3 ms·

It is also literally insanely hostile for Waymo to respond like this. The parent company, Alphabet, is valued over four trillion dollars. The proper response

by toss1 5mo ago

It is also literally insanely hostile for Waymo to respond like this. The parent company, Alphabet, is valued over four trillion dollars. The proper response would have been: "oh, terribly sorry for the inconvenience, we'll immediately turn it around, wait there". If that was somehow actually possible, the next response should have been: "Oh, sorry that is impossible because of [actual reason X], we are terribly sorry for the inconvenience, where are you going to be staying, we'll immediately pack and ship it all to you FedEx". Instead, they do this petty crap. I'm no lawyer, but as soon as someone takes off with my stuff, that sounds like theft. Sure, I willingly put it in the trunk, but it was on a contract that they would deliver me and my luggage to the destination. Refusing to allow me to retrieve it, then requiring me to come get it is just outrageous. At the very least, instead of offering the rider two rides to come fetch his stuff that they drove off with, would be to deliver it to his home at a time convenient to him. This tells me the company is run by a bunch of greedy losers. Not anyone with whom I might want to associate or do business. Really disappointing

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
tialaramex 5mo ago
> I'm no lawyer, but as soon as someone takes off with my stuff, that sounds like theft. I expect it's not theft. In England the intent requirement is famously "permanently to deprive" and so any situation where you're getting it back isn't theft. Doubtless the US has slightly different rules but I don't think that'll be theft.
- usui 5mo ago
  In England, can I take someone's belongings and extort them to pay for "shipping and handling" fees or compel them to go out of their way to some risky nondescript location to pick it up? Wonder what the crime in this case if it's "not theft".
  - tialaramex 5mo ago
    That would probably be a Blackmail offence, the intent requirement is about gain (to you) or loss (to the other party) and there's a bunch of Reasonableness invocations because it depends whether the prosecutor can make out that a Reasonable person should know they aren't entitled to ask that you do this to get your property back, as of course one can gain (or the other party may lose) in a reasonable transaction. For example I once left a laptop on a train when travelling to my mother's house for Xmas. At the time my mother still lived where I grew up, at the edge of Metro-land, and so of course most people on that train wouldn't steal a laptop, they probably earn more than the laptop was worth in a day's work. But I stepped off the train with my other belongings, realised as I walked away and it's too late. The train operating company is under no obligation to like, stop the train and bring back my laptop right? It's unfortunate, but it's not on purpose. A week later I picked it up from their main hub. Their behaviour was entirely reasonable. If you're thinking that this rule about theft means some crimes aren't theft then yeah, the most notable example in English culture is the crime of "joyriding" which is when you take somebody's car and you drive that around for a while and then you just get out and run off. That's not theft because, as we saw, no intent permanently to deprive (because it destroys evidence like fingerprints some joyriders might torch the car, but that would be intent permanently to deprive). So the crime of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" or TWOC was invented for cars and there's a fun rabbit hole you can disappear down as crooks take like boats and other things and the exact wording of that law is interpreted by courts as to whether it's TWOC if you took a bicycle, or a rowboat, or...
- jibal 5mo ago
  The U.S. has very different rules. Just yesterday there was an incident in my town where a couple of guys drove a car out of a parking lot, then later drove it back to the parking lot where they were apprehended and arrested for theft.
  - tialaramex 5mo ago
    We shouldn't mistake "You can be accused of a crime" for you committed that crime, especially in the US. Ask James Comey.
    - jibal 5mo ago
      non sequitur
userbinator 5mo ago
I'm no lawyer But they certainly have lawyers. No one feeding on this outrage bait seems to see the actual problem: If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that. As for delivering his luggage, I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that. Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had.
- toss1 5mo ago
  >> If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that. Fair enough. If there was, they already blew it. The proper response then was to say: "We apologize, there is some mechanical or electrical problem that prevented the trunk from opening, we parked the car and failed to fix it remotely, so we must bring it back to the depot. How can we best arrange to get your luggage to you?" >>Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had. No, they have many options to deliver his luggage. >> I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that. If so, this is a problem solved more than a half-century ago by the airlines. And there is no more liability than them holding onto it. The standard airline practice has been as long as I can remember, if they can't get it to you at the airport within two hours, they will drive it to you wherever you are at your destination or home. I've had, or watched friends on the same trip have, lost luggage delivered multiple times across multiple decades, sometimes a half-hour drive from the airport, and sometimes 3+hour drives up into the mountains to deliver it. Across multiple countries. Waymo could use any of the airline luggage services, FedEx, a courier, or multiple other options. This was straight-up, zero question, Waymo's fault. Waymo/Alphabet has sufficient assets even cash on hand that hiring a premium white-glove concierge service to personally deliver it on a private jet would not even show up as a rounding error in their budget or accounting. Not that such a service is necessary, but it is obviously possible without question. Moreover, the difference in publicity between what they did and hiring such a service would be worth far more than the service. Instead of multiple articles about how they basically told the customer "FU, it's your problem, take your time to fix it" and multiple discussions damaging their reputation, there could be the opposite, we'd be discussion how "They had this edge-case problem, and look how they went to make it right for the guy; we can trust them". Even if they spent $50k on white-glove private jet service, it would buy them 10X that marketing value. It is obvious no one at Waymo is thinking.

