S.F. says incidents by Cruise, Waymo driverless taxis are ‘skyrocketing.’ • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by barbazoo » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #115

"Skyrocket" is a word people use when they don't have the data to support their claim, but want to make it sound as extreme as possible. When I hear "skyrocket" I think "several orders of magnitude in a very short time". But the source of the quote with skyrocket, basically admits that they didn't have any quantitative evidence to support a massive change in incidents. Remember: reality is banal. Things are far bette…

When I hear "skyrocket" in a headline from a source like that I immediately assume it's something like "from 2 to 4" or something like that.

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

#232

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #193

II2II wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers they gave is more than a doubling, while they were quite clear about the limitations of their data. That includes not knowing how many AVs are on the road, which is something that the companies should be able to provide. Also look at the claims that AVs have not caused death or serious injury. (I noticed that they did not claim that AVs have not caused injury.) That is great, except I would not expect any…

Anyone seen the rushing dash cam videos where pedestrians are throwing themselves at cars in order to get legal liability payouts. Not that I'm accusing all of the reports here of being something like that, but I wonder if robotaxis are going to result in something like that and actually make the entire driving world a lot less ethical. Then again it'll all be on camera so maybe not

The bulk of those are from Russia.

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

#233

Post by dghlsakjg » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:27 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #106

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…

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.

I've participated and watched critical mass any number of times. I've never seen cyclists target cars randomly.

The only time you will be surrounded in a minivan is if you try to drive through the cyclists, or otherwise act aggressively or unsafely.

Critical mass is a protest movement. If you drive your vehicle into the middle of a protest against vehicles in a way that puts people in danger, don't be surprised when people react defensively.

> Drivers don't know what to do because if they push too hard they'll knock over and injure a cyclist.

They should do nothing. You cannot knock over a cyclist in a stationary car.

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

#234

Post by Aurornis » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

cashsterling wrote: post #206

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, leg…

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.

E-bikes are great for the situations, climates, and people who can use them.

E-bikes are not a substitute for the majority of people’s transportation needs.

I think the young, healthy people who live in moderate climates with good weather, short commutes, and little need to haul anything often forget that they’re own transportation needs don’t match the average person’s.

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

#235

Post by meowkit » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

cashsterling wrote: post #206

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, leg…

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…

You’re comparing the merits of apples to oranges and not thinking about whether the soil or terrain is suitable for an apple tree or an orange tree.

We should have public transit improvements across the board, and we should have ebikes/more bikelanes and more mixed used land.

The reality is that there is too much red tape/bureaucracy, too much nimbyism, and not enough political firepower to build out that infrastructure.

The majority of the US is car dependent, and we are stuck in that local optima. Self driving cars will ease the burden by making it realistic to not own a car (you just rideshare for cheap). Less car owners means there will be more demand for better public transportation infrastructure.

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

#236

Post by barbazoo » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #226

cashsterling wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn’t actually take that much energy to move a 4000 lb vehicle. 15,000 miles per year * 1 kWh / 4 miles ~= 10.3 kWh per day ~= 430 watts 24/7. Few loads are 24/7 but a single crypto mining PC can easily use several times that.

I got 15,000 miles * 1.344 kWh/mile = 20,160 kWh or 55 kWh / day

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

#237

Post by jtriangle » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

cashsterling wrote: post #206

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, leg…

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…

Cool, you have an affordable, tenuously waterproofed, chinese mass produced e-bike, it's your only available mode of transportation, you need to go into the office for a meeting, and it's raining.

Welcome to hell.

Also, not sure if you've used public transportation recently, but man, it SUCKS. Far less time efficient than a car, often crowded during the times you want to use it, and ZERO enforcement of proper etiquette or rules or regulations as far as riders are concerned.

If you could promise me a pleasant public transportation service, clean, no panhandling, no dude blasting music from his shitty offbrand bluetooth speaker, not unbearably hot/cold, armed security keeping the peace, then sure, I'll ride it every day. We both know that is literally never going to happen, and public transport will continue to be a minimally viable pipe dream that we spend far too much money on.

TL;DR; Cars are here to stay, you need to make the cities work with them. Yes it's a harder problem to solve, but it's the problem you've got.

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

#238

Post by mlinsey » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

cashsterling wrote: post #206

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, leg…

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…

We aren't talking about public spending on self-driving car infrastructure vs. bikes and mass-transit infrastructure. I would much rather fund the latter with public money.

What we're talking about is erecting regulatory barriers for a technology that could solve one very large problem (auto safety), just because that technology doesn't solve some other problem (climate). This is like saying data privacy protections on a social networking site are not the right solution, because they don't really solve the misinformation problem.

My parents who live out in the burbs can only drive for so much longer. I sure hope they aren't as stubborn as my grandparent who drove to the age of 90 and got into an accident (fortunately with only a parked car), but either way I don't think finally learning to ride a bike at the age of 70 is the answer either.

We should move forward with rolling self-driving cars as quickly as we safely can. Speaking as someone who does not own a car and has no desire to ever own a car, I think it would benefit me a lot too, by making it less likely for me to get run over while I walk or bike around, the fear of the latter being the biggest obstacle preventing most people I know from biking more too.

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

#239

Post by llambda » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:29 PM UTC

geraldwhen wrote: post #212

cashsterling wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My city doesn’t even have sidewalks. Bikes aren’t happening.

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.

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

#240

Post by dmix » Fri, Jul 14, 2023, 10:30 PM UTC

cashsterling wrote: post #206

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, leg…

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…

The point of autonomous electric vehicles isn't to revolutionize personal transportation. Everyone's not just sitting around trying to re-think how we can improve our lives as aggressively as possible.

As radical as it is removing a driver in terms of what it means for people's economic relationship to cars and for business operations it's still an incremental adjustment in human behaviour...for regular people. That's how technology gets adopted in the real world.

You don't need to think hard and long about why ebikes are still going to be limited to downtown-living urbanites and recreational casual riders [1]. Basically in an ideal world it will significantly expanding the existing niche biking population in American cities, taking existing riders further/long (ramping up average usage) and introducing tons of new riders to the streets. But still not enough to significantly take cars off roads in a macro-context, especially considering how many people live in suburbs or city neighbourhoods which are glorified suburbs.

[1] I'm just trying to imagine 95% of my family members even getting on an e-bike for recreation let alone as a serious alternative to using a car.