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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by mrjin »

kelnos wrote: post #260
jeffbee wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The city assigned a guy to go around and document every time an AV does something. That's why the "skyrocketing". They didn't count them before and now they do. If some SFFD guy just stood around documenting all driver stupidity it would a significantly different report.

> The city assigned a guy to go around and document every time an AV does something Want to provide a citation to back that up? > They didn't count them before and now they do. They've apparently been counting since spring of 2022; the large increase in incidents started a year later. > If some SFFD guy just stood around documenting all driver stupidity it would a significantly different report. Lovely dose of whatab…

I was curious why there weren't many incident reports not long ago, here they came.

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

#572

Post by [deleted] »

oblio wrote: post #535
nycdatasci wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data appears to be freely available here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto... . I reviewed a couple dozen incidents and in every case human drivers are to blame. The most extreme example of this was an incident in which a manually operated vehicle repeatedly rear-ended an autonomous vehicle out of spite, then followed it back to the dispatch lot and made a variety of verbal threats.

Self driving cars will share roads with regular cars for possibly decades.

[deleted]

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

#573

Post by JumpCrisscross »

II2II wrote: post #228
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You will always have opportunists. This article is not about that. The specific incident described by the article is about a car going through caution tape and getting caught up in a fallen overhead powerline. There's very little chance of payouts there, though there probably should be if considerable damage was caused. When it comes to interference with emergency responders, I also doubt it being a case of people lo…

> If there was proof that AVs were safe, I could imagine people jumping on them in droves

These services have waiting lists.

San Francisco is simply a city that can’t help but distract from its endemic problems by torching those who bet on it. (That said, I blame these firms for choosing San Francisco.)

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

#574

Post by tcfhgj »

Aurornis wrote: post #234
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…

> 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…

None of this is a real requirement. Elderly disabled people can use bikes as well. Same goes for people in very cold climates. Clothing helps against bad weather. Long commutes are possible, too (maybe using a Velomobile). And with cargo bikes (can also be shared) you can haul a lot.

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

#575

Post by [deleted] »

Roark66 wrote: post #554

I'm definitely a skeptic when it comes to putting an AI in charge with no manual override of a 3 ton vehicle with humans on board, but having said that, this article didn't provide any meaningful information if these "incidents" per mile driven are higher compared with human drivers? They say they saw "huge increase in incidents". Perhaps there was a "huge" increase in miles driven by these cars? It is possible likel…

[deleted]

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

#576

Post by estebank »

dumpsterdiver wrote: post #496
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…

Not only that, but clearly they don't live in outback, rural areas. They live in high cost of living cities. Old estimates claim that 55% of the worlds occupants live in urban areas, while 45% live in rural areas. The proposed solution leaves nearly half the population of the world shit out of luck.

How does making cities more amenable to alternative modes of transportation affect people that neither lives nor works in those cities in any way?

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

#577

Post by faangsticle »

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…

[dead]

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

#578

Post by nova22033 »

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

How are they expected to respond to this data point?

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

#579

Post by jacquesm »

theptip wrote: post #563
jacquesm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can normalize the report by miles driven, but if the number of miles driven by those services increases rapidly then you can expect the number of incidents to increase just as rapidly, and that is what appears to be happening. There is a level at which this becomes untenable and that level is a direct function of the number of miles driven. So unless you see some kind of cap to the number of miles driven (which g…

I think this is not taking the analysis far enough. You need to compare incidents per passenger mile, with humans vs. AV. If AVs are safer, and you increase the AV miles driven, presumably you mostly displace human miles driven (e.g. Uber). In this possible word you would see the missing graph of human-driven harm go down, but you’d still see the graph from the OP go up. Indeed in this scenario the more the AV mischi…

Different kinds of incidents compared to TFA.

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

#580

Post by amelius »

nycdatasci wrote: post #493
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…

Data appears to be freely available here: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto... . I reviewed a couple dozen incidents and in every case human drivers are to blame. The most extreme example of this was an incident in which a manually operated vehicle repeatedly rear-ended an autonomous vehicle out of spite, then followed it back to the dispatch lot and made a variety of verbal threats.

So the autonomous vehicle pissed off some human driver, not a good sign either.
Post reply on HN