Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 1001 posts

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#101

Post by abeppu »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #30

>Cruise and Waymo say city officials have mischaracterized their safety track records. Their driverless taxis, the companies say, have lower collision rates than human drivers and public transit. This is comparing the mean driverless incident rate to the mean human driver incident rate. This is disingenuous, since a small minority of human drivers cause the vast majority of incidents, thereby severely inflating the m…

I think a key disconnect is that the 'incidents' being complained of most are not collisions, but they can still be disruptive, and indeed dangerous.

Suppose one were to just install brightly painted immobile bollards on streets, and insist they were "driving" just very very slowly. They wouldn't hit anyone. They wouldn't kill anyone. They would piss everyone off.

This disconnect is repeatedly part of where this conversation gets tripped up.

> “Cruise’s safety record is publicly reported and includes having driven millions of miles in an extremely complex urban environment with zero life-threatening injuries or fatalities,” Cruise spokesperson Hannah Lindow told The Chronicle.

> The city’s transportation agencies documented several incidents where driverless cars disrupted Muni service. During the night of Sept. 23, five Cruise cars blocked traffic lanes on Mission Street in Bernal Heights, stalling a Muni bus for 45 minutes. On at least three different occasions, Cruise cars stopped on Muni light-rail tracks, halting service.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/self-driving-cars/

Ok great, they didn't kill or injure people which is nice, but they were _disruptive_ in a way which a human driver would not have been. And critically, we can't _have_ a fact-based conversation around those non-collision incidents because these companies aren't even required to report them:

> But officials said it’s been difficult to assess their effectiveness because companies aren’t required to report unplanned stop incidents — some of which have been captured on social media — when they happen.

> San Francisco officials want the state to require that companies report incidents when they happen.

I've certainly seen cases where self-driving cars behaved in a way that I would consider reckless if a human was at the wheel, but were not collisions, did not result in injury, and I expect will not form part of any statistics reported to any government body ... but I think that's too low a bar.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#102

Post by veec_cas_tant »

paxys wrote: post #92
parl_match wrote: post #3

I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories (safety, traffic, accident, etc) might be a good start. For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. By the way, as a…

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

> And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path

Are you considering someone putting a traffic cone on a vehicle a day-to-day situation?

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#103

Post by jmoss20 »

paxys wrote: post #92
parl_match wrote: post #3

I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories (safety, traffic, accident, etc) might be a good start. For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. By the way, as a…

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

> It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic

...really?

I've seen this maybe once or twice, total. Is there really some part of town where this is a daily occurrence?

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#104

Post by paxys »

veec_cas_tant wrote: post #102
paxys wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

> And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path Are you considering someone putting a traffic cone on a vehicle a day-to-day situation?

What would you do if you were stopped at an intersection and someone put a traffic cone in front of you? Sit there for the rest of your life blocking everyone behind you, or move it/drive around it? Same for literally every example that deviates from the happy path, no matter how minor. Construction work, something fallen on the road, a delivery van stopped on the side, temporary street closures. These cars are nowhere close to being intelligent enough to handle city driving, and won't be for a very long time.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#105

Post by floren »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #66
laweijfmvo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have similar experiences (as a pedestrian) crossing in front of Cruise cars, especially at 4-way stops when there aren't crosswalks explicitly drawn. It's odd because the cars are generally excruciatingly cautious, but for some reason as I'm crossing they seem to calculate exactly how fast they can take off such that they pass me right as I'm clear of their path -- whereas most drivers might wait for the pedestrian…

Sounds risky. I thought California law was to let the pedestrian fully cross, but apparently not: > In California, the law does not state that a driver must wait for the pedestrian to fully exit the crosswalk or the street before they proceed on their way in their lane. A pedestrian must be safely out of the driver's path of travel for them to begin driving again.

If you had to wait for all pedestrians to be out of the crosswalk, there's plenty of places where turning would be essentially impossible -- and there's an argument to be made that anywhere with that much foot traffic ought to be turned into a pedestrian-only zone, well, right now there are both cars and pedestrians and requiring the crosswalk be clear before going would make things even worse.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#106

Post by dekhn »

paxys wrote: post #92
parl_match wrote: post #3

I'm wary about using public roads to test these, but I think the way the data is presented is misleading. I'm not sure how it's misleading, but separating "incidents" into categories (safety, traffic, accident, etc) might be a good start. For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket. While that's an inconvenience to other drivers, it's not a safety issue at all. By the way, as a…

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

During the height of Critical Mass, bicyclists would surround minivans and keep them from leaving. Drivers don't know what to do because if they push too hard they'll knock over and injure a cyclist. I don't expect self-driving cars to deal any better with cones, or any hostile action towards a car.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#107

Post by dublinben »

scarmig wrote: post #52
johnfn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I think that, in fact, this comparison is disingenuous! If you want to reduce net collisions, you want to compare to the mean, not median. In that case, once you've produced a self-driving car that's better than the mean, you're saving lives. You don't need to create a self-driving car which is better than every driver, ever.

It doesn't even need to be at the mean. It just needs to drive more safely than the worst drivers who cause fatal crashes, and you're saving lives.

SDC will only move the average upwards if they're taking less safe drivers off the road. If a 40% safe SDC replaces a 50% safe human driver, then you've shifted the average downwards.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#108

Post by wholien »

sbuttgereit wrote: post #32
wholien wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they are only allowed to run from 9pm to 5/6am though. Rode a few and they seemed perfectly safe.

I regularly (like daily) see empty cars (Waymo & Cruise) driving around residential areas by Lake Merced while I'm driving to pick up/drop off my kid from summer school... that's between the hours 8am and noon. Also see them in the Ingleside neighborhoods during the day: they have been completely empty when I've seen them. So maybe they can't carry passengers other than those other times, but they are definitely driv…

oh true. I didnt think about the non-occupied times when they run

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#109

Post by aaomidi »

paxys wrote: post #104
veec_cas_tant wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path Are you considering someone putting a traffic cone on a vehicle a day-to-day situation?

What would you do if you were stopped at an intersection and someone put a traffic cone in front of you? Sit there for the rest of your life blocking everyone behind you, or move it/drive around it? Same for literally every example that deviates from the happy path, no matter how minor. Construction work, something fallen on the road, a delivery van stopped on the side, temporary street closures. These cars are nowhe…

I like that you’re getting downvoted but actually being able to react to these situations is a good skill to have.

Re: S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’

#110

Post by vm »

jmoss20 wrote: post #103
paxys wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, I could start coning cruise cars, and cause these numbers to skyrocket And why would that not be a valid data point? Cars driving on public roads need to successfully handle all regular day-to-day situations, not just the happy path. It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic, and that should not be excused a…

> It seems like almost every day I run into some Cruise or Waymo (mostly Cruise) vehicle stuck in the middle of the street blocking traffic ...really? I've seen this maybe once or twice, total. Is there really some part of town where this is a daily occurrence?

I've seen this multiples times on Embarcadero between the Ferry Building and 280 ramp
Post reply on HN