51 ms·

Absolutely right. To situate in terms of recent events, there have been three stages of trying to delay / influence the California CPUC robotaxi expansion appro

Absolutely right. To situate in terms of recent events, there have been three stages of trying to delay / influence the California CPUC robotaxi expansion approval vote: 1. Tried a politician scare campaign. Failed because it was too transparent it was an attempted distraction from their terrible public safety record. 2. Tried coning and disabling the vehicles. Failed because it was too transparently astroturfed, legal liability. 3. Now attempting leaks of cherry-picked vanity metrics so massaged they can’t fairly be called “statistics” to friendly anti-tech local media. Will fail because national and international media no longer trust our local journalists, and will investigate independently. The cars work. The incident data meets the standards set forth by the state of California. Local politicians need to find another anti-tech boogeyman. This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF. I am not talking my book, have zero stake here. It’s just saddening to watch a nascent technology finally start working well and then get kneecapped by political games.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Loughla 3y ago
My take is that this isn't so much about privately owned cars and/or taxis, but the real politics is in over the road trucking, and these incremental steps are just part of that. If self driving over the road trucking happens (and that's sort of inevitable), politicians seem to legitimately believe it will collapse our economy. It seems like all self-driving anything gets lumped in with that.
- arebop 3y ago
  I suspect this is why the road trucking divisions have been deprioritized at companies such as Waymo. The truck-drivers are better organized than the cabbies+ridesharing drivers, so even if highway driving is technically easier it is politically less feasible. I suppose it could just be that intrastate trucking is too small of an opportunity and interstate trucking obviously requires lobbying in multiple contiguous states.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Considering that the most popular job in the USA is "truck driver", they might have some clue about what the damage might be. Eventually they can retrain, but we are going to be throwing a whole generation out of work without a very good alternative.
  - foota 3y ago
    I don't think this is accurate, see: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-most-common-job-in-your-state-2015-02-12 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-m...
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      I think it depends on how you cluster job categories. If you make a giant retail job category, then of course it will be the largest. From the article: > The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a system, but it’s a bit arbitrary. The BLS classification system attempts to group together workers who have similar duties and skills, but it’s as much art as it is science. > For instance, the BLS sorts 7 million teachers into more than 80 separate occupations. (Special-ed teachers in elementary schools have a different occupation than special-ed teachers in preschools, middle schools or high schools, for instance.) But all 4 million retail salespersons are lumped into one large category, whether they sell lumber or lingerie. > That’s where NPR was led astray. NPR looked at a data set that aggregated various kinds of truck drivers into a single category but that didn’t aggregate other occupations in the same way. The sorting was inconsistent, so the comparison isn’t a legitimate one, and it makes us think that truck driving is the most common occupation in many states. On some of these surveys, I've seen Computer Programmer come up as the most common job in my state, which is definitely not true :).
cashsterling 3y ago
I don't know why the other reply to this post got downvoted to hell. THe person has a point. Fully autonomous cars are cool... don't get me wrong. But electric cars and autonomous electric/gas cars are probably not the right solution to our person transport needs. using energy to move a 4000 lb vehicle to transport one or two 200 lb humans is not energy-efficient... most of the energy is spent just moving the vehicle. A 60lb e-bike can also transport a 200 lb person whilst using far less resources (both to make the vehicle and to operate it) and space. Public transport also has better resource metrics than person car-based transport. But here we are...
- Frogeman 3y ago
  I would do anything to keep a personal vehicle and live with land separating me and my neighbors. I have a 20-30% incident rate taking the BART in the last year. If public transit isn't similar in safety to the japanese system I have no interest in bus/train systems.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    20-30% incident rate? What kinds of incidents?
- adave 3y ago
  That ebike can barely protect itself let alone be autonomous and run for more than a few miles at slow speeds. Not realistic any way but purely efficiency based way which you pointed out, still unrealistic for 99% of US population unfortunately. Maybe in Europe where places are more walkable.
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  My city doesn’t even have sidewalks. Bikes aren’t happening.
  - llambda 3y ago
    While I understand your point is likely that sidewalks would come before later advancements (like support for bikes) I want to make it clear that bikes do not belong on sidewalks. If you ride a bike please ride it in the street with other vehicles. This is the law in some jurisdictions (such as where I live) but frequently ignored. Failure to do this poses a serious risk to pedestrians. Please do not use sidewalks as an alternative road.
