Small Protest Against Cruise Robotaxis Cites Concerns for Safety … – Slashdot

Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Nickname:
Password:
Nickname:
Password:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

fully autonomous vehicle without a steering wheel or pedals
I’d call that a gross design failure, like an electric door that has no manual way of being opened if there is a power failure. The autopilot tech is faaaaar too young to allow for that kind of removals.Hand cranks for example remained a feature decades after the invention of the electric starter.
I suppose they will take away the windows too, and you’ll need to download an app to connect to the cameras and see what’s happening around your car while you travel in it.
>I suppose they will take away the windows too, and you’ll need to download an app to connect to the cameras and see what’s happening around your car while you travel in it.
To be fair, this would save taxi company on cleaning costs from not having to clean human excrement from being scared shitless at what robotaxis occasionally do in traffic.
USB-C obviously, you can use it to charge the car also.
While certainly not a universal solution – the “universal” solution being a tow truck, I’ve long figured an appropriately sized pool of professional* drivers who can operate the car using controls remotely using a cellular or even satellite connection is a possible thing.
If you’re worrying about lag, remember that we can operate rovers on mars remotely.
Anyways, I see three paths for this:
1. The machine itself throws an “oh shit I don’t know what to do” flag and is connected to a human.
2. Somebody hits the
I’m sure sooner or later somebody will write a story in the tone of an expose about how the cars are a big sham because they’re “actually” remote operated (a small part of the time).
OK here you go, here’s one from 5 years ago
https://www.wired.com/story/ph… [wired.com]
Your link is about Cruise. Here’s a recent article [thedrive.com] on them
Self-Driving Cars May Always Need Human Attention, Cruise CEO Says
Cruise, General Motor’s self-driving research wing and autonomous taxi provider in San Francisco, was the first company to be allowed to offer fully autonomous taxi services in America. Cruise’s CEO Kyle Vogt was asked if he could see a point where remote human oversight could be removed from
> That’s how it is already done. They have an office where remote operators can help the car out of a jam.
Right, there’s a lot more involved than the car itself.
Not only the cost of these cars and the onboard equipment, but also the cost of maintaining them (software, parts, insurance, permits, etc) and of the cost of the monitoring staff required to keep them running are all way more expensive (pun intended) than most people realize.
I would worry about lag. We operate rovers on Mars – that have covered a couple of kilometers over the span of YEARS. With no traffic. No emergency vehicles. No pedestrians. No pets. No possibly hostile actors to contend with.
Lag is a thing. Lag can kill someone. Worry about lag.
You’re not victims, you’re executing the plan. The self-driving takeover wouldn’t have worked with the cabs. These people have strong unions. You busted that up for a pittance and now you think you’re the victims. You’re the “fake it till you make it” mechanical turks for companies who always saw drivers as an expensive nuisance to be automated away. Fucking morons.

The self-driving takeover wouldn’t have worked with the cabs. These people have strong unions.
Actually, most taxi drivers are independent contractors and don’t belong to a union.
The NTWA represents about a third of cab drivers, but it’s a weird quasi-union since there is no “employer” on the other side of the table. They mainly work on lobbying the government.
You’re also mistaking Uber/Lyft as drop-in replacements for taxis. That isn’t true. Uber has grown three times faster than taxi revenue has fallen. Most people use Uber as a replacement for driving their own car, renting a car, or taking public transit, rather than using a taxi.
Funny how all the Uber/Lyft drivers are complaining but they don’t care what they did to the Taxi drivers. In a lot of “big” cities Taxi cabs are actually regulated – and drivers end up spending a fortune on a Taxi Medallion – which is what allows them to be licensed and operate. Uber/Lyft showed up and made that worthless — and a lot of taxi drivers ended up losing their livelyhood. The Uber/Lyft drivers didn’t have to have any special skills, their vehicles didn’t have to pass any inspections, and whe
We introduced ‘private hire cars’ which were only to booked via a phone call. Substantially undercut the ‘hail on the street’ taxis, but both still exist. But this meant that Uber/Lyft had an existing pattern of regulation into which they fitted – though cutting out the telephone operator has been profitable for them. Meanwhile Uber fits the taxi niche far more accurately – you hail an uber from your phone and a floater turns up; our taxi drivers have lost out a lot.
Didn’t UK (at least London) Taxi Drivers have to study and pass “The Knowledge” (or whatever) — some super-extensive test about the roads/history/etc? I vaguely remember seeing a story about it and how hard it was.
However private hire car drivers don’t need it. Uber has made such private hires vastly more accessible to the ordinary punter, depriving taxi drivers of their premium. But at least that money used to go to Taxi Drivers; the fact that the owners of medallions in New York made a killing from their ownership for doing nothing is one of the most spectacular pieces of private corruption in the USA. The collapse in their value is sad for the working taxi drivers, I agree. It would be interesting to know how many
That’s the logic of those kicking up a storm about the threat to jobs. Yet we’re also being told that we are facing a demographic crisis with a shortage of workers.
Funny that

