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

San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 149 posts

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#81

Post by anigbrowl »

HankB99 wrote: post #26

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the US legal system as part of a solution. If a robo-taxi causes material harm, sue the operator for some multiple of the cost of the harm. I suppose the drawback to this strategy is that real harm has to happen first and that could easily involve loss of life or limb, but perhaps the threat of that would be enough to motivate the robo-taxi providers to fix the problem.

If the US legal system is so effective why are there so many personal injury cases? Growing up abroad, US litigousness was a joke when I was in elementary school (>40 years ago). Other developed countries seem to have significantly lower problems with avoidable mortality; maybe the American approach is just not that great.

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#82

Post by EatingWithForks »

Projectiboga wrote: post #60
rurp wrote: post #20

The specific examples listed out in the article are egregious, causing real harm. The fire chief is right to be angry, if anything her response is too measured. From the article: - Running through yellow emergency tape and ignoring warning signs to enter a street strewn with storm-damaged electrical wires, then driving past emergency vehicles with some of those wires snarled around rooftop lidar sensors. - Twice bloc…

Time for Zero Tolerance, if one of these do it seize it, and levy the robotaxi company and whomever built it with Huge Fines. Not "oh that will just be another expense", make it that those fines pierce the corporate veil and get to the executives and the millionaire shareholders. And now that I think of it, if there are any passengers, arrest them. That way they can sue the RoboTaxi company too.

I would hesitate to arrest passengers that can't override the taxi. There are knock-on effects that can't be remediated by suing a robo taxi company, such as loss of job, violation of parole, or simply not having any money to begin the suit to begin with. [I know that it's unlikely that someone wealthy enough to hire a robotaxi for a trip may not be wealthy enough to hire a lawyer, but you never know and it would be a supremely nasty edge case]

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#84

Post by foobarbazetc »

jeffbee wrote: post #34

These articles always conflate all industry participants but when you dig into it, it's always Cruise that is causing the problem. SFMTA's complaint to the state about Waymo cites 13 incidents in Appendix B involving Cruise cars. The very best thing Waymo could do is lobby the state government to establish strict rules so their own reputation doesn't get diluted by Cruise. There are a quarter million vehicle crashes…

Yup. Waymo >>>>>>>>>> Cruise.

It’s not even close.

Still wouldn’t get into a Waymo for another 3-5 years, but the quality gap is huge.

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#85

Post by hindsightbias »

shagie wrote: post #54
kindatrue wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn that's rough. I saw a car parked in front a fire hydrant at a fire in Queens once. FDNY simply smashed the windows to open the doors, and then ran a hose through it.

As an aside, the "why not over, under, or around?" question that gets asked. https://www.firehouse.com/operations-training/hoselines-wate... That has some "how much pressure can be loss to friction and still provide the necessary water rate at the other end." Bends in the hose will increase the amount of friction and thus reduce the flow rate.

I've seen it done twice in TX. They made a point to bend the hose enough to go through the passenger compartment.

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#86

Post by ShakataGaNai »

Projectiboga wrote: post #60
rurp wrote: post #20

The specific examples listed out in the article are egregious, causing real harm. The fire chief is right to be angry, if anything her response is too measured. From the article: - Running through yellow emergency tape and ignoring warning signs to enter a street strewn with storm-damaged electrical wires, then driving past emergency vehicles with some of those wires snarled around rooftop lidar sensors. - Twice bloc…

Time for Zero Tolerance, if one of these do it seize it, and levy the robotaxi company and whomever built it with Huge Fines. Not "oh that will just be another expense", make it that those fines pierce the corporate veil and get to the executives and the millionaire shareholders. And now that I think of it, if there are any passengers, arrest them. That way they can sue the RoboTaxi company too.

In general I agree with the general concept, Scale up standard punishments to be in line with corporations.

* Robotaxi violates traffic laws like blocking a fire engine? Fine of $10,000

* Robotaxi drive into an active crime/fire scene? $100,000 fine

* Robotaxi actively hinder emergency services (ex parking on a hose)? Confiscate the vehicle.

Corporations are the same anywhere, until a problem becomes too expensive, they don't do anything about it. So sure, let them drive anytime anywhere, but if they make egregious mistakes the cost is not "oh darn, an minimum wage 'automation engagement specialist' will have to drive out to the car and move it", it will be a "We were fined $1 million last night due to interactions with emergency services".

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#87

Post by CoffeeOnWrite »

jeffbee wrote: post #56
jb12 wrote: post #39

This past weekend in SF, I saw a driver slow and stop to reverse parallel park on Bush Street at Fillmore. An automated Cruise car stopped right behind him, blocking the driver from reversing into the parking spot. The guy got out to yell at the driver to back up, but then saw that it was driverless. He drove off, and someone else got the spot.

Did they signal? This has happened to me many times with humans driving right up on my bumper even while I signal and am in reverse gear.

What’s your angle here?

In practice humans frequently neglect to signal in instances where it is legally required (I don’t know if it is strictly legally required in California when parallel parking, but it’s certainly good common sense). Human drivers know that people don’t signal and account for that.

In this particular scenario the reverse lights would be a crystal clear indication of the driver’s intent, even if they failed to signal.

I don’t want to assume the intent of your comment, I don’t know what you’re getting at..

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#88

Post by c00lio »

dylan604 wrote: post #76
c00lio wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be per software. Maybe per software version, if the company can conclusively prove that the prior problems that led to points cannot happen again.

How can you prove that without putting them back out on the road first? Surely, you'd agree that more is needed than just unit testing?

A driving exam also happens on the road. I'd suggest a similar, supervised test series with mandatory emergency drivers.

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#89

Post by aidenn0 »

c00lio wrote: post #53
rurp wrote: post #20

The specific examples listed out in the article are egregious, causing real harm. The fire chief is right to be angry, if anything her response is too measured. From the article: - Running through yellow emergency tape and ignoring warning signs to enter a street strewn with storm-damaged electrical wires, then driving past emergency vehicles with some of those wires snarled around rooftop lidar sensors. - Twice bloc…

If this were a human driver, at least half of those would loose you your driver's license. Why are there no such consequences for the companies?

None of those will lose you your license in California. I'm not sure how to lose your license in California, as I don't know of anyone personally who has lost their license.

There was a case in the news where someone was exceeding the posted speed-limit by 150kph on an undivided highway (i.e. just a stripe between you and the traffic going the opposite direction) and got a 6 month suspension.

I was on the jury for a case where the defendant was involved his third DUI, fled the scene of the accident, and still had his license.

Re: San Francisco fire chief fed up with robotaxis that mess with her firetrucks

#90

Post by tom_ »

scruple wrote: post #77
jeffbee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL no. Personally I look upon the Swiss "via sicura" regime wistfully. I want people who speed through central cities to go to jail and have their cars crushed.

As long as we can also jail the people who, for no fucking reason whatsoever, drive 15 mph slower than the rest of traffic, too.

If the rest of traffic is driving 15 mph faster, clearly it isn't difficult to ignore the people driving slowly. So if anything, surely it's the people who want them imprisoned who should be punished. Their crime? Poor priority management.
Post reply on HN