Driverless Taxis Blocked Ambulance in Fatal Accident, San Francisco Fire Dept. Says
Driverless Taxis Blocked Ambulance in Fatal Accident, San Francisco Fire Dept. Says
Two Cruise taxis delayed an ambulance carrying a car accident victim to a hospital, a department report said. The company said it was not at fault.
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're viewing a single thread.
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.
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).
Permanently Deleted
But what's the reason for firing taxi drivers in favor of driverless cars? All I can see is it's a novelty.
Permanently Deleted
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?
Permanently Deleted
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.
About 10 years ago the Canadian federal government dropped and/or eliminated duty tariffs on hockey and other sports equipment in order to encourage families to get their kids to participate in organized sports. More kids in organized sports would hopefully keep kids out of trouble, and encourage a healthier lifestyle. Guess what, retailers kept the cost of the equipment the same and pocketed the savings of now not having to pay duty tariffs on jockey skates coming from China and other overseas manufacturers.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Pyongyang?
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 think he's referring to the people who may not support having these on the road yet having to deal with them on the road.
You'd have a point if every governing body was appointed unanimously by their subjects.
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.