5 ms·
Robotaxi haters in San Francisco are disabling the AVs with traffic cones
- vlovich123 3y ago> Other opponents like the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance and the Alliance for Independent Workers have protested the spread of robotaxis, which they say will eliminate the need for taxi and ride-hail drivers. Ummm… that’s clearly the point. What’s the controversial bit? Stable owners decried that house and buggy drivers were being competed by cars and driving them out of business. I’d much rather have safer streets because taxis are ever vigilant rather than be in an Uber with a driver boasting about how he figured out how to drive 18 hours a day and gets almost no sleep.
- gambiting 3y agoIt's not one or the other. Robotaxis shouldn't be allowed and taxi drivers should be strongly regulated.
- vlovich123 3y agoSorry. You have regulations you can think of that prevent accidents by professional drivers? Trucking is already insanely regulated and still sees all sorts of corner cutting and safety violations. And even in ostensibly safe companies, accidents happen. It’s near impossible to simultaneously compete on cost and have safety - squeezing margins is at odds with following the rules (and that’s assuming a huge leap that the rules actually are helpful - very often no analysis is done on the ROI of any particular investment).
- gambiting 3y agoNo I'm specifically addressing OPs point about drivers pulling 14 hour shifts - that's easily regulated everywhere. Anything beyond that is your interpretation. >>It’s near impossible to simultaneously compete on cost and have safety ....airlines exist and compete on cost with extremely stringent safety requirements?
- vlovich123 3y agoWe always have those regulations and people still violate them. I’m really not getting what your point is.
- gambiting 3y agoThat regulations should be strict and they should be followed strictly. If you live somewhere where they are not enforced then that's not a problem of regulation. But I also don't know why we moved onto this topic from me saying that robotaxis shouldn't be allowed. I got the impression that the argument was that they should because they are competing against overworked Uber drivers pulling 14 hour shifts - to which I'll say again that Uber drivers doing 14 hour shifts isn't some unmovable law of the universe, it can and should be prevented.
- josephg 3y agoWhy shouldn’t robotaxis be allowed? Do you think the law be wielded to protect legacy business models?
- gambiting 3y agoBecause the tech is crap and will remain crap - the vehicles aren't suited to be allowed on public roads. Nothing to do with business models.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoExactly! If god wanted humans to fly they would have given us wings.
- gambiting 3y agoI find it interesting how on HN is verboten to even suggest that maybe some innovation pushed on us and our cities by these companies isn't actually great and isn't the same as progress of humanity. It's just shit tech used to make some techbros money at the cost of making our cities worse. But apparently that's a "luddite" view now?
- minwcnt5 3y agoWhat's your basis for the conclusion that it's "shit tech"? Have you tried riding in one? I've found it to be an incredible product, like using the iPhone for the first time. There's one lady who's posted a lot of YouTube videos of Waymo. She's taken over 500 rides. So there are clearly people who get a lot of value out of it. Also, no one is making money off self driving tech any time soon, people have been working on it for more than a decade and it costs billions. It might be another decade before it is profitable.
- gambiting 3y agoThen there is this lady who highlights fundamental issues with the way these vehicles operate. This isn't a teething problem that will be resolved with an OTA - it shows the tech isn't ready to be used on public streets and probably shouldn't ever be. https://youtu.be/-Rxvl3INKSg https://youtu.be/-Rxvl3INKSg
- jamesgreenleaf 3y agoSometimes I feel bad for luddites. Two hundred years and they haven't won once.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoWhat they need to do is build a luddite robot that can succeed where they have failed...
- voldacar 3y agoThey won regarding nuclear power
- once_inc 3y agofor now. They are losing again.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoNo. Nuclear is expensive and complex. There will be no come back.
- ghayes 3y agoI mean, the Luddites have failed, but there are still thriving artisan craft makers and artists.
- tjr225 3y ago[dead]
- laserdancepony 3y agoIt's only funny if you're not getting the short end of the stick. Most HN readers forget that b/c they profit from tech.
