19 ms·
Wielding Rocks and Knives, Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
- village-idiot 8y agoOn one hand, I am sympathetic to fears of driverless car safety and job losses. I would not be a big fan of having my (hypothetical) children playing on a street that self driving cars are being tested on. On the other, if you threaten the employee within the car or attempt to drive them off the road, you should be prosecuted with the full force of the law. There are still people within those self driving cars, and attempted homicide is still a crime. Edit: being opposed to attempted vehicular homicide is an unpopular opinion. Never saw that coming.
- cruella_deville 8y ago...hey driver get outta the car and go take lunch, and heres a number for a tow truck when your done eating. i would do the same in my village, as would most others who live here. its not about the jobs, its about the loss of privacy due to the incidental "meta as moby dick" mass surveilance that occurs
- village-idiot 8y agoI think vandalism is generally bad, but at least it's far far less bad than harming people. Politically I doubt that vandalism is a good way to stop self driving cars. Waymo can afford to replace damaged parts, and they could also smear their opponents as criminals, even if it's a minority of those concerned. This is the exact same playbook that those opposed to civil rights used, smearing protests as "riots". Playing directly into that hand is not a wise choice, IMHO.
- cruella_deville 8y agoyeah that little pointed stick incident on that island off the coast of india was a thing wasnt it ?
- walshemj 8y agoA local village for local cars :-)
- userbinator 8y agoAnother position to take against driverless cars (or rather, the proliferation and eventual obligation thereof) is the loss of freedom and control. Instead of the fault of human causing harm to another human, it's replaced with the fault of an opaque, massively complex algorithm; and that is rather unsettling to some people.
- village-idiot 8y agoInteresting question that I don't know the answer for, how many of these concerns were similarly raised with the rise of the car or the train before it?
- pjc50 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws Trains also experienced lots of concern, from the legitimate to the ludicrous.
- mmmeff 8y agoGhost in the Shell touched on this really well. There's the potential for bad actors to plant dangerous training into these algorithms. Hypothetically, someone could turn an entire fleet of self-driving taxis into an assassination mechanism. Every vehicle can wait until a specific individual is spotted crossing the street and fail to stop at a light. The corporation that owns this taxi then will say there was a software failure with the one specific taxi, take it out of commission, and move on with business as usual. A few deaths a year is still less than the death toll of human-operated cars, after all.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 8y agoOK, please offer an alternative vector for opposition besides litigation, which is expensive, slow, uncertain, and arguably rigged in many situations. For those who distrust or are cut off from institutional processes, what form of opposition do you recommend?
- freehunter 8y agoOrganize a protest with signs. Petition the government. Like you mentioned, sue the companies. But ultimately if the government says it's legal (which it has and it is) and lawsuits and protests fail, you're going to have to accept it at some point. That's part of living in a civil society, compromises always have to be made. If everyone threatened violence for things they don't like, we wouldn't be able to call ourselves "civilized". Pointing a gun at a person because you don't like the kind of car they're driving isn't exactly a workable solution.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- FreakyT 8y agoUnfortunate, but I guess with any new tech there will always be luddites. Many HN folks probably already know the etymology, but for those that aren't familiar, the word "luddite" itself comes from "English textile workers in the 19th century [who] destroyed textile machinery as a form of protest" [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
- stochastic_monk 8y agoIn what way is this threatening their livelihood? I would call it neo-Luddism, in the broader sense that it’s driven by dislike and fear toward technology, but I wouldn’t assign Luddism. The key quote for me: “They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test,” added his wife, who helps run the business.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- FreakyT 8y agoI was more going for "fearing new technology and therefore destroying it" angle.
- vvanders 8y agoI was ready to jump on the bandwagon of people hating new technology until I hit this section: > The trouble started, the couple said, when their 10-year-old son was nearly hit by one of the vehicles while he was playing in a nearby cul-de-sac. > “They said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be their real-world mistake,” said Mr. O’Polka, who runs his own company providing information technology to small businesses. I can see the perspective where if you've experienced an issue like this you might see them as more than an idle threat.
- Jach 8y agoReading that I wondered whether the 10 year old might have been throwing rocks at the car -- the car was just trying to defend itself... More seriously, cars of any sort are dangerous to children, self-driving or not, going on a crusade against self-driving cars for nearly hitting (or actually hitting) your boy makes as much sense as the same against the normal cars where that happens every day.
