this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2023
316 points (96.7% liked)

News

23072 readers
3274 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sugarfree@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The benefit is profit for the taxi companies.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Obviously that, but there are a bunch of people in this thread who love the idea and I don't get it.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

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).

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Neato@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lem453@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Falmarri@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The city has to "put up" with it by allowing them to be tested there? What?

[–] sugarfree@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The city government allowed it and the city residents have to put up with it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

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.

[–] malloc@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (24 children)

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.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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?

load more comments (4 replies)

Combined with e-bikes to “flatten” hills and make distance traveling easier, we could really make some amazing improvements to city design.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] CosmicSploogeDrizzle@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago
[–] bobman@unilem.org 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I definitely think self-driving cars are the future.

That said, we shouldn't rush and put them out before they are ready.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] 3laws@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

save lives

You are not saving lives by blocking emergency services.

[–] Bbbbbbbbbbb@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] bobman@unilem.org 4 points 1 year ago

Good lord.

Read what he says with your thinking cap on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] solstice@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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?!?

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›