Abolish airlines, bring back the stage coach
Actually, that sounds kind of fun.
Well in the end airlines won’t be possible because they burn carbon based fuels.
Electric planes could only go short distances.
Maybe hydrogen power is possible.
Hydrogen seems even less likely than electric for airliners tbh – it requires storage to be as close to spherical as possible, meaning the wings are a bad location. The only medium term âoesolutionsâ to airliners I see are much more efficient engines (like the proposed open fan, and ultra fans; plus a requirement put on the airline industry to do a massive amount of carbon capture.
It requires a lot more fuel tank, but for liquid H2 tanks the shape doesn’t matter all that much. Liquid hydrogen transport uses cylinders just fine and for planes you can twist the form more than that, it’s low pressure and the insulation only needs to keep it cool for one flight.
Fuel tanks for liquid H2 storage are heavy though, and that contradicts putting them on a plane. Even rockets are moving away from hydrogen towards methane.
That said, it’s not like we can’t generate actual hydrocarbons for the relatively limited amount of jet fuel we’d need. Especially if we go electric propellor for the shorter flights. Taking off is the most energy intensive, which is why I’ve seen proposals that basically amount to huge catapults to give planes a good bit of that energy while taking o
Hydrogen powered sounds great!
It’s totally green, abundant, lighter than air, doesn’t destroy the ozone layer.
We could hmmm, I know! Fill huge dirigibles with hydrogen and carry hundreds of passengers at a time in luxury!
We could call the first one something catchy… like… the Hindenburg!
1… Fill big flying thing with hydrogen
2… stuff
3… Profit!
Their engines will be replaced by mice running on treadmills. Until, of course, PETA gets hold of them.
The worker shortage is very real, it’s just companies that stomp their feet like petulant kids and don’t want to face the music.
The ones that smell the java first will be the ones to survive.
So not totally sarcastic… 😉
https://www.wired.com/story/ma… [wired.com]
Is this just the companies trying to drive up their share price or are these protestors really misinformed about the capabilities of self-traffic-blocking vehicles?
I’m with you, buddy, those automated switch boards blocked all sorts of traffic and ran into emergency vehicles all the time!
About 9.1% of workers in the US are employed in transportation and transportation-related businesses. That has been on a slow decline since at least 1990. Of those, about 1/3 or 3.6 million people [bts.gov], drive for a living. Taxis are just one of those categories. Gig work is not included in those statistics.
Once self-driving gets good enough, expect a major and rapid shift to automation in everything from taxis and limousines, to short- and long-haul trucking, and airline pilots. The only real reason I don’t see this as being a major blow to employment is most of the people in those industries are older and nearing retirement already. The surge of retirements during the pandemic gave us a taste of that. Drivers just won’t be replaced with younger workers, they’ll be automated.
Between driverless and warehouse automation, I’d expect that 9.1% to keep falling to 1-2% over the next 20 years. Protests and unionization aren’t going to do a thing to slow this down. It is buggy whips and slide rules all over again. Anyone planning on driving for a living should have an exit plan, or not enter the field at all.
Once self driving gets good enough we will have true AI and will be in the singularity.

