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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by jackvalentine »

birken wrote: post #307
nerdbert wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They work for the majority of people of all ages who live in cities where the infrastructure has been properly built to accommodate bikes. Most people rarely need to haul anything and can use carshare when they do. I've demoed a multistory house down to the bricks and re-built it from the outside in without a car. Hired someone to haul off a dumpster several times. For major materials deliveries, like beams or window…

Self driving electric cars are much better than car shares as they'll have significantly higher usage rates and eliminate much of the need for parking spots in dense downtown areas. If you believe car shares are part of an efficient transportation future then self-driving cars are part of it!

Didn’t uber promise the same thing and end up just adding to traffic with all the dead head trips?

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

#513

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway9274 wrote: post #145
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#514

Post by ironman1478 »

fnimick wrote: post #380
1024core wrote: post #366

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. Have you ever ridden bikes in SF? I have. Even though I was an occasional rider, I got into 2 accidents that could have seriously hurt me (just through pure luck I didn't end up with hospitalization-worthy injuries). Both not my fault (one a dooring; another a driver turning into…

The solution to that is to build better infrastructure to remove bicycle/vehicle conflict points, not put everyone in cars so they can be "safe".

SFMTA is trying and literally making anti infrastructure, such as Valencia. I agree with your solution, but politically it's going nowhere. Self driving cars exist because our politicians are inept.

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

#515

Post by fnordpiglet »

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…

Resource utilization metrics that ignore human desirability metrics are doomed to fail without extreme scarcity. When energy is plentiful enough that the cost of the utilization of the wasteful metric is far below the human desirability and willingness to spend for the service - it’s a losing discussion every single time. I sadly agree with some folks in generally don’t agree with in these matters - cheap, plentiful, renewable, environmentally friendly energy and efficient enough utilization to be practical from a cost and infrastructure point of view will win out of over raw optimality. I’d much rather take an air conditioned robo taxi than a loud spewing bus filled with other people that drops me off within walking distance if I pay close enough attention to the cryptic maps and unannounced stops, peering madly at the street sign we just passed. I’m sorry. I wish the world were better than that. But it won’t change no matter what the efficiency metrics say.

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

#516

Post by LeFantome »

nerdbert wrote: post #262
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…

They work for the majority of people of all ages who live in cities where the infrastructure has been properly built to accommodate bikes. Most people rarely need to haul anything and can use carshare when they do. I've demoed a multistory house down to the bricks and re-built it from the outside in without a car. Hired someone to haul off a dumpster several times. For major materials deliveries, like beams or window…

You are not responsible for transporting children and / or their gear I see.

At least one leg of every trip I make requires a larger vehicle.

Oh, and I commute about 50 km each way ( 100 km total ) on a road heavily used by large trucks. I am not sure how small a vehicle I want to be in for that trip, especially after dark.

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

#517

Post by simple-thoughts »

jeffbee wrote: post #383
simple-thoughts wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

E-bikes outsell EVs and with a CAGR of 10% they will soon have a majority share of the bicycle market. This is not weather-dependent. The e-bike share of the bicycle market in Finland is 15%, and e-bike unit sales in that country are about triple EV unit sales. The population centers of Finland are all north of the continental United States and virtually all of Canada.

Something people often forget about Helsinki, Finland is that the weather is quite nice year round. Anyway I wasn’t even thinking about e-bikes in winter, but rather what it would be like near my residence in monsoon season (which is currently ongoing). Traveling on an e-bike in steamy heat with wind and rain just sounds terrible.

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

#518

Post by mdekkers »

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 whole “you don’t need a car” discussion again? It is boring, nobody having it ever acknowledges that anyone else has valid arguments, and some of the arguments brought up on both side are ridiculous. Some people can do fine without a car most of the time, and have options available when they don’t. Some people need a car on a daily basis. Arguing that “sure you can do the schoolrun for your 3 kids on a cargo bike” is stupid (someone mentions further down below) as is the argument “but what if I need to carry 20 tonnes granite daily?!?” (slight exaggeration)

I keep hearing about some grand conspiracy about stopping fully autonomous vehicles, but it is not at all clear who would be behind this, and why. I do see a lot of reports about these things getting stuck, and responders being forever away, causing chaos.

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

#519

Post by ChatGTP »

ceejayoz wrote: post #439
aluminum96 wrote: post #437

I feel like I'm being gaslit by the AV companies, especially Cruise. If these cars are so safe, why do I constantly seem them doing sketchy stuff on public roads? Why are there so many videos on Twitter and Reddit of pedestrians literally dodging out of the way to avoid being run over? It doesn't pass the smell test.

> Why are there so many videos on Twitter and Reddit of pedestrians literally dodging out of the way to avoid being run over? Part of the answer here is probably "because no one bothers to film human drivers doing this, as it's commonplace".

I feel like this argument just needs to stop.

If you're designing planes, they shouldn't just be doing a bit of casual swerving towards the terminal during taxing. We're engineering solutions, not making kind of working stuff.

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

#520

Post by Ycdr4thfdd »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #512

Its okay if a few people die as long as Big Tech gets to gobble up more of our lives and make a few more billion in profits.

Yes, a few people will die. More than a few. But I would bet anything that even in the short-term, and especially in the long-term, far fewer will die than if there were human drivers in those cars.
Post reply on HN