- bko 8y ago> "People are lashing out justifiably," said Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist at City University of New York and author of the book "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus." He likened driverless cars to robotic incarnations of scabs — workers who refuse to join strikes or who take the place of those on strike. I don't see how violence or vandalism of property is ever justified. Not to mention the fact that pelting self-driving cars with rocks or trying to run them off the road puts others in danger as well. What I don't understand about these modern day Luddites is why what's considered today's technology is okay but any technological advances beyond this point is harmful. Why not attack washing machines and dishwashers? Surely forcing people to get their clothes washed by hands would create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
- cruella_deville 8y ago"why not attack washing machines and dishwashers?" ...thats going to happen with smart appliances eventualy, and the movement to desmart appliances is growing. it will keep electrical engineers in business developing smart actuation workarounds for appliances
- cruella_deville 8y agosorry its not a sweet thing to hear, but the default coupling of intense data , and physical surveillance with smart products is a pitfall, and people are backlashing against it. I am one of those people that circumvent smart appliances back to sane mode and i make a killing financially from it.
- darpa_escapee 8y agoI'm interested in hearing more about what you do. Can you expound on it?
- cruella_deville 8y agoi think this might be shadow banned, but FWIW, i use PIC and ALU to bypass smart controlls at the hardware level so old men and women, who dont want smart appliances get a hardware version that is locally contained. physically i fabricate a new control panel or console, manufacture the "digital over analogue" dials and keypads, and replace the smart hardware.
- Barrin92 8y agoVandalising cars or causing threats of violence should never be condoned, but their still is something very wrong in the way tech companies encroach on the lives of people unwillingly. >“They didn’t ask us if we wanted to be part of their beta test,” added his wife, who helps run the business. The woman in the article is correct in my opinion. It ought to be up to the people of Arizona to decide what happens on Arizona's streets, not to a company from California, because it's the people of Arizona that are the receiving end of all the social, economic, and safety implications of this technology. We have had this trend of tech companies creating facts and asking democratic permission afterwards a few times now in the world of social media apps, but now with autonomous driving things are getting a little more physical.
- FreakyT 8y agoIf they have a problem with it, they should take it up with the state government of Arizona, which specifically allowed self-driving cars.
- cruella_deville 8y ago^ that happened and gov AZ said yah whatever $$$ is good
- DannyBee 8y agoYeah, it's not possible that they considered the issue delicately and decided something that disagrees with this person's opinion. It was definitely money.
- a1369209993 8y agoExactly. Allowing campaign contributions and failing to punish lobbying and post-term kickbacks fundamentally undermines possibility of a government actually representing it's citizens.
- 8y ago
- baybal2 8y agoI'm speechless, such a barbarity. We shall resolutely condemn it!
- 0x8BADF00D 8y agoThis article really sums up 2018 quite nicely. A year exemplifying the heights of both technological achievement and human stupidity.
- Tsubasachan 8y agoLook on the bright side, at least these crazies aren't patrolling the border playing Minutemen.
- istjohn 8y agoI can't downvote, but this comment contributes nothing to the conversation and is borderline trolling. And I'm as pro-immigration as the come.
- rdtsc 8y agoIt is interesting how Waymo chose not to pursue charges in a few cases where they had footage of the assailant. They thought it would further antagonize people in the community of making it an us vs them issue, with court cases, lawyers and publicity ensuing. But if charges are not pursued, it might also increase the attacks... There are already road-rage issues between human drivers, as cars are perceived to dehumanize other side "me vs car". In this case this just gets amplified. A few tricks might help here, for example, making the car look less a "Waymo" car and just make it like a normal car. It might be hard to hide the camera and sensors completely. In that case maybe make a random logo, say Acme Surveyors, inc. Another trick could be to have the test drivers pretend they are driving the car rather than sit and watch. They could keep their hands on the wheel and pretend to move it, so make it seem like they it's just a human driver.
- beisner 8y agoLetting a large number of attacks slide is probably worth a piece of the ~$1 trillion private and industrial transport market.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- analog31 8y agoPerhaps more importantly, data from the car becomes evidence, leading to public scrutiny of how the cars operate. And a court case could raise the question: "Are these cars being operated legally?"
- cruella_deville 8y ago"It is interesting how Waymo chose not to pursue charges in a few cases where they had footage of the assailant" ...this is like a victim of a home invasion telling the cops that its ok nothings wrong, because if the cops dig deeper they will find the depths of depravity. Does any one here know the full extent of data collection that waymo uses? does google know for sure that there are no backdoors in hardware or code? DOES anyone know what is being hidden from scrutiny?