8note 3y ago
> This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF. Is it? Won't it mean needing to make the city even more car oriented than building out better alternatives than car use?
jasonlotito 3y ago
Since you aren't someone who lives locally to this or is affected by this, why do you think it's "too vital to the revitalization of SF."
twelve40 3y ago
sorry, confused > their terrible public safety record whose public safety record? the politicians'? or, who would even be materially interested to lobby against robocars and Google? honest q. automakers seem to be generally onboard with robocars and trying their own. Cabbies have been wiped out as a force by Uber. Even Uber seems generally onboard with robocars. So who is this mysterious powerful Luddite villain?
- xp84 3y ago
  SF anti-tech “activists.” I was going to post a sarcastic description, but I’ll just say they tend to have a lot of student debt and are frequently devoted Marxists. They also tend to sincerely believe that if tech imploded, the homeless would all suddenly be able to afford apartments.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    It's always funny to see people so openly display their lack of effort in understanding the arguments of the people they're supposedly opposed to. The lack of self-awareness is disappointing but not surprising considering the way it is expressed.
    - xp84 3y ago
      I’m just describing the arguments I’ve heard straight out of people’s mouths. Their arguments come from a place of deep, deep passion, but they lack no understanding of economics nor apparently human behavior. They want to buy into an easy story that a certain group is the source of all ills. In that way they are just like the radicals on the other side who are their sworn enemies.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Two points of contention: No, autonomous cars don't work particularly well. Anecdotally, I saw some crap stuck in the high tension wires atop a utility pole the other day. So I called PG&E and reported it. On my way back from the store I saw the lineman had arrived and was doing his thing. This street had two lanes and was a one way street, and the PG&E bucket truck occupied one of those lanes. Shortly after a Cruise car pulled up behind the truck and stopped. At various points the turn signals and four way flashers were on with no rhyme or reason. Eventually it decided to pass the truck so it navigated into the other lane and just stopped. So now both lanes were blocked, various turn signal incantations went on, and the blocked traffic started honking. After that… I watched as another Cruise car go full tilt through another intersection and stop a few feet from a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Way too close for comfort. Autonomous cars aren't inherently bad but they shouldn't be beta tested on public roads. Second point – no, more cars will not revitalize anything. More cars will contribute to more decay no matter what is driving. Take a look at the Embarcadero now versus when it was designed to prioritize cars over people and had an interstate running along it.
bostonsre 3y ago
> 3. Now attempting leaks of cherry-picked vanity metrics so massaged they can’t fairly be called “statistics” to friendly anti-tech local media. The situations where they do stupid stuff are also relatively rare. But they are programs, won't they do the same stupid stuff in those situations when they come across them again? If they run over fire hoses in one case, shouldn't that be a show stopper? This isn't some silly app or website, the whole move fast and break things attitude shouldn't be allowed for driverless cars. They should be acknowledging their shortcomings and striving for perfection. > Local politicians need to find another anti-tech boogeyman. This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF. How does it help the revitalization of SF? Doesn't it take away jobs for those in the lower rung of society? The only people I can possibly see benefiting are the people that work at the companies that make the cars.
scubbo 3y ago
> I am not talking my book Today I learned a phrase, thank you! > [Autonomous taxis are] too vital to the revitalization of SF As an expat from London - Jesus Christ, what a fucking bleak situation. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing, I think you're probably correct - the best way to get people out and spending their tech salaries in SF's service industries is to give them a fast, cheap, convenient way to get directly from their door to the bar/restaurant/club without having to set foot on the street or (heaven forbid!) public transit - but God, what an staggering failure of public policy that this is the case.
- fnimick 3y ago
  God forbid people with their bulging wallets have to share public space with The Poors!
gcheong 3y ago
“This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF.” Nothing against the technology but can you explain this a bit more? I fail to see how driverless cars are going to be vital to SF’s revitalization when Uber/Lyft are readily available and haven’t seemed to move the needle much in that regard.
Tiktaalik 3y ago
> Will fail because national and international media no longer trust our local journalists, and will investigate independently. I think it's more that the journalism industry has been so throughly destroyed that there is no real capacity to do investigative journalism.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Loughla 3y ago