Once self driving gets good enough we will have true AI and will be in the singularity.
Self-driving is a much easier problem than AGI.
We’re already past the point where SDVs have fewer accidents than humans, and we are nowhere near achieving AGI.
One of the articles I’ve read points out great strides in short- and medium-haul, point-to-point trucking. That is, routes that don’t vary. Think port to warehouse, warehouse to distribution center, and back again. There are a couple of companies focusing exclusively on that type of driverless, and I believe there is extensive on-road testing in the Southwest.
If that becomes entirely automated, it will be interesting to see how they “secure” the trucks. What’s to prevent someone from driving in front of one and slowing down to a stop, then people hop out, break into the truck and steal whatever they want? A team of multiple vehicles could probably steal a lot of stuff.
Imagine, you have the initial car that will stop the truck and then the next vehicle is a large truck. The large truck pulls up, people break into the trailer and offload what they want, then drive
Why are these cars allowed on the road at all at this point? Humans are not great at driving according to the rules of the road consistently… but we happen to be savants at handling unusual situations. Computers can’t do that at all.
Put me in a white-out and I can still navigate (though slowly). Put me in a torrential downpour and I can figure out where the road is, my safe braking distance, anticipate where hydroplaning may be an issue, understand the difficulties of trying to safely pass a transport truck, etc. Close lanes due to an accident and I can zipper into the remaining lanes – or even onto a shoulder – to get around it. Put me on a freshly paved road without lines and I can still figure out where my car should be.
Right now, computers should be limited to ABS, traction control, adaptive cruise control, and alerting drivers of lane drift. There’s not even any point in autopilot since a human should always be on active standby in case the computer screws up – I think autopilot features ought to be illegal.
Figuring out how to get a computer to drive as well as a human ought to be done in simulators until they can be demonstrated to be safer than humans in realistic scenarios. We are not there yet, and ‘stop and wait for the environment to change’ is not a practical solution for every time a computer gets confused.
If something goes wrong, hopefully the bot and/or the passenger could contact a remote human driver to handle a contingency.

Why are these cars allowed on the road at all at this point? Humans are not great at driving according to the rules of the road consistently… but we happen to be savants at handling unusual situations.
No we aren’t. I know a person who was driving up a treacherous bluff road from their cabin. Being in a woodsy area, a spider had crawled into their car and fell on their lap. They freaked out and drove off the side of the bluff and into a tree.
The other factor is distracted or impaired driving, which is the cause of the vast majority of accidents. Computers just don’t do that. One of the two accident’s I’ve ever been involved in was being rear-ended in stop-and-go rush hour traffic. I immediately looked in
As always, the exception proves the rule. Your anecdotes demonstrate the opposite of what you believe.
Humans are distracted _all the fucking time_ yet relatively speaking have very few avoidable accidents.
None of these systems stands a chance in any of the situations the person you’re replying to mentioned. You conveniently ignored everything he said and talked about one chick freaking out from one spider one time.
Hey, you know what? I’ve had a spider crawl across my lap and I HATE spiders. They fucking
Indeed.
I had an aunt killed by a distracted driver.
Another aunt ended like 8 foot up stuck between two trees. Due to the serious injuries, her short term memory never got written to long term, so to this day, nobody really knows what happened. This was well before cell phones, by the way, and on a remote road. No cameras.
My brother was rear ended by a vehicle this year after picking up a new work truck to bring back to the shop
My mother was on a bus when a woman t-boned it and then claimed she never saw
> we happen to be savants at handling unusual situations
When unusual things happen, many panic or freeze, quite many misses the thing completely. But unusual events are not what causes accidents. Here is a list of top 5 reasons:
        Distracted driving
        Drunk and drugged driving
        Poor weather
        Reckless driving and road rage
        Speeding
We don’t need a computer that can handle unusual events. If it can just drive normally in normal conditions, we have already avoided majority of accidents.
> Figuring out how to get a computer to drive as well as a human ought to be done in simulators
Waymo has driven 20 billion miles in simulation. They also build their own city to test the cars by throwing boxes at the cars etc. They are already far better than human on average driving. Only problem is that in unusual conditions they stop moving. I suspect that they could make the car to drive in those situations also, but they want to avoid accidents the best they can, and stopping is the safest reaction when you are not sure.
Wait– you just made two posts saying how great human drivers are. Now you say:

