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

351–360 of 1001 posts

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

#351

Post by mdorazio »

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…

> a small minority of human drivers cause the vast majority of incidents

Citation needed.

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

#352

Post by AlexandrB »

nemo44x wrote: post #243
jrmg wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, and further up this post there was someone talking about running over groups of cyclists if they maliciously surrounded their car. Try to remain calm. You’re generally not allowed to just _murder_ people who attempt to inconvenience, detain, or rob you, even though they are ‘being dicks’. That’s not how crime is dealt with in a stable society. It’s not a ‘new reality’. I really hope we’re not devolving into a pl…

Equally we seem to be devolving to a place where more people think doing things like this is ok. The solution isn’t to run them over - your advice to remain calm is good. But we need harsh penalties for people that intentionally block traffic. Prison and life altering fines are a first step. This will absolutely deter this type of behavior.

If that's the penalty for delaying traffic, a DUI or texting while driving should be life in prison. Delaying traffic is much less likely to get someone killed.

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

#353

Post by minwcnt5 »

gonehome wrote: post #53
sbuttgereit wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I think they don’t carry passengers outside of those nighttime hours, but they are still testing them in some areas during the day (which makes sense, need to test them then if they eventually want to operate then)

Waymo carries passengers 24/7, Cruise is night time only except employees.

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

#354

Post by kelnos »

scarmig wrote: post #190
paxys wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would be amusing to see how humans react if you run up to their cars while stopped, put a traffic cone on the hood, and run away. Would most people try to shake it off while driving away, or stop in the middle of traffic? What's actually the right thing to do, both as a person and as an AV? More pertinently, should it be legal for people to go up and put traffic cones on top of actively driven vehicles, intentiona…

> It would be amusing to see how humans react if you run up to their cars while stopped, put a traffic cone on the hood, and run away.

Hah, good call. I'm thinking that if I was at a traffic light or stop sign, and it wasn't a major road with other lanes of cars and lots of traffic whizzing by, I'd hop out, move the cone, and go about my day. If I didn't feel safe, I'd accelerate slowly enough so as not to shake off the cone, and move to the side of the road and deal with it there.

> More pertinently, should it be legal for people to go up and put traffic cones on top of actively driven vehicles

No, it absolutely shouldn't. In the case at hand, what if one of these AVs with a cone on it ended up blocking traffic and delaying an ambulance or fire truck, causing someone to die? I get that this is a protest movement, but I wouldn't want that on my conscience. And people protest in all kinds of ways that aren't legal (often called "civil disobedience"). People who do that should expect to suffer consequences, and accept that outcome as a part of the protest.

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

#355

Post by lucisferre »

satisfice wrote: post #61

These companies cannot be trusted to be honest about incidents or near incidents. They like to crow about safety, but the safety they want credit for is entirely hypothetical. There is no good reason to believe that autonomous vehicles are actually safer. They haven’t yet been tested enough, and the testing that has been done cannot be generalized to new situations. I believe they would be safer if all roads were ful…

Bit of a false dichotomy here though.

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

#356

Post by lamontcg »

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…

> beating the top 10% of human drivers will require AGI.

even if it is true, this doesn't matter at all.

if they can beat the median driver and you replaced all drivers with driverless vehicles, they would eliminate whatever bottom percentile driver is responsible for most of the accidents and the world would be vastly safer.

by your own assertion, the 10% best drivers don't matter because they already don't cause accidents.

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

#357

Post by gonehome »

minwcnt5 wrote: post #353
gonehome wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think they don’t carry passengers outside of those nighttime hours, but they are still testing them in some areas during the day (which makes sense, need to test them then if they eventually want to operate then)

Waymo carries passengers 24/7, Cruise is night time only except employees.

Can anyone get a Waymo? I signed up a long time (years?) ago and think I still don’t have access.

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

#358

Post by minwcnt5 »

clsec wrote: post #318
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone I know in SF is excited it's really only the officials and some news stories. The wait list to join the App is crazy long demand outpaces the number of cars they have on the road. You're just seeing a very skewed narrative.

I guess we hang in different circles because I don't know anyone who supports them.

You hang in NIMBY circles for sure then.

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

#359

Post by briandear »

kiba wrote: post #267
Aurornis wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

Cargo bikes are a thing. It's also why we have ebike so we don't have to be hyper fit. The need to haul weekly grocery is greatly reduced with proper urban planning like corner stores and walkable streets. Bad weather can be mitigated through proper clothing. In Finland, people ride their bikes through the winter.

[flagged]

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

#360

Post by simple-thoughts »

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…

I’m just imagining going out on an ebike in the local weather here… lol. Maybe e-bikes are a good solution in SF where the weather is great year round but not in most places in the world.
Post reply on HN