My take is that this isn't so much about privately owned cars and/or taxis, but the real politics is in over the road trucking, and these incremental steps are just part of that. If self driving over the road trucking happens (and that's sort of inevitable), politicians seem to legitimately believe it will collapse our economy. It seems like all self-driving anything gets lumped in with that.

arebop 3y ago
I suspect this is why the road trucking divisions have been deprioritized at companies such as Waymo. The truck-drivers are better organized than the cabbies+ridesharing drivers, so even if highway driving is technically easier it is politically less feasible. I suppose it could just be that intrastate trucking is too small of an opportunity and interstate trucking obviously requires lobbying in multiple contiguous states.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Considering that the most popular job in the USA is "truck driver", they might have some clue about what the damage might be. Eventually they can retrain, but we are going to be throwing a whole generation out of work without a very good alternative.
- foota 3y ago
  I don't think this is accurate, see: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-most-common-job-in-your-state-2015-02-12 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-m...
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I think it depends on how you cluster job categories. If you make a giant retail job category, then of course it will be the largest. From the article: > The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a system, but it’s a bit arbitrary. The BLS classification system attempts to group together workers who have similar duties and skills, but it’s as much art as it is science. > For instance, the BLS sorts 7 million teachers into more than 80 separate occupations. (Special-ed teachers in elementary schools have a different occupation than special-ed teachers in preschools, middle schools or high schools, for instance.) But all 4 million retail salespersons are lumped into one large category, whether they sell lumber or lingerie. > That’s where NPR was led astray. NPR looked at a data set that aggregated various kinds of truck drivers into a single category but that didn’t aggregate other occupations in the same way. The sorting was inconsistent, so the comparison isn’t a legitimate one, and it makes us think that truck driving is the most common occupation in many states. On some of these surveys, I've seen Computer Programmer come up as the most common job in my state, which is definitely not true :).

cashsterling 3y ago

I don't know why the other reply to this post got downvoted to hell. THe person has a point. Fully autonomous cars are cool... don't get me wrong. But electric cars and autonomous electric/gas cars are probably not the right solution to our person transport needs. using energy to move a 4000 lb vehicle to transport one or two 200 lb humans is not energy-efficient... most of the energy is spent just moving the vehicle. A 60lb e-bike can also transport a 200 lb person whilst using far less resources (both to make the vehicle and to operate it) and space. Public transport also has better resource metrics than person car-based transport. But here we are...

Frogeman 3y ago
I would do anything to keep a personal vehicle and live with land separating me and my neighbors. I have a 20-30% incident rate taking the BART in the last year. If public transit isn't similar in safety to the japanese system I have no interest in bus/train systems.
- uoaei 3y ago
  20-30% incident rate? What kinds of incidents?
adave 3y ago
That ebike can barely protect itself let alone be autonomous and run for more than a few miles at slow speeds. Not realistic any way but purely efficiency based way which you pointed out, still unrealistic for 99% of US population unfortunately. Maybe in Europe where places are more walkable.
geraldwhen 3y ago
My city doesn’t even have sidewalks. Bikes aren’t happening.
- llambda 3y ago
  While I understand your point is likely that sidewalks would come before later advancements (like support for bikes) I want to make it clear that bikes do not belong on sidewalks. If you ride a bike please ride it in the street with other vehicles. This is the law in some jurisdictions (such as where I live) but frequently ignored. Failure to do this poses a serious risk to pedestrians. Please do not use sidewalks as an alternative road.

