- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
Two Cruise driverless taxis blocked an ambulance carrying a critically injured patient who later died at a hospital, a San Francisco Fire Department report said, in another incident involving self-driving cars in the city.
On Aug. 14, two Cruise autonomous vehicles were stopped in the right two lanes of a four-lane, one-way street in the SoMa neighborhood, where the victim was found, according to the department report. It said that a police vehicle in another lane had to be moved in order for the ambulance to leave.
You must log in or # to comment.
I think these driverless taxis are the future, but it’s fucked up that a city has to put up with being the test ground.
Tech companies aren’t forcing this on SF. SF is allowing Google and GM to test their AV and EAVs in exchange for data about their performance.
And as sad as this incident is, and as shitty as blocking first responders is, so far the AVs have not been at fault in any collisions that killed people. So they may actually be a net positive for saving lives.
Also why was a police car blocking “another lane” I can’t get to the article because of paywalls. So I am picturing a 4 lane wide one way street. The claim is that 2 driverless cars are blocking the far right lanes. The 3rd lane was blocked by an officer and the 4th was moving traffic? If so why on earth would they block the third lane instead of parking behind or in front of one if the taxis? If there is video footage in the article?
I don’t see the benefit of driverless taxis over regular taxis. They won’t be priced any lower. They won’t go any faster, they’ll probably go slower because they will be programmed to obey the speed limit at all times. And it will get rid of a bunch of jobs. It seems like a solution in need of a problem to me.
The benefit is profit for the taxi companies.
Obviously that, but there are a bunch of people in this thread who love the idea and I don’t get it.
It seems like a solution in need of a problem to me.
It’s more like the drive to earn more profits, which is driving this (pardon the puns).
deleted by creator
But what’s the reason for firing taxi drivers in favor of driverless cars? All I can see is it’s a novelty.
deleted by creator
That’s not an explanation. There are a lot of good arguments to be made for replacing horses with cars. What is your actual argument for replacing taxi drivers with driverless vehicles?
deleted by creator
Driverless cars will be cheaper.
Currently they might not be because of the huge upfront R&D costs, but they will be cheaper.
Like any new tech it is initially more expensive and the price comes down with time.
Prices will be lower if they don’t have to pay a driver.
Before someone says “they’ll just pocket the difference” that’s not how it works. If Uber pockets the difference, Lyft will drop their prices and Uber will lose its customers.
Is this your first introduction to capitalism?
How has that worked for every single other industry lately? Prices really low right now?
Insult
Sweeping, unfounded generalization
Nice argument
They aren’t wrong…when has any company seriously given up on profits.
People don’t have to be nice when you’re being clueless. They also didn’t insult you…I did though.
deleted by creator
Of course companies won’t give up on profits, I didn’t say that
You didn’t answer my questions. How has that worked out for every single other industry lately if your claim is correct? Is there something unique about the taxi industry?
That’s for stopping with then .
If that were true then Uber and Lyft wouldn’t have jacked their prices up so drastically over the last couple of years. You’re describing how things work on paper not in the real world.
It is impossible to fully test things like this in test courses. Just like medicine, eventually you do all the tests you can and then expand it to the public. It sucks but there’s no way to foolproof something in a lab.
It’s really wild to see all the arguments suggesting this tech get banned until it’s completely ready for service. Nobody seems to think that scenario through very far. Even if it’s far from perfect, this stuff is already saving lives right now.
The driverless cars could have drivers assigned to monitor them 24/7 either in person or remotely until they have proven themselves for say a year. Nothing is perfect but there is a lot they can do better than the current situation.
The driverless cars could have drivers assigned to monitor them 24/7 either in person or remotely until they have proven themselves
They really need something like this, if for no other reason as to protect the vehicles from people trying to troll the AI, by quickly manipulating the road in front of them for social media filming reasons, etc.
Pretty sure they already do have that as I’ve seen video from a similar incident recently where a police officer smashed the window and then some Cruise rep began talking to him over the car’s stereo system.
The city has to “put up” with it by allowing them to be tested there? What?
The city government allowed it and the city residents have to put up with it.
The residents also have to put up with human drivers. And if you’ve driven through SF commute traffic, you know how shitty they are.
Isn’t that how government works tho? City council is voted in, no ones being forced to do the job. If the people don’t like the job they’re doing, they can recall them and run themselves.
How is this a criticism? I don’t follow, unless you’re just an anarchist, do you have a better idea on how to run a city with your decades of experience doing so?
It’s not that deep. I said it’s fucked up that San Francisco residents have to put up with experimental driverless taxis in their city. That’s my whole comment.
No it is that deep. YOU’RE not that deep. This is a complex conversation and you just want to be able to spout off a nonsense take and then try to downplay other people’s attempts to explain it.
I can’t speak to whether it’s the case in this specific instance, but it’s quite common for politicians to just happen to get donations from entities tied to these sorts of projects soon before or after they get the go ahead
If you’re suggesting a randomly assigned citizen watchdog collective who’s compensation would be protected, prioritized, and pegged at a fair ratio to purchasing power, then I am 100% in agreement with you.
Pyongyang?
Question is, are they a net positive?
They’re getting in less collisions. Autonomous vehicles in SF have only been at fault in one death. And it was a dog, and a safety driver was behind the wheel in the AV.