- sokoloff 8y ago> The emergency drivers in the Waymo vans that were attacked in various cases told the Chandler police that the company preferred not to pursue prosecution of the assailants. This is part of the problem, IMO. Make it known that you will act lawfully to protect the safety of your drivers and will cooperate fully with law enforcement. This pacifist policy does nothing to discourage future attacks.
- pjc50 8y agoAs others have pointed out, that's escalating. It forces the other party to back down or escalate. It forces the conflict into the public eye and undoubtedly costs more in bad publicity than damage to cars.
- monksy 8y ago> Officer William Johnson of the Chandler Police Department described in a June report how the driver of a Chrysler PT Cruiser wove between lanes of traffic while taunting a Waymo van. How do we know that it just wasn't the PT Cruiser's driver's normal driving behavior. They did buy a PT Cruiser in the first place.
- sneakernets 8y agoIt only sounds barbaric until the automation comes for your job.
- bawana 8y agoIT's the 'misuse'of tech. Sure, we can optimize for efficiency if efficiency is defined by minimizing cost or maximizing safety. But in a world of humans, efficiency should be defined by 'maximizing human utility'. In other words, use tech to make people better, more employable, happier. And no I do not mean borg. If we continue down this path, ultimately we will marginalize humanity because our systems are far more efficient than the evolutionary process that spawned and selected us. in the specific example of 'self driving vehicles' an analogy might be to have an AI supervisor issuing directives. Much as our GPS issues turn directions, an advanced AI could be pointing out traffic hazards hundreds of feet away that many people who are distracted, texting, talking or just have poor vision would miss. OTOH, we have the resilience of millenia on our resume, whereas machines are scarcely 200 years old. If a cataclysm hits the planet, much of the static infrastructure will fail.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kart23 8y agoYes, of course violence and vandalism is never justified, but think of it from a bored high schoolers perspective. It would be so much fun in the future to stop a waymo in the middle of an street, cover its cameras, and watch the aftermath. Pranks involving technology are gonna be way more fun in the future.
- kodablah 8y ago> Pranks involving technology are gonna be way more fun in the future. Deadlier too as human judgement/reaction is removed from larger and more everyday machines.
- analog31 8y agoPeople who lose their jobs to the new technology can be hired as guards to protect the technology from Luddites. Or as insurance adjusters.
- questionasked 8y agonot every truck driver can be retrained as private security
- analog31 8y agoI'm sorry, I was being snarky, and yes I justly deserved the downvote.
- jameslk 8y ago> “The behavior is causing the drivers to resume manual mode over the automated mode because of concerns about what the driver of the other vehicle may do,” Officer Johnson wrote. Interesting that the drivers don't trust how the autonomous vehicles will handle these cases. In the case of someone actively being malicious, it seems more manual intervention will be desired. I can't see how this will work out with certain car companies touting their cars will not be equipped with steering wheels.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- falcor84 8y agoAs I understand it, a remote operator would be able to assume control
- pavel_lishin 8y agoAt the speeds cars travel at, this seems like a solution that isn't going to work very well.
- kodablah 8y ago> In some of their reports, police officers also said Waymo was often unwilling to provide video of the attacks. In one case, a Waymo employee told the police they would need a warrant to obtain video recorded by the company’s vehicles. Veering off topic a bit here, but this is a very good decision by the company. Taking a hard line here removes the subjectivity of when to violate your customer's privacy and puts the onus on the police to choose to make that violation.
- sneakernets 8y agoI'm not sure if they really care about privacy as much as they do arse-coverage. The sentence before that one: >The emergency drivers in the Waymo vans that were attacked in various cases told the Chandler police that the company preferred not to pursue prosecution of the assailants. If I didn't know any better, this statement reads as if the emergency driver doesn't exist to Waymo. One could argue that they aren't the target, but nowhere else can I think of someone attacking a vehicle because of the vehicle, and not the one "not driving" it.
- xiphias2 8y agoIt doesn't matter why the emergency drivers attacked. It's a hubris of Google Management that they think that they should be the ones who decide whether the victim (the driver) should pursue prosecution or not, and the company should help the driver in his decision, whatever it is. It was very sad to see that the forced arbitration case was handled only for sexual offences, Google management has too much power over employees when they are assaulted.
- sneakernets 8y agoI'm totally in agreement with you on that point.
