are how we get traffic jams right now. A well-built synchronized system should be less susceptible to them than the current, unsynchronized one.
schwap 9y ago

vkou 9y ago

> I've nearly rear-ended a couple myself. I have never come close to rear-ending anyone... But that may be because I keep a reasonable following distance from the car in front of me. Tailgating is what adds danger to our roadways.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mathattack 9y ago

We'll get used to driving around them. You can cut off the Waymo cars and know they won't bump you.