8 ms·

San Francisco robotaxis are causing false 911 calls and other chaos

52 points by Tempest1981 4y ago

twawaaay 4y ago
It would be nice to find some newspaper articles from around the time cars were first starting to show on roads to keep things in perspective...
- ignormies 4y ago
  The auto industry mounted an oppressive PR campaign to convince the public that streets are for cars, not people. For example, by inventing the word "jaywalking" [1]. The way things are going, something very similar is going to happen with self-driving cars. For example: forcing pedestrians wear beacons for easier detection by self-driving vehicles [2]. I'd rather we go the other direction, instead, and revert to walkable, livable cities. [1] https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-afd48f994c05 https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-afd48f... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/11/06/bidens-12-trillion-infrastructure-bill-hastens-beacon-wearing-for-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-to-enable-detection-by-connected-cars/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/11/06/bidens-1...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The government also funded a massive campaign - https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespasser-programs/pedestrian-motorist https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespass... I want Big Train to go back to meandering at 0.001 miles per hour so I can lolligag on the tracks again.
- arp242 4y ago
  This seems to operate on the assumption that those concerns were incorrect, even misguided.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    Of course they are. People cannot be made to operate machinery safely. Just remember that half of people have below average intelligence... The only way we will travel safely is if ALL cars are operated automatically. AIs really only have problems driving because other road users are people. When all rode users are computers all those problems can be rather easily resolved. I think the biggest mistake everybody is doing is to try to develop AIs in the first place. An algorithmic solution that does not have to cope with other road users would be way easier to develop. What they should be doing is taking parts of cities, banning non-automated traffic and replacing it with 100% self-driving network. Then extending the reach further and further. People wanting to get into the city have to park their cars and move to automated public transport and/or taxis. This actually is already reality in some highly congested cities so I don't want to hear it can't be done.
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      okay, but what if instead of making the cars self-driving, you got rid of the cars?
    - arp242 4y ago
      > An algorithmic solution that does not have to cope with other road users would be way easier to develop. Heaven forbid humans would like to walk or cycle outside. Everyone better adjust to the supposedly inevitable "progress". Let's think of the consequences later, if at all.
Tempest1981 4y ago
"On three occasions, passengers decided to nap during their trip, and Cruise staff called 911 when they became unresponsive." "Last week, firefighters had to spend over two minutes stopping an approaching robotaxi from running over their hose. The letter claims they eventually had to shatter its front window to force it to halt, but Cruise says it had already stopped the car by then."
- incone123 4y ago
  Their staffing model includes using someone else's employees to wake up sleeping customers? Brilliant. 'Unresponsive' has a specific meaning in emergency care. It means the person does not respond to painful stimulus. The company seems to mean 'didn't wake up when we talked to them via a speaker'.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    >'Unresponsive' has a specific meaning in emergency care Sure but in general conversation if you shout at someone and they don't wake up that's "unresponsive".
    - lolinder 4y ago
      Yes, but this isn't general conversation, this is a 911 call, so the emergency care definition is appropriate. You don't call 911 saying a customer is "unresponsive" when what you really mean is "the volume of our speakers isn't loud enough to wake someone up from a nap".
      - watwut 4y ago
        The people who call 911 are not supposed to talk like emergency services or know their interpretations. The person in call center is supposed to understand. The company is in the wrong here, because they are attempting to offload ordinary business situation to public services. But the specific word is not supposed to be professional when you call 911.
ilyt 4y ago
Fine the companies for any false alert, problem will solve itself right quick. > It appears that robotaxi passengers are starting to behave similarly to how they would on buses, trains, or airplanes, using trips as an opportunity to get some sleep. That's the entire point isn't it ? Why wouldn't someone treat them same?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rhino369 4y ago
  Sleeping is the number one reason I would get a self driving car (would have to be level 4+ of course). If I’m going to sit there and watch it drive I might as well do it myself.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  > Fine the companies for any false alert, problem will solve itself right quick. Would be better to fine the passenger. If a customer refuses to get out of a taxi then wouldn't it be reasonable for the driver to call the police?
  - jwie 4y ago
    They’re not the one who dialed 911 to solve a business problem. People sleep in cars when they’re not driving.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Barricaded in taxi and refused to leave, maybe. Fell asleep, maybe not, just put an louder buzzer if that really is a problem you're regularly having as company.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Most cars are equipped with a “stereo” - you’d think they could dedicate a tiny bit of the expensive self driving equipment to an audio out line.
- 4y ago
philipov 4y ago
This is the Rise of the Robot Axis!
williamcotton 4y ago
Much like the firefighter override in an elevator it could be practical to give emergency responders a way to force autonomous vehicles to safely pull over to the side.
- vageli 4y ago
  One can easily find elevator override keys online. If this capability existed its use could not be limited to authorized emergency services.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    The worst thing that happens in either situations is that the mode of transport is safely disabled. What keeps people from doing this right now is that it is not worth the consequences for an obnoxious prank. While I’m sure some bored teenagers would love to sit on a highway overpass and watch cars come to a slow halt I’m not sure it would be much more than an inconvenience that is better than firefighters hacking away at robots with axes!
    - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      That is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen. Assume that at some point, a self driving car will have to deal with humans acting with actual intent to harm their passenger.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        Ok, so here’s a scenario. Someone waits until an autonomous vehicle comes by with a specific person in it, then they disable the car, and kidnap the person. Or for car-jackings. So if you want to kidnap someone or rob them in a vehicle, is getting the firefighter key, which I assume has some PKE going on, and planning around that really worth the effort? Are the state-level actors with the know-how, capabilities and deeper motivations interested in disabling certain taxis?
UncleEntity 4y ago
Only had to call the police (non-emergency number) once for a “napping” customer in the nine years I drove a cab. They were full on passed out and I wasn’t about to drag them out of the back seat and leave them on the curb so made it the cop’s problem. I do know you never, ever, 100% of the time, never reach into the back seat to rouse a passed out female passenger if you’re a male driver. Even the cops will call out a female officer if they’re down for the count.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah there’s a real difference between “fell asleep” and “passed the F out probably drunk or on drugs” and the second I’d definitely call on.
imglorp 4y ago
Napping riders is one thing (wait til they start having sex in there), but running over fire hoses is the bigger signal: no awareness of human signaling and no awareness of an emergency scene. Humans gesture, nod, and make eye contact on the road to communicate at intersections and especially directing traffic around some emergent activity. Simply the presence of emergency vehicles or road workers needs a different behavior from the driver.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bombcar 4y ago
  Perhaps we need to develop a new beacon that is installed in sirens and emergency lights - something short range of perhaps a block that signals: abandon all self-driving ye who enter here and forces the car into manual override (I assume they have a central control area or can give it back to the ‘driver’).
  - yumraj 4y ago
    Why do we need to do anything to solve a problem being created by a solution to a non-existent problem, rather than just removing the self driving cars themselves. I’m still not convinced that self driving cars are something we as a society on the whole need. Maybe in 100 years, but definitely not now and they definitely should not be rushed into production yet, they are just not ready. They are still a science project.
magwa101 4y ago
[dead]
LatteLazy 4y ago
If these are the biggest complaints then the program have been a phenomenal success.
sagarm 4y ago
Meanwhile, human drivers have killed one San Franciscan every week so far this year.