AVs are going have problems, but are those problems worse than the ones human drivers cause?
In order to save lives we need to study the bigger picture and not get hyper focused on individual tragedies.
In order to save lives, USA needs to get off car centric transportation. More cars is not the solution. Neither is automating them in urban and dense environments. AVs belong on the highways only.
We are trying to solve a problem with “tech” that has been a solved problem by other countries for decades. Netherlands is a great example of how to move people around efficiently without using cars as the primary mode of transportation. Amazing public transportation. Towns and cities designed around alternative forms of transportation such as walking, or biking. Infrastructure is cheaper to maintain since it lasts longer and is not constantly pounded on by multi ton vehicles.
I agree that the US actually needs more public transport. Fatalities aside, that’s often going to be the best solution for congestion and climate change. Congestion alone in SF is still a fucking nightmare. SF is small as fuck, but driving across that town between 3 and 7pm can take 1-2 hours.
As a local, I feel like the current state of MUNI, BART, CalTrans, AC Transit, and cycling are not going to be a good fit for EVERY single use case. If I’m injured, am carrying bulky stuff, or am trying to hit up a part of town that would take too long with public transport, an AV EV could be a good solution.
I usually try to avoid cars in SF. They’re often more trouble than they’re worth. But, there are times, IMHO, when cars solve a current route and use case better than alternative solutions. And it if they’re still going to be used for certain use cases, it would be nice if they killed fewer people.
If I’m injured, am carrying bulky stuff, or am trying to hit up a part of town that would take too long with public transport, an AV EV could be a good solution.
Why not a car share instead? Or just an Uber?
Because the goal is to have an Uber that removes human error.
I’d say this article shows that error is still a problem.
It very much is, but the errors are different. An AV isn’t going to get distracted by their phone, by an argument, by rubbernecking, etc. But an AV might encounter something that the sensor AI is confused by, and the cars might Mitch McConnell themselves in the middle of the road. So far at-fault accidents are way down with the AVs, but stalls are way up.
Thank you, that at least is a good argument.
Combined with e-bikes to “flatten” hills and make distance traveling easier, we could really make some amazing improvements to city design.
Driverless cars could really help solve the “last mile” issue in many transit systems.
I dislike taking transit because I have to take one unpredictable bus from my house to the train, take the train the majority of the distance, then take another unpredictable bus to my destination.
The issue of infrequent buses through neighborhoods isn’t going to be solved anytime soon. But if I could take an electric driverless car from my house to the train I would be a lote more likely to take public transit over just taking my existing car.
Right. Where are the corresponding articles about human drivers that have blocked ambulances due to ineptitude? I’m sure we won’t find them, but I’m sure it happens more often than we think.
This is just like reporting of Tesla crashes and fires by the media. It makes it seem like a big deal, but only because regular vehicle crashes and explosions are so frequent they just don’t get reported. I’ve personally seen several cars on fire on the side of the road, and just a few weeks ago saw a car rollover crash on the highway. None of these ever made the local news.
Humans block ambulances even when they’re not drivers https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/climate/i-would-block-ambulance-with-dying-patient-onboard-says-xr-founder-roger-hallam-b2185727.html There are way too many shitty people.
save lives
You are not saving lives by blocking emergency services.
Thats not what hes asking. Humans are notoriously awful drivers. Does gradually replacing humans with AI drivers save more lives than unintentionally blocking an ambulance?
How many drivers cause this exact thing every week? You’re only hearing about this because it’s novel.
That’s correct. But we don’t have the data. Musk, for example, won’t release it for Tesla and forced the NHSTA to redact it.
And the raw data is no good anyway. You have to compare autopilot systems with similar road situations (eg mostly highway, or established taxi zones) and similar drivers/cars (they’re not a random selection of all demographics and models).
It’s absolutely correct to say that we need to compare the new with the old, not simply present statistics in isolation. But we don’t have the data and it needs an established independent body to analyse it because the analysis is too easy to manipulate to leave in the hands of the companies that stand to profit.
Telsa isn’t part of this AV taxi pilot in SF. It’s Waymo (Google) annd Cruise (GM).
And one of the conditions for allowing robo taxis in SF is that the robo taxi companies have to share their accident / fatality data.
I completely agree with you but unfortunately public opinion doesn’t always work that way. People are irrational and don’t understand how numbers and statistics work. They hear ‘driverless car caused fatality’ and brains will just turn off.
Won’t someone think of the children?!?
the only thing that makes driverless tech at all useful is reducing parking spots. If people don’t need to own cars then cities can be built denser, be more walkable and have lower fixed infrastructure costs (less parking and parking access).
Of course they don’t do any of this as well as subways and trains so its still ultimately going to only be effective as a transitional measure.
Driverless tech is also useful due to it being safer divers then humans in most situations.
Humans are still more adaptable in completely unexpected situations, but those cases are few.
The only comparison chart I could find miles driven with AV safety was a 2020 graph that showed you were safer with autopilot off than on. Maybe that’s improved but most accidents are weird events and computers don’t handle weird shit as well.
Yeah, okay, they were blocking part of a road. It was a four -lane. These two were in two lanes. Sounds like a police car was blocking the rest of the road