- mikeash 8y agoNeither Google nor the driver gets to make that choice. The police decide whether to refer the incident for prosecution and the prosecutor decides whether to pursue it. Google saying they don’t want to pursue it carries only as much weight as the police and prosecutor give it.
- scoot_718 8y agoThey've always been a superstitious bunch of savages.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- KKKKkkkk1 8y agoI love this quote: “People are lashing out justifiably," said Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist at City University of New York and author of the book “Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus.” He likened driverless cars to robotic incarnations of scabs — workers who refuse to join strikes or who take the place of those on strike. “There's a growing sense that the giant corporations honing driverless technologies do not have our best interests at heart,” Mr. Rushkoff said. “Just think about the humans inside these vehicles, who are essentially training the artificial intelligence that will replace them.” Why is it that for every act of random vandalism or hooliganism, there's always an academic who will find a way to blame the victim?
- wwarner 8y agoWait -- Scientist kills innocent bystander with his experiment and the public shouldn't be mad about it? Would you have said the same thing if the professor defended Waymo?
- Waterluvian 8y agoThey should be mad about that. But that's not at all what this guy is complaining about.
- ng12 8y agoI feel like this rapidly moves into Trolley Problem territory. 10,000+ people die in a year due to drunk driving, what's the acceptable death toll for rolling out driverless cars as fast as possible?
- lambda 8y agoBecause of the uncertainty behind something new, you should have strong evidence that driverless cars are substantially safer than cars with drivers. Additionally, if driverless cars are being tested on public roads, you need laws and practices that are robust enough to prevent the kind of accident that killed someone. They had only one operator in the car, who was responsible for monitoring the car and logging information about its performance. They had specifically disabled safety systems which would have caused it to brake sooner. Even if its expected that driverless cars will reduce fatalities due to drunk or distracted driving, you need to have sufficient evidence of the improvement, safety systems in place for test systems, and public discussion of the tradeoffs and what situations driverless cars might perform worse in than human drivers, because lots of people have behavioral expectations based on human drivers; things like making eye contact with a driver before crossing the street. So yes, it is good to be working on and testing driverless cars, but you need to have a serious sense of humility and safety about it, and not push it, because even if you are incredibly safe you can expect some backlash, but if you miss the mark at all and oversell the safety, you'll get a lot more backlash, with justification, much sooner, which could set the whole program back significantly.
- Eric_WVGG 8y agoImagine how furious the citizens of Chandler, AZ will get when they find out how many people are killed by human-driven cars every year.
- whatshisface 8y agoThat fury has already been folded in to society in the form of the many negative consequences awaiting the perpetrators of vehicular manslaughter.
- stefan_ 8y agoNone at all? A citation? That is the reality. Look at this very story. Erik and Elizabeth O’Polka driving dangerously on purpose, and all police has to offer is a 'warning'? It's even an off-hand joke in this NYT piece.
- whatshisface 8y agoHere is a page detailing the situation in California: https://www.shouselaw.com/vehicle-manslaughter.html https://www.shouselaw.com/vehicle-manslaughter.html
- stefan_ 8y agoYou are not hearing me. The theory is clear; the practice is that if you kill someone with your car and you are not DUI (no license is fine), you will be very likely not charged. https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/07/30/five-weeks-later-brooklyn-da-eric-gonzalez-hasnt-charged-the-driver-who-killed-4-year-old-luz-gonzalez-and-left-the-scene/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/07/30/five-weeks-later-broo...
- i_phish_cats 8y agoSo, how many people is an acceptable number of people that can be killed by driverless cars?
- Scoundreller 8y ago> A man pulled up alongside a Waymo vehicle and threatened the employee riding inside with a piece of PVC pipe. PVC???
- protomyth 8y agoYou could hurt someone with it. Its not as intimidating as copper, but its going to hurt. Never tried to break a window with it. https://www.lowes.com/pl/PVC-pipe-PVC-pipe-fittings-Pipe-fittings-Plumbing/4294763909 https://www.lowes.com/pl/PVC-pipe-PVC-pipe-fittings-Pipe-fit...
- jancsika 8y agoTo all the Hacker News bringing up Luddites: Why aren't there similar stories of people throwing rocks at Tesla vehicles? Those vehicles are readily identifiable and have had safety issues from drivers using its cruise control as if it were autopilot. Moreover it's a goddamned battery on wheels which could put an enormous number of car service shops out of business. There are already laws in various states to keep Tesla out for that reason. There could be a lot of reasons why someone throws rocks at a Waymo vehicle but also thinks Tesla is cool. Ludditism is not one of those reasons.