- mholt 3y agoThis is a social phenomenon with other autonomous urban robots already; cars aren't the first. I don't have links handy right now but I know you see security robots being pushed over, or food delivery bots boxed into places. Perhaps for various similar reasons: They're recording, they're annoying, they're slow, they're in the way, etc... I don't know how much the "we don't consent to being on camera" argument holds water, since there's already lots of private cameras monitoring public urban places and roads. Maybe the fact that the cameras are up close and in your face is valid, though. I don't condone mischief, but I also understand being annoyed. IMO, all vehicles on public roads should have a driver for now. But I welcome our autonomous-driving future.
- nikkwong 3y agoI think there’s probably some game theory at play. I can imagine the mindset of the vandals mirroring a train of thought that I share somewhat: 1. This autonomous robot is not doing anything for me, and is helping someone else realize their capitalistic aspirations. 2. By vandalizing the robot, a victimless crime, I can do my part to just slightly close the gap between I, one who has gotten the short end of the economic stick, and some corporation/ceo who is on the other end of the economic spectrum, profiteering. Thus slightly narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots, which for most individuals isn’t realizable in any other way
- pixelatedindex 3y agoIANAL, but if you are recorded without consent, the video evidence may not be presentable in court. In CA, and about 15 other states, you need two-party consent for the evidence to be admissible. I remember talking about it to a former DA who told me this, so I believe them. Of course, you can’t be expected to have privacy in places like public parks according to CA law, so I’m not sure where the law stands on that.
- awb 3y agoIANAL either but 2-party consent was apparently just struck down by the Supreme Court: > Ban on recording without consent is unconstitutional, US court rules https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36609560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36609560
- almost_usual 3y ago> “Not only is this understanding of how AVs operate incorrect, but this is vandalism and encourages unsafe and disrespectful behavior on our roadways,” the company said in a statement. “We will notify law enforcement of any unwanted or unsafe interference of our vehicles on public roadways.” Good luck with all that.
- ramraj07 3y agoGoogle likely knows who they all are; imagine if it just kicks them off of all Google services lol.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago> Waymo probably won’t have any luck sticking a vandalism charge on someone who puts a cone on the hood of its vehicles. Good luck automating society if the public sentiment starts to really turn against these kinds of initiatives. Us nerds can argue about the merits of markets all day long, but we can’t expect the society we’re leaving behind to willingly participate in this new techno world order. Automation is so brittle. It’s hard enough to design a fault-tolerant web, I can’t even imagine how we’re gonna do it in the physical world at scale with things like self-driving cars when they’re so easy to disable. It’s like infosec, the attack surface of the system is far too big to properly guard against unless you’re willing to spend considerably and make the necessary sacrifices.
- viraptor 3y agoPeople are going to adjust. I remember the local forum in town with people freaking out about the Google streetview being a massive invasion of privacy and saying how they're going to chase those cars and destroy the cameras. Some people are going to have fun here and there, but I think we'll be collectively over it very soon. > in the physical world at scale with things like self-driving cars when they’re so easy to disable. Cars are easy to disable in general. You can permanently disable lots of cars on a random street before you get caught. This is temporary and harmless, so people aren't really serious about it.
- gattilorenz 3y ago> People are going to adjust. I remember the local forum in town with people freaking out about the Google streetview being a massive invasion of privacy and saying how they're going to chase those cars and destroy the cameras Open Google Maps and try to streetview over Germany. People (or provacy laws) did not adjust, and I can’t say I’m sad about that - even though not having SV can be annoying.
- agmater 3y agohttps://www.androidpolice.com/google-street-view-germany-after-10-years-privacy-outcry/ https://www.androidpolice.com/google-street-view-germany-aft... Actually, the people did adjust.
- beezlewax 3y agoUn-alived? What is the point of inventing a word like that?