I live in an area with a LOT of older drivers. They incorrectly think that driving slower – safer. Wrong. They are in the way and causing traffic to flow wrong because they are in the way and not driving normally. Their unexpected and inappropriate driving causes wrecks.
Now you’re saying human drivers are flawed and their “unexpected and inappropriate driving causes wrecks.” Which?
Or maybe you’re saying that only young people should be allowed to drive, and “older drivers” should all use self-driving cars?
(except that contradicts actual statistics, which show that older drivers are actually much safer than young drivers, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1… [nytimes.com] )
Yes a small subset of humans drives too slow. And? We take them off the roads once they start fucking up.
But your stupid computers don’t get taken off the roads. We put more knowingly incompetent drivers on the road with each new robot driver.
What point are you trying to make? That humans are better drivers once they learn how to drive and remain so until they’re very old but computers never learn how to and always suck? Well made point. I agree.
…and use the county’s free old person driving service that I pay for with my taxes to get them off the roads because they are dangerous.
What country has this free (tax paid) elderly driving service?
Does it take them anywhere (shopping, etc) or just to medical appointments?

Except they can’t drive normally in normal conditions. Aiming for emergency vehicles, driving over downed power lines, following a worn or misprinted line off the road into a barrier, and so on. People don’t do these things.
Oh, yes they do. All of these.
Driver hits emergency vehicle: https://www.google.com/search?… [google.com]
Driver hits downed power lines: https://www.wsmv.com/2022/11/2… [wsmv.com]
Driver hits barrier: https://www.google.com/search?… [google.com]
Additional things human drivers do:
Drive into water: https://www.wesh.com/article/n… [wesh.com]
Drive through wet concrete, bypassing barriers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?… [youtube.com]
Drives into storefront, hitting a person: https://www.mysuncoast.com/202… [mysuncoast.com]
etc…
You would be hard pressed to find something that AI cars will do that human drivers won’t, I think.
Oh shit, there 3 people who did something bad. And billions on the planet who didn’t.
Thanks again for agreeing with me that humans vastly out perform computers in unusual situations. I appreciate the research support and backup, friend. If we keep telling the truth, one day maybe they will disallow computers from sharing the roads with people and killing us while leaving no one responsible for the deaths and damage the computers inflict.
You said

people don’t do these things.
You were wrong.
End of story.

> we happen to be savants at handling unusual situations
When unusual things happen, many panic or freeze, quite many misses the thing completely. But unusual events are not what causes accidents. Here is a list of top 5 reasons:
Distracted driving
Drunk and drugged driving
Poor weather
Reckless driving and road rage
Speeding
We don’t need a computer that can handle unusual events. If it can just drive normally in normal conditions, we have already avoided majority of accidents.
I kinda agree with you here.
In order to be safer AV’s don’t need to be better drivers than humans, they just need to be barely adequate drivers, and not do really stupid stuff. (though it’s kinda hard for them to fix the weather).
But they haven’t reached that bar yet.

> Figuring out how to get a computer to drive as well as a human ought to be done in simulators
Waymo has driven 20 billion miles in simulation. They also build their own city to test the cars by throwing boxes at the cars etc. They are already far better than human on average driving.
Waymo certainly seems better than Cruise (who keeps making the news for the wrong reasons) but I’m not sure there’s evidence to say they’re better than human. “Average driving” contains a lot of special cases. Just yesterday part of the highway

Why are these cars allowed on the road at all at this point? Humans are not great at driving according to the rules of the road consistently… but we happen to be savants at handling unusual situations.
Wrong. Correctly stated: some happen to be savants at handling unusual situations.
But others, not so good.