- MPSimmons 8y agoI suspect it's a matter of time. https://electrek.co/2018/12/24/tesla-supercharger-anti-tesla-pickup-truck-drivers/ https://electrek.co/2018/12/24/tesla-supercharger-anti-tesla... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gcb84qn3mU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gcb84qn3mU
- kodablah 8y ago> Why aren't there similar stories of people throwing rocks at Tesla vehicles? Public perception, editor choice, etc. If we were to point out every bit of hypocrisy that is determined by what stories NYT runs vs what they don't, we'd have really long posts. > There could be a lot of reasons why someone throws rocks at a Waymo vehicle but also thinks Tesla is cool. Ludditism is not one of those reasons. True. But there can also be lots of reasons why people are very upset at Tesla's approach towards auto pilot but thinks Waymo is doing the right thing. Or think they are both wrong. The presence of the articles alone are not enough to determine sentiment especially at such small numbers. Which is why closed-picture articles aren't fair to use to paint a picture much larger than the individual actors.
- djsumdog 8y agoTesla's autopilot is just a lane assist, and similar features can be found on Honda's, Cadillacs, etc. From the videos I've seen, sure some people use them in neighbourhoods/suburbs, but it doesn't seem as useful. People who abuse them on freeways have been run into barriers and trucks before. It's no where near the level of autonomy the Waymo cars are suppose to have. I can understand why people are upset considering how conservative the cars have to be; and the seemingly weird actions they often take. They don't seem to monitor other cars' turn signals nor do they really have a way to communicate to other vehicles at intersections like humans can with hands or facial expressions.
- kgwxd 8y agoProbably not a good idea to damage property in protest. Maybe build something cheap and portable that should prevent them from moving. If they do move through the obstacle anyway, you've demonstrate how unsafe they can be.
- steelframe 8y agoWow, it's just like cycling in certain regions of the U.S.! At least the people being attacked have the luxury of being in a steel cage when it happens.
- almost_usual 8y agoThese vehicles will get vandalized even if the public accepts them. Great new graffiti medium owned by “Big Corp” that drives all over metro areas 24/7. Wonder how much companies will need to spend just to keep them from being covered in tags.
- mda 8y agoAs if every aspect of our life is not shaped by "big corp"s. It is laughable actually. They should vandalize their tv, detergent box and cereals as well.
- almost_usual 8y agoYou’re missing the point of a vandals initiative. You don’t get famous vandalizing things in your home. You do get famous vandalizing things that move through metro areas 24/7. Look at NYC subways in the 70s and 80s. They needed to create entire cleaning facilities that operated nonstop to finally get the graffiti off the trains. The insides are still tagged up to a degree. Spray paint is probably the easiest thing to clean. Wait for people to use etch bath on the windshields and windows of these vehicles. They’ll need to replace all the windows to get them looking right again.
- defen 8y agoAre there any other examples from relatively recent history of new technology that people would spontaneously attempt to attack/destroy in an uncoordinated fashion like this?
- Jill_the_Pill 8y agoI remember reading a "how-to" about blinding public surveillance cameras -- not sure how many folks actually did so.
- narrator 8y agoI wonder what the algorithm says to do when a protestor steps in front of a speeding car that would have to brake hard enough to injure the occupants of the car in order to avoid hitting the protestor? Under a comparative fault regime, Google and the protestor would both be partially at fault for the occupants injuries. The protestor is broke, so Google will bare the whole burden of being jointly and severally liable. Or should it make a calculation of how badly it's going to injure the occupant and the protestor and minimize the situation in terms of damage to the company, thus possibly choosing to injure the protestor over the occupants to preserve brand value and future revenue?
- dbuder 8y agoI don't want them on my roads for 20 years, and I want to continue driving myself for the rest of my life, if I so choose.
- baxtr 8y agoSomehow, this reminds me of google glass hole incidents...
- chevas 8y agoFear of change and new things. People were opposed to cars when they were first introduced. Ironically self-driving cars will arguably save countless lives. The resistance and fear will pass. But I do love driving...