- hoppyhoppy2 3y agoApparently to get around TikTok ban/quarantine filters that don't like the word "suicide" https://www.thedailybeast.com/gen-z-wont-let-tiktok-stop-them-from-talking-about-suicide https://www.thedailybeast.com/gen-z-wont-let-tiktok-stop-the...
- Lammy 3y agoYou also get demonitized if you say it on YouTube: https://youtu.be/U5NvNXuMuww?t=67 https://youtu.be/U5NvNXuMuww?t=67
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoBut they clearly didn't intend the word "suicide" because it wouldn't even fit in that sentence grammatically. If they are referring to the death of Elaine Herzberg, they may have intended it to mean "murdered" or "killed", but certainly not "suicide[d]". How could an SDC suicide a human being???
- hoppyhoppy2 3y agoWell I'm not a TikTok user, but it wouldn't surprise me if such a filter was equally uncomfortable with the words "murdered" or "killed" in videos. They probably really don't want death threats going viral.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoAudiovisual media seems increasingly sensitive to "naughty words". I've seen a lot of YouTubers who feel that it is necessary to censor words like "m*rder" or "r*pe" or "f*ck" -- exactly this way in their text descriptions, and they literally bleep the words if mentioned on video. I'm confused, because I thought that the scanners which detect TOS violations were becoming smarter, and it doesn't seem like an isolated swear word--or mention of sexual assault using plain English--would trigger an actual TOS violation, but it seems that these creators are wary of attracting attention by using the words uncensored.
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoThe only thing I like about robotaxis is that we are calling them "robotaxis". I'm sure that won't last, but I am really sick of the referring to a taxi as an "uber" or the somehow even more ridiculous "ride hailing service".
- throwaway9274 3y agoThis wasn’t organic. It was organized by a tiny group of activists looking for an anti-tech flashpoint. EDIT: I’ll be more direct. It’s a hoax. A fiction. An attempt to portray widespread safety concerns among the populace that do not exist. There’s a hearing coming up at the board the state of California appointed regarding expansion of the robotaxis. Alongside that vote, the city’s quality of operation has noticeably deteriorated. Encampments are more common, drug intoxication to the point of collapse and physical decay is highly visible. Robberies have become commonplace. These effects are now beyond the point where they be explained by pointing at flat trend data, or as a temporary effect of more severe pandemic measures. A number of local politicians have been facing significant heat over this dysfunction National and international media publications have begun to distrust local publications for papering over issues and have amplified that pressure. At that point, those SF politicians began a sudden unified push attacking self-driving cars. Self-driving cars have recently become more reliable than manually driven taxis in SF in terms of accidents per miles driven. The attacks escalated to the point that false data was submitted against robotaxis to the California board, mischaracterizing accidents where another driver impacted the self-driven car while stopped. That falsehood was later discovered. When those same people began promoting this “night of the cone” meme, the origin was obvious to even the most casual observer. Robotaxis have been up and operating for some time. The city is in trouble and it needs the revenue innovation brings. We need to stop playing games.
- once_inc 3y agoAll movements need their initiators. The question is if they are still actively driving it, recruiting, funding, promoting. If not, then I feel it was an organic thing...
- pengaru 3y agoHow long before they add a robotic arm to the roof?
- sshine 3y agoIdea: bring a fellow along whose job it is to remove the traffic cone.
- nzoschke 3y agoI’m an SF resident that is an anti-car as anyone but this is so misguided. The real problems are: - vehicles owned and operated by a single driver. These take up precious space for parking instead of living - auto accidents due to human error. Tired, drunk, texting or just aggressive drivers cause auto accidents. The slow streets movement is great. Put up cones where all cars can’t use certain streets. Self driving cars and the companies behind them haven’t earned all our trust yet, but the sooner society shares robo taxis as a replacement for single owner vehicles the better.