52 points by Tempest1981 4y ago

It would be nice to find some newspaper articles from around the time cars were first starting to show on roads to keep things in perspective...

ignormies 4y ago
The auto industry mounted an oppressive PR campaign to convince the public that streets are for cars, not people. For example, by inventing the word "jaywalking" [1]. The way things are going, something very similar is going to happen with self-driving cars. For example: forcing pedestrians wear beacons for easier detection by self-driving vehicles [2]. I'd rather we go the other direction, instead, and revert to walkable, livable cities. [1] https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-afd48f994c05 https://marker.medium.com/the-invention-of-jaywalking-afd48f... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/11/06/bidens-12-trillion-infrastructure-bill-hastens-beacon-wearing-for-bicyclists-and-pedestrians-to-enable-detection-by-connected-cars/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/11/06/bidens-1...
- bombcar 4y ago
  The government also funded a massive campaign - https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespasser-programs/pedestrian-motorist https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-rail-crossing-and-trespass... I want Big Train to go back to meandering at 0.001 miles per hour so I can lolligag on the tracks again.
arp242 4y ago
This seems to operate on the assumption that those concerns were incorrect, even misguided.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  Of course they are. People cannot be made to operate machinery safely. Just remember that half of people have below average intelligence... The only way we will travel safely is if ALL cars are operated automatically. AIs really only have problems driving because other road users are people. When all rode users are computers all those problems can be rather easily resolved. I think the biggest mistake everybody is doing is to try to develop AIs in the first place. An algorithmic solution that does not have to cope with other road users would be way easier to develop. What they should be doing is taking parts of cities, banning non-automated traffic and replacing it with 100% self-driving network. Then extending the reach further and further. People wanting to get into the city have to park their cars and move to automated public transport and/or taxis. This actually is already reality in some highly congested cities so I don't want to hear it can't be done.
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    okay, but what if instead of making the cars self-driving, you got rid of the cars?
  - arp242 4y ago
    > An algorithmic solution that does not have to cope with other road users would be way easier to develop. Heaven forbid humans would like to walk or cycle outside. Everyone better adjust to the supposedly inevitable "progress". Let's think of the consequences later, if at all.