- zanny 8y agoIn the same way you can go horseback riding today on dedicated tracks and in areas under the ownership of the farm you will still have courses to manually drive cars on for a very long time after the general introduction of self driving vehicles. And while its not directly comparable, I still see horse and buggy carriages on public roads in PA so they haven't ever outright banned that particular obsoleted mode of transport. If the Amish lobby can keep shit getting dropped in my streets I'm sure the collective car enthusiasts of the world will keep their right to drive for a while at least.
- Jedi72 8y agoI'm all for driverless cars, but if you put an algorithm in charge then the creators of that algorithm need to be legally responsible for the outcome. I'm talking engineers going to prison when one of these cars does inevitibly hit someone. Every driver is liable for their actions on the road, for some reason SV thinks being "statistically better than humans" means they aren't responsible for however small a % of crashes they are responsible for. It's like saying I only crashed once in my 50 years of driving so on average I'm not responsible for killing that kid last Tuesday.
- b_tterc_p 8y agoIn what universe would it make more sense to make the engineer liable rather than the larger corporate entity? Also, that’s not how human driving works. If you hit someone while following the rule of the road and not doing anything especially negligent, you won’t face criminal charges. You use the word “inevitably” but it doesn’t make sense at all with your world view.
- Jedi72 8y agoIf, in the view of a court of law, it was not the algorithms fault due to negligence or whatever then I agree they are not responsible. I only ask the same rules be applied to the machine as a human. As for who ultimately pays, fine, substitute CEO or whatever. As long as someone actually does time, and it's not just a fine, because you can't put a company in prison. If we were talking about civil engineers designing a bridge that causes a death, I'm sure that chief engineers face at least some personal liability regardless of whatever shield the company offers.
- valar_m 8y agoFortunately, the law is actually quite sane in this area, so there won't be any engineers going to prison for vehicular manslaughter: Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of three kinds: (c) Vehicular— (1) Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, and with gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross negligence. (2) Driving a vehicle in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence. (3) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and proximately resulted in the death of any person. This paragraph does not prevent prosecution of a defendant for the crime of murder. [0] [0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=192 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
- rjdagost 8y agoMy brother lives in the neighborhood where this public beta testing is occurring. Folks, let me tell you from first-hand experience- these cars are terrible drivers. They are extremely hesitant, and because of this they cause traffic backups and delays in places where safety is compromised. You better hope you are not behind one when they perform a left-hand turn onto a busy street, because you are probably going to be waiting a while. They stop in seemingly random situations where human drivers would never stop, like a bicyclist standing way off the side of the road (talking to someone) with his bike pointing towards traffic. People have told me they've been in the middle of a turn behind a Waymo car, when all of a sudden the car just randomly stops for no apparent reason, leaving them stranded in the middle of the intersection as the light turns red. The default reaction for a Waymo car under any sort of ambiguity seems to be to just stop (literally) until the ambiguity resolves itself. Unfortunately this causes considerable confusion and traffic backups for human drivers. I understand why Waymo is proceeding cautiously. But you really get the impression that the technology has a long ways to go. People in Chandler are pissed because this fleet of cars is a huge nuisance and is in fact less safe for human drivers who are sharing the road. I have no doubt that autonomous vehicles will be safer than human drivers someday, but that day is definitely not today.
- hardatwork 8y ago> People have told me they've been in the middle of a turn behind a Waymo car, when all of a sudden the car just randomly stops for no apparent reason, leaving them stranded in the middle of the intersection as the light turns red. How does that work? My driving experience is limited, and only in Australia, but I can't think of a situation where I'd be allowed to enter an intersection if there is already a car ahead of me that's still in it. Edit: I'm getting downvoted so maybe I didn't explain it right. Here's a quote from AU law: It is against the law to enter an intersection if you cannot drive through and into the road you plan to enter. However, when turning right, you can proceed into the intersection and wait near the centre of the intersection for the oncoming traffic to pass (as long as it is safe and the road you are turning into is clear). So from my POV it's pretty unfair to blame Waymo for getting stuck in a situation when it's only your law breaking that's making it so dangerous.
- kamaal 8y agoThe antitechnology Luddite movement will grow increasingly vocal and possibly resort to violence as these people become enraged over the emergence of new technologies that threaten traditional attitudes regarding the nature of human life (radical life extension, genetic engineering, cybernetics) and the supremacy of mankind (artificial intelligence). Though the Luddites might, at best, succeed in delaying the Singularity, the march of technology is irresistible and they will inevitably fail in keeping the world frozen at a fixed level of development. - Ray Kurweil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzweil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_made_by_Ray_Kurzwe...