5 ms·

I'd expect our public safety people to arrive with real numbers about human vs AV obstructions. SF's bias against change is pretty well-understood at this poin

by SR2Z 3y ago

I'd expect our public safety people to arrive with real numbers about human vs AV obstructions. SF's bias against change is pretty well-understood at this point, and I'm not at all convinced that this is a good reason to block expansion.

lesuorac 3y ago
Not that SF has taken this stance, but I think the stance of share your data with us or else we won't approve would be fine by me. > Also upsetting to firefighters was “zero transparency” of data from self-driving car companies. Because Waymo and Cruise do not disclose internal counts of unexpected stops or other incidents that impede first responders, the fire department is forced to depend on information from members of the public, city employees, firefighters or transit operators, which oftentimes resulted in incomplete or duplicate reports. Although later in the article they do provide some numbers. > She said the 55 — and counting — examples that the fire department has cited of driverless cars’ interference with law enforcement or first responder operations “demonstrated that these vehicles themselves are not understanding human traffic control.” > Just one week ago, that number was 50. “We think that the companies are ready to move forward with broad expansion when that number has gone down and does not continue to go up,” said Friedlander.
wpietri 3y ago
One, they've got some data. Two, why is it their job to prove the problem rather than the job of the people proposing the change to demonstrate safety? Three, why is it San Francisco's job to be a proving ground for this? I think there's pretty good theoretical reason to think automated cars are, asbsent AGI, fundamentally unable to be good traffic participants: traffic is social. And I'm hardly alone here; robot scientist and iRobot founder Rodney Brooks is very skeptical of the current self-driving efforts. His predictions have turned out to be much more accurate than the boosters. And that's before we even get to the question of other impacts. So I think the burden of proof here should not be on the city. It should be firmly on the people making self-driving cars. Why aren't they arriving with real numbers?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  I wish the debate took this form. Why should San Francisco be at the bleeding edge and what will these companies give it in return?
  - SR2Z 3y ago
    > Why should San Francisco be at the bleeding edge and what will these companies give it in return? Other than lots of high-paying jobs, tax revenues, and transit options? Other than the pedestrian that dies basically every week to cars, or the severe injury every 14 hours due to cars? San Francisco is owed nothing. It's a city government; it really should not be in the business of twisting companies arms to extract concessions for imagined slights. It can pass fair, objective laws in good faith. It has historically been horrible at doing that.
    - wpietri 3y ago
      San Francisco is a government that represents the people who live there. If the people of San Francisco want no robot cars until they're reasonably safe, that's a call they should get to make. If that means the loss of the things you mention, all of which I doubt would change much, well, that's a choice they can make. And as an actual San Francisco resident, I personally favor cutting back on the number of robot cars until they're demonstrably much safer.
      - SR2Z 3y ago
        > If the people of San Francisco want no robot cars until they're reasonably safe, that's a call they should get to make. Should they also get to issue drivers licenses and car registrations? Decide who gets to live there and who gets forced out? Issue my passport (I'm a citizen of SF)? Where does it stop, in your mind? San Francisco is a city that oversteps its bounds as frequently as it gets away with. It does not get to make the determination if a car is safe or not; that power resides solely with the State of California and has done so for around a century. Thank god for that, or else the types of NIMBY homeowners who live here would try to ban anyone not on their street from driving there. > And as an actual San Francisco resident, I personally favor cutting back on the number of robot cars until they're demonstrably much safer. And as an actual San Francisco resident, SF drivers are insane sociopaths and I would gladly trust my life to a robotaxi far more than I'd trust it to my fellow city residents. I think people hate these cars because they drive the speed limit and stop at stop signs, with a healthy dose of "clearly big tech is responsible for all our problems." These cars are already demonstrably safer than a human driver. If the city cares about preventing fires, they'd go after what's almost definitely the #1 cause of fires - homeless encampments. If they cared about road safety, they'd go after the #1 cause of traffic incidents - human drivers who virtually never get ticketed. About every two months I think "oh, maybe I'll ride my bike to the office." Every two months, I nearly fucking die to some entitled driver who swerves into the bike lane to skip traffic, park, or just because they're on their phone. Frankly, you are an extraordinarily privileged SF resident if you can pretend these cars are not an improvement. I am pleased that the city has no power to ban these cars from the road; it's the same set of people I've mentioned above.

