• virr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    It is like a bunch of the self-driving companies are trying to kill the tech by making the public turn against them.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was stoked for them to get here. My entire life between my house and my kid’s school is inundated in self driving cars. I live it. I fucking hate them. And elderly people in Teslas.

      • Pipoca@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s a good solution here: walkable, mixed use neighborhoods.

        Self driving cars are just going to make traffic worse, by increasing people’s tolerance to traffic.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nah, it’s just that the “fail fast” process doesn’t work or more accurately isn’t acceptable for critical life-or-death systems.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I was in SF recently and got stuck behind a self driving car that was trying to turn down a closed street. The street had a police barrier up and it just sat there with its blinker on waiting for the street to open up. Meanwhile, everyone behind it is stuck there waiting for it to make a turn that it would never be able to make.

    Eventually, after sitting in traffic for ten minutes, not knowing what was up, cars in front of me started to move around it and then I realized what was going on. I understand why people hate these things.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      To be fair, I had a similar thing happen a human driver the other day. Except there was no barricade…they just wouldn’t turn. They finally made the left turn on the fourth yellow lol.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They did, I’m sorry that isn’t what the article wanted to show. That is what we call propaganda.

          If you find facts thay differ from that let me know.

          • JoBo@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s the DMV claiming that the footage was withheld, the article was amended to include Cruise’s denial. The facts are in dispute. But what is beyond doubt is that it is the DMV making the claim, not a random journalist. The article includes the Order of Suspension from the DMV citing the reason:

            On October 3, 2023. representatives ofthe Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol met with representatives from Cruise to discuss the accident. During the meeting. the department was shown video footage of the accident captured by the AV’s onboard cameras. The video footage presented to the department ended with the AV initial stop following the hard-braking ‘maneuver. Footage ofthe subsequent movement ofthe AV to perform a pullover maneuver was not shown to the department and Cruise did not disclose that any additional movement of the vehicle had occurred after the initial stop ofthe vehicle. The department only learnedof the AV’s subsequent movement via discussion with another government agency. The department requested Cruise provide a copy of the video with the additional footage, which was received by the department on October 13. 2023.

            I know that boots are real tasty and all but you’re spending your free time lying to defend a corporation and that is just fucking weird behaviour.

          • wahming@monyet.cc
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            They did [release the video]

            Source or link? If you mean provided to the DMV, I wouldn’t call that released.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I live in the Bay Area and mostly ignored these developments because I primarily stick to East Bay. But as my new job has me going to SF on a semi-regular basis, I can’t help but be mildly afraid of getting taken out by an AV. Gdi.

    • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yesterday I saw a couple, including a Waymo that passed a few feet away as I got in my car. It proceeded without incident but I couldn’t help feeling nervous to trust that its lidar saw me and it interpreted me as a human.

      • Goronmon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It proceeded without incident but I couldn’t help feeling nervous to trust that its lidar saw me and it interpreted me as a human.

        I can’t say I view an average driver with any more trust though.

        • dantheclamman@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes, if anything it helps expose that we rely too much on cars as a society. That being said, I can make eye contact with a driver, judge their attention more effectively. I do hope driverless tech eventually improves but am concerned about the responsibility of some of the companies currently in the lead of developing the technology.

          • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Ofc, you can still make eye contact with someone and have them then say “oh my god, I didn’t see you there!” because there were spacing out/wandering in their mind.

  • ji59@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    11 months ago

    I would guess the autonomous vehicle is safer then the hit & run driver who threw the pedestrian under that AV.

      • MrSqueezles@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        because a human driver would have handed that dash cam footage right over voluntarily.

        I agree this is terrible and DMV did the right thing. Context helps.

    • wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      As a disabled dude, let’s have both. I can’t make the short trip to my nearby bus stop, this would be taxes that I would never benefit from. But personal cars or services like these, I can make it down my driveway.

      It blows my mind how many people, when talking about transportation, just completely forget that not totally-capable people exist. I guess we are all supposed to stay in one place and never go anywhere due to a physical disability.

      I’ll happily vote for taxes to enhance public transport, if everyone votes to keep services like these also improving and growing, especially in areas where municipal services are lacking or completely unavailable. Uber and Lyft were my only access to restaurants and groceries for a time. Shit gets expensive, but it’s better than literally having to beg friends to get my groceries every week.

      Just don’t forget about those who can’t enjoy the infrastructure.

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    When DMV asked for footage of that part of the incident, Cruise provided it.

    So they were a little sneaky in not presenting all the evidence up front, but they didn’t really withhold it in as bad a way as the title implies.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.

        • wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything

          Anybody reasonable reading the article understands the obligation is there.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah a reasonable person would decide that on the balance of probabilities here, but we’re talking about the process through which a licence is revoked, which needs to be more concrete.

            • wahming@monyet.cc
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              The actual document from the DMV lists the omission as one of the reasons.

              During the meeting on October 3. 2023. Cruise failed to disclose that the AV executed a pullover maneuver that increased the risk of, and may have caused, further injury to a pedestrian. Cruise’s omission hinders the ability of the department to effectively and timely evaluate the safe operation of Cruise’s vehicles and puts the safety of the public at risk