Computers can’t do that at all. Put me in a white-out and I can still navigate (though slowly).
OK, you give one example. The 232,999,999 other human drivers in America remain to be examined.
… and, believing that one can handle it in a white-out is exactly the problem. When people think this, incorrectly, that is what causes crashes. 93% of Americans think that their driving skills are above average. [smithlawco.com]

Put me in a torrential downpour and I can figure out where the road is, my safe braking distance, anticipate where hydroplaning may be an issue, understand the difficulties of trying to safely pass a transport truck, etc. Close lanes due to an accident and I can zipper into the remaining lanes – or even onto a shoulder – to get around it. Put me on a freshly paved road without lines and I can still figure out where my car should be.
So, your syllogism is “one human being (me) is good at driving in complex situations.Therefore a
Here’s a recent article [arstechnica.com] about it. It concludes that Waymo is already much safer than most human drivers. Cruise isn’t as good as Waymo yet, but it isn’t obviously worse than a human. That’s based on the accidents that happened over several million miles driven without a human driver in the car.
This is odd. I was listening to a podcast yesterday which pointed out that San Francisco uses a surprisingly tiny number of taxis compared to other cities. Something like 1% of rides are for hire (although I don’t know the number in, say, Manhattan).
I also find it breathtaking that the head of the ride share driver organization, a job which didn’t exist 15 years ago, has the balls to object that his job isn’t secure. Cry me an ocean, and cry one for cable TV installers, Blockbuster clerks, and car mechanics who know how to adjust a carburetor.
He’s also missing who’s ultimately running the show: customers. Tech titans can’t make people get in robotaxies if they don’t want to. Customers want cheap, safe, comfortable, and rapid transportation from point A to point B. If you and your compatriots can’t find a way to provide it, someone else will. Either figure it out of find another job but don’t go whining about how you need government force to make people do what you want.
I’ll tell you why I have little sympathy. I’m a programmer. I spent years getting good at what I do. I’m also staring down the barrel of Copilot and Codium trying to automate my job away. And I’m not worried because I know there are a bazillion things we haven’t coded yet because it’s never been worth the programmer time. Now it is. The lesson is, technology automates away some jobs and in the process, opens possibilities for new jobs we couldn’t afford before. That’s been the lesson of the last 400 years and I see no reason to believe now is any different.

CBS News spoke to Edward Escobar, a Bay Area Uber driver… “There isn’t any dialogue happening. It’s pretty much one-sided. It’s being dictated by the tech titans
That’s so ironic. Just a few years ago people were saying the same thing about Uber. There was no dialog. It was one sided. A big tech company came in and dictated what would happen, ignored all the laws about licensing taxi drivers, and just did what they wanted. Now a few years later they’re the establishment suddenly angry about the newest technology threatening their business the same way they threatened taxis.
“We’re talking about millions, if not billions, of people being displaced,” said Edward Escobar with Alliance for Independent Workers. “Not just here locally, but nationally and globally.”
Just as calculators (a job title for those who usually sat in bullpens doing calculations instructed by engineers and scientists) were largely replaced by calculators (instruments) and computers. Or just as switchboard operators were largely replaced by automated switching systems. Or just as vacuum tube assembly workers w
“CBS News spoke to Edward Escobar, a Bay Area Uber driver…”
How ironic that it is an Uber driver being interviewed. This list of concerns could have been copy/pasted to the protests *AGAINST* Uber drivers, less than 4-5 years ago.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
NASA’s ‘MOXIE’ Experiment Successfully Generated 122 Grams of Oxygen on Mars
Startup Building Zinc-Based Alternatives to Lithium Batteries Granted $400M Loan from the US
“But this one goes to eleven.” — Nigel Tufnel

source