by SR2Z 3y ago

lesuorac 3y ago

Not that SF has taken this stance, but I think the stance of share your data with us or else we won't approve would be fine by me. > Also upsetting to firefighters was “zero transparency” of data from self-driving car companies. Because Waymo and Cruise do not disclose internal counts of unexpected stops or other incidents that impede first responders, the fire department is forced to depend on information from members of the public, city employees, firefighters or transit operators, which oftentimes resulted in incomplete or duplicate reports. Although later in the article they do provide some numbers. > She said the 55 — and counting — examples that the fire department has cited of driverless cars’ interference with law enforcement or first responder operations “demonstrated that these vehicles themselves are not understanding human traffic control.” > Just one week ago, that number was 50. “We think that the companies are ready to move forward with broad expansion when that number has gone down and does not continue to go up,” said Friedlander.

wpietri 3y ago

One, they've got some data. Two, why is it their job to prove the problem rather than the job of the people proposing the change to demonstrate safety? Three, why is it San Francisco's job to be a proving ground for this? I think there's pretty good theoretical reason to think automated cars are, asbsent AGI, fundamentally unable to be good traffic participants: traffic is social. And I'm hardly alone here; robot scientist and iRobot founder Rodney Brooks is very skeptical of the current self-driving efforts. His predictions have turned out to be much more accurate than the boosters. And that's before we even get to the question of other impacts. So I think the burden of proof here should not be on the city. It should be firmly on the people making self-driving cars. Why aren't they arriving with real numbers?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
I wish the debate took this form. Why should San Francisco be at the bleeding edge and what will these companies give it in return?
- SR2Z 3y ago
  > Why should San Francisco be at the bleeding edge and what will these companies give it in return? Other than lots of high-paying jobs, tax revenues, and transit options? Other than the pedestrian that dies basically every week to cars, or the severe injury every 14 hours due to cars? San Francisco is owed nothing. It's a city government; it really should not be in the business of twisting companies arms to extract concessions for imagined slights. It can pass fair, objective laws in good faith. It has historically been horrible at doing that.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    San Francisco is a government that represents the people who live there. If the people of San Francisco want no robot cars until they're reasonably safe, that's a call they should get to make. If that means the loss of the things you mention, all of which I doubt would change much, well, that's a choice they can make. And as an actual San Francisco resident, I personally favor cutting back on the number of robot cars until they're demonstrably much safer.
    - SR2Z 3y ago
      > If the people of San Francisco want no robot cars until they're reasonably safe, that's a call they should get to make. Should they also get to issue drivers licenses and car registrations? Decide who gets to live there and who gets forced out? Issue my passport (I'm a citizen of SF)? Where does it stop, in your mind? San Francisco is a city that oversteps its bounds as frequently as it gets away with. It does not get to make the determination if a car is safe or not; that power resides solely with the State of California and has done so for around a century. Thank god for that, or else the types of NIMBY homeowners who live here would try to ban anyone not on their street from driving there. > And as an actual San Francisco resident, I personally favor cutting back on the number of robot cars until they're demonstrably much safer. And as an actual San Francisco resident, SF drivers are insane sociopaths and I would gladly trust my life to a robotaxi far more than I'd trust it to my fellow city residents. I think people hate these cars because they drive the speed limit and stop at stop signs, with a healthy dose of "clearly big tech is responsible for all our problems." These cars are already demonstrably safer than a human driver. If the city cares about preventing fires, they'd go after what's almost definitely the #1 cause of fires - homeless encampments. If they cared about road safety, they'd go after the #1 cause of traffic incidents - human drivers who virtually never get ticketed. About every two months I think "oh, maybe I'll ride my bike to the office." Every two months, I nearly fucking die to some entitled driver who swerves into the bike lane to skip traffic, park, or just because they're on their phone. Frankly, you are an extraordinarily privileged SF resident if you can pretend these cars are not an improvement. I am pleased that the city has no power to ban these cars from the road; it's the same set of people I've mentioned above.