8note 3y ago

> This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF. Is it? Won't it mean needing to make the city even more car oriented than building out better alternatives than car use?

jasonlotito 3y ago

Since you aren't someone who lives locally to this or is affected by this, why do you think it's "too vital to the revitalization of SF."

twelve40 3y ago

sorry, confused > their terrible public safety record whose public safety record? the politicians'? or, who would even be materially interested to lobby against robocars and Google? honest q. automakers seem to be generally onboard with robocars and trying their own. Cabbies have been wiped out as a force by Uber. Even Uber seems generally onboard with robocars. So who is this mysterious powerful Luddite villain?

xp84 3y ago
SF anti-tech “activists.” I was going to post a sarcastic description, but I’ll just say they tend to have a lot of student debt and are frequently devoted Marxists. They also tend to sincerely believe that if tech imploded, the homeless would all suddenly be able to afford apartments.
- uoaei 3y ago
  It's always funny to see people so openly display their lack of effort in understanding the arguments of the people they're supposedly opposed to. The lack of self-awareness is disappointing but not surprising considering the way it is expressed.
  - xp84 3y ago
    I’m just describing the arguments I’ve heard straight out of people’s mouths. Their arguments come from a place of deep, deep passion, but they lack no understanding of economics nor apparently human behavior. They want to buy into an easy story that a certain group is the source of all ills. In that way they are just like the radicals on the other side who are their sworn enemies.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Two points of contention: No, autonomous cars don't work particularly well. Anecdotally, I saw some crap stuck in the high tension wires atop a utility pole the other day. So I called PG&E and reported it. On my way back from the store I saw the lineman had arrived and was doing his thing. This street had two lanes and was a one way street, and the PG&E bucket truck occupied one of those lanes. Shortly after a Cruise car pulled up behind the truck and stopped. At various points the turn signals and four way flashers were on with no rhyme or reason. Eventually it decided to pass the truck so it navigated into the other lane and just stopped. So now both lanes were blocked, various turn signal incantations went on, and the blocked traffic started honking. After that… I watched as another Cruise car go full tilt through another intersection and stop a few feet from a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Way too close for comfort. Autonomous cars aren't inherently bad but they shouldn't be beta tested on public roads. Second point – no, more cars will not revitalize anything. More cars will contribute to more decay no matter what is driving. Take a look at the Embarcadero now versus when it was designed to prioritize cars over people and had an interstate running along it.

bostonsre 3y ago

> 3. Now attempting leaks of cherry-picked vanity metrics so massaged they can’t fairly be called “statistics” to friendly anti-tech local media. The situations where they do stupid stuff are also relatively rare. But they are programs, won't they do the same stupid stuff in those situations when they come across them again? If they run over fire hoses in one case, shouldn't that be a show stopper? This isn't some silly app or website, the whole move fast and break things attitude shouldn't be allowed for driverless cars. They should be acknowledging their shortcomings and striving for perfection. > Local politicians need to find another anti-tech boogeyman. This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF. How does it help the revitalization of SF? Doesn't it take away jobs for those in the lower rung of society? The only people I can possibly see benefiting are the people that work at the companies that make the cars.

scubbo 3y ago

> I am not talking my book Today I learned a phrase, thank you! > [Autonomous taxis are] too vital to the revitalization of SF As an expat from London - Jesus Christ, what a fucking bleak situation. To be clear, I'm not disagreeing, I think you're probably correct - the best way to get people out and spending their tech salaries in SF's service industries is to give them a fast, cheap, convenient way to get directly from their door to the bar/restaurant/club without having to set foot on the street or (heaven forbid!) public transit - but God, what an staggering failure of public policy that this is the case.

fnimick 3y ago
God forbid people with their bulging wallets have to share public space with The Poors!

gcheong 3y ago

“This one is too vital to the revitalization of SF.” Nothing against the technology but can you explain this a bit more? I fail to see how driverless cars are going to be vital to SF’s revitalization when Uber/Lyft are readily available and haven’t seemed to move the needle much in that regard.

Tiktaalik 3y ago

> Will fail because national and international media no longer trust our local journalists, and will investigate independently. I think it's more that the journalism industry has been so throughly destroyed that there is no real capacity to do investigative journalism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]