Tempest1981 4y ago

"On three occasions, passengers decided to nap during their trip, and Cruise staff called 911 when they became unresponsive." "Last week, firefighters had to spend over two minutes stopping an approaching robotaxi from running over their hose. The letter claims they eventually had to shatter its front window to force it to halt, but Cruise says it had already stopped the car by then."

incone123 4y ago
Their staffing model includes using someone else's employees to wake up sleeping customers? Brilliant. 'Unresponsive' has a specific meaning in emergency care. It means the person does not respond to painful stimulus. The company seems to mean 'didn't wake up when we talked to them via a speaker'.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  >'Unresponsive' has a specific meaning in emergency care Sure but in general conversation if you shout at someone and they don't wake up that's "unresponsive".
  - lolinder 4y ago
    Yes, but this isn't general conversation, this is a 911 call, so the emergency care definition is appropriate. You don't call 911 saying a customer is "unresponsive" when what you really mean is "the volume of our speakers isn't loud enough to wake someone up from a nap".
    - watwut 4y ago
      The people who call 911 are not supposed to talk like emergency services or know their interpretations. The person in call center is supposed to understand. The company is in the wrong here, because they are attempting to offload ordinary business situation to public services. But the specific word is not supposed to be professional when you call 911.

ilyt 4y ago

Fine the companies for any false alert, problem will solve itself right quick. > It appears that robotaxi passengers are starting to behave similarly to how they would on buses, trains, or airplanes, using trips as an opportunity to get some sleep. That's the entire point isn't it ? Why wouldn't someone treat them same?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rhino369 4y ago
Sleeping is the number one reason I would get a self driving car (would have to be level 4+ of course). If I’m going to sit there and watch it drive I might as well do it myself.
sebzim4500 4y ago
> Fine the companies for any false alert, problem will solve itself right quick. Would be better to fine the passenger. If a customer refuses to get out of a taxi then wouldn't it be reasonable for the driver to call the police?
- jwie 4y ago
  They’re not the one who dialed 911 to solve a business problem. People sleep in cars when they’re not driving.
- ilyt 4y ago
  Barricaded in taxi and refused to leave, maybe. Fell asleep, maybe not, just put an louder buzzer if that really is a problem you're regularly having as company.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Most cars are equipped with a “stereo” - you’d think they could dedicate a tiny bit of the expensive self driving equipment to an audio out line.
4y ago

philipov 4y ago

This is the Rise of the Robot Axis!

williamcotton 4y ago

Much like the firefighter override in an elevator it could be practical to give emergency responders a way to force autonomous vehicles to safely pull over to the side.

vageli 4y ago
One can easily find elevator override keys online. If this capability existed its use could not be limited to authorized emergency services.
- williamcotton 4y ago
  The worst thing that happens in either situations is that the mode of transport is safely disabled. What keeps people from doing this right now is that it is not worth the consequences for an obnoxious prank. While I’m sure some bored teenagers would love to sit on a highway overpass and watch cars come to a slow halt I’m not sure it would be much more than an inconvenience that is better than firefighters hacking away at robots with axes!
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    That is absolutely not the worst thing that can happen. Assume that at some point, a self driving car will have to deal with humans acting with actual intent to harm their passenger.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      Ok, so here’s a scenario. Someone waits until an autonomous vehicle comes by with a specific person in it, then they disable the car, and kidnap the person. Or for car-jackings. So if you want to kidnap someone or rob them in a vehicle, is getting the firefighter key, which I assume has some PKE going on, and planning around that really worth the effort? Are the state-level actors with the know-how, capabilities and deeper motivations interested in disabling certain taxis?

UncleEntity 4y ago

Only had to call the police (non-emergency number) once for a “napping” customer in the nine years I drove a cab. They were full on passed out and I wasn’t about to drag them out of the back seat and leave them on the curb so made it the cop’s problem. I do know you never, ever, 100% of the time, never reach into the back seat to rouse a passed out female passenger if you’re a male driver. Even the cops will call out a female officer if they’re down for the count.

bombcar 4y ago
Yeah there’s a real difference between “fell asleep” and “passed the F out probably drunk or on drugs” and the second I’d definitely call on.

imglorp 4y ago

Napping riders is one thing (wait til they start having sex in there), but running over fire hoses is the bigger signal: no awareness of human signaling and no awareness of an emergency scene. Humans gesture, nod, and make eye contact on the road to communicate at intersections and especially directing traffic around some emergent activity. Simply the presence of emergency vehicles or road workers needs a different behavior from the driver.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bombcar 4y ago
Perhaps we need to develop a new beacon that is installed in sirens and emergency lights - something short range of perhaps a block that signals: abandon all self-driving ye who enter here and forces the car into manual override (I assume they have a central control area or can give it back to the ‘driver’).
- yumraj 4y ago
  Why do we need to do anything to solve a problem being created by a solution to a non-existent problem, rather than just removing the self driving cars themselves. I’m still not convinced that self driving cars are something we as a society on the whole need. Maybe in 100 years, but definitely not now and they definitely should not be rushed into production yet, they are just not ready. They are still a science project.

magwa101 4y ago

[dead]

LatteLazy 4y ago

If these are the biggest complaints then the program have been a phenomenal success.

sagarm 4y ago

Meanwhile, human drivers have killed one San Franciscan every week so far this year.