by toss1 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

tialaramex 5mo ago

> I'm no lawyer, but as soon as someone takes off with my stuff, that sounds like theft. I expect it's not theft. In England the intent requirement is famously "permanently to deprive" and so any situation where you're getting it back isn't theft. Doubtless the US has slightly different rules but I don't think that'll be theft.

usui 5mo ago
In England, can I take someone's belongings and extort them to pay for "shipping and handling" fees or compel them to go out of their way to some risky nondescript location to pick it up? Wonder what the crime in this case if it's "not theft".
- tialaramex 5mo ago
  That would probably be a Blackmail offence, the intent requirement is about gain (to you) or loss (to the other party) and there's a bunch of Reasonableness invocations because it depends whether the prosecutor can make out that a Reasonable person should know they aren't entitled to ask that you do this to get your property back, as of course one can gain (or the other party may lose) in a reasonable transaction. For example I once left a laptop on a train when travelling to my mother's house for Xmas. At the time my mother still lived where I grew up, at the edge of Metro-land, and so of course most people on that train wouldn't steal a laptop, they probably earn more than the laptop was worth in a day's work. But I stepped off the train with my other belongings, realised as I walked away and it's too late. The train operating company is under no obligation to like, stop the train and bring back my laptop right? It's unfortunate, but it's not on purpose. A week later I picked it up from their main hub. Their behaviour was entirely reasonable. If you're thinking that this rule about theft means some crimes aren't theft then yeah, the most notable example in English culture is the crime of "joyriding" which is when you take somebody's car and you drive that around for a while and then you just get out and run off. That's not theft because, as we saw, no intent permanently to deprive (because it destroys evidence like fingerprints some joyriders might torch the car, but that would be intent permanently to deprive). So the crime of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" or TWOC was invented for cars and there's a fun rabbit hole you can disappear down as crooks take like boats and other things and the exact wording of that law is interpreted by courts as to whether it's TWOC if you took a bicycle, or a rowboat, or...
jibal 5mo ago
The U.S. has very different rules. Just yesterday there was an incident in my town where a couple of guys drove a car out of a parking lot, then later drove it back to the parking lot where they were apprehended and arrested for theft.
- tialaramex 5mo ago
  We shouldn't mistake "You can be accused of a crime" for you committed that crime, especially in the US. Ask James Comey.
  - jibal 5mo ago
    non sequitur

userbinator 5mo ago

I'm no lawyer But they certainly have lawyers. No one feeding on this outrage bait seems to see the actual problem: If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that. As for delivering his luggage, I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that. Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had.

toss1 5mo ago
>> If there's a mechanical or electrical problem that's preventing the trunk from opening, sending the car back to you won't fix that. Fair enough. If there was, they already blew it. The proper response then was to say: "We apologize, there is some mechanical or electrical problem that prevented the trunk from opening, we parked the car and failed to fix it remotely, so we must bring it back to the depot. How can we best arrange to get your luggage to you?" >>Giving him a free trip to pick it up is the best option they had. No, they have many options to deliver his luggage. >> I'm sure there are other liabilities they'd be exposing themselves to if they did that. If so, this is a problem solved more than a half-century ago by the airlines. And there is no more liability than them holding onto it. The standard airline practice has been as long as I can remember, if they can't get it to you at the airport within two hours, they will drive it to you wherever you are at your destination or home. I've had, or watched friends on the same trip have, lost luggage delivered multiple times across multiple decades, sometimes a half-hour drive from the airport, and sometimes 3+hour drives up into the mountains to deliver it. Across multiple countries. Waymo could use any of the airline luggage services, FedEx, a courier, or multiple other options. This was straight-up, zero question, Waymo's fault. Waymo/Alphabet has sufficient assets even cash on hand that hiring a premium white-glove concierge service to personally deliver it on a private jet would not even show up as a rounding error in their budget or accounting. Not that such a service is necessary, but it is obviously possible without question. Moreover, the difference in publicity between what they did and hiring such a service would be worth far more than the service. Instead of multiple articles about how they basically told the customer "FU, it's your problem, take your time to fix it" and multiple discussions damaging their reputation, there could be the opposite, we'd be discussion how "They had this edge-case problem, and look how they went to make it right for the guy; we can trust them". Even if they spent $50k on white-glove private jet service, it would buy them 10X that marketing value. It is obvious no one at Waymo is thinking.