Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States

California Allows Robo-Taxis To Expand (npr.org) 47

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report: A battle has been brewing in San Francisco over driverless cars. Hundreds of the autonomous vehicles have been roaming city streets over the past couple of years. On Thursday, the California Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, voted 3-1 to let self-driving car companies expand their programs and start charging passengers like taxis. The build-up before the Commission's vote Thursday was tense. Public comment lasted more than six hours. Much of that testimony was about how autonomous vehicles have impeded emergency operations in the city.

San Francisco's police and fire departments have urged the CPUC to oppose the expansion â" they say they've tallied 55 incidents where self-driving cars have got in the way of rescue operations in just the last six months. The incidents include running through yellow emergency tape, blocking firehouse driveways and refusing to move for first responders. "Our folks cannot be paying attention to an autonomous vehicle when we've got ladders to throw," San Francisco Fire Chief Jeanine Nicholson said in a