- jillesvangurp 3y agoExactly, these are the things that count. The cones are a short term nuisance. Basically, the people putting them will probably get bored/distracted pretty soon. Or run out of cones. Or get caught and fined. Etc. They'll grumble and stamp their feet for a while and that will be it. The more autonomous cars fail to do any harm whatsoever, the less of a case against them people will have. Most of the current fears are fueled by minor incidents, weird little bugs that these systems still have, and lots of irrational outrage and fears. And of course there are lots of armchair "experts" providing all sorts of reasons why the autonomous cars should not and cannot possibly work, even while they can easily be observed to be working just fine. That disconnect only stretches so far before it breaks. Raw economics will do the rest. Insurers will penalize manual driving and scrutinize things like liability when accidents happen. The raw math insurers use is already against manual driving and they already like cars with lots of safety features. Cities will want to reclaim the space occupied by useless parking spaces (i.e. expect to pay for those). And drivers licenses will become much more expensive as those are no longer required to get from A to B and will come with a lot more scrutiny.
- minwcnt5 3y agoMany of the supposed minor incidents aren't even real. Two recent examples that got a lot of attention were the mass shooting incident where a Cruise allegedly blocked first responders to a mass shooting (it didn't, the police later clarified), and a Waymo that supposedly blocked a bus and forced passengers to disembark (it was the other way around, the bus broke down and blocked the AV). Also, SF officials got caught misrepresenting safety numbers, and were called out by the state. At this point I'm very skeptical of issues that get attention. There definitely have been legitimate problems, but it seems like they're rare enough that people would tolerate them, thus fake incidents need to be created. This cone thing also might backfire because now even when there's a real incapacitated AV people will speculate it was due to external mischief.
- alibarber 3y agoThis is something I thought about a while ago… In London as in many other cities, on a Friday night, large parts of town basically turn into a giant open air pub. No one would drive there voluntarily but there’s the occasional Uber / Taxi / Delivery / Maintenance driver passing through at a crawl. People will get out of the way but it’ll sometimes require creativity to get through. It would take a real asshole to deliberately cause trouble for some low paid driver and fortunately there are few of those in the general population. People can empathise, “guy’s just doing a job, no need to be a dick, hang on I’ll move my pint…” However, given the amount of crap people have to put up with with the likes of ‘unexpected item in bagging area’ from the supposedly smart and better machines then I feel like the ‘asshole to a machine’ threshold is much much lower.
- theptip 3y agoIt’s ironic that “safe street” activists are protesting against technology that produces safer streets. “That one time the self driving car blocked a fire truck”, sure, but statistically on a per-rider basis are we seeing more or less harm/mischief than with human drivers or taxis? I haven’t seen any credible analysis of this question. Similarly “they killed one person”, ok, how many human drivers killed pedestrians last year? You’ll find it’s more than self-driving cars, but again we need the per-rider (really, per passenger-mile driven) statistics. A general pattern - even if self-driving cars were 10x safer, there would still be pushback if they are sub-human in any single niche case. We will cause many (thousands) people to die by being irrational like this. Not to dismiss the concerns - they just need to be quantified and taken in context.
- KingOfCoders 3y agoBecause it has more sensors, 360° view and a 1000x faster reaction time, over time - if not already - cars with AI are safer. The perception of an AI going rogue is much more impactful than a drunken driver on the highway though, as people can't relate to an AI (yet?).
- TheBigRoomXXL 3y ago> And most importantly they require streets that are designed for cars, not people or transit I think this is one of the most interesting point the protestors make. This kind of solution doesn't seem to integrate very well with new practice of urbanisms where pedestrian, bike and traffic intermingled in the same space and travel distance are shorter. But I am European so I am probably bias because our city are already partially car free.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y agoHow did we go from SDC (which is not in Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDC to "AV" which is a wildly overused acronym that will only sow confusion? Can we nip that one in the bud please?
- minwcnt5 3y agoBecause the term "self driving" got co-opted by a company that uses it to describe a driver assist feature.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- merricksb 3y agoEarlier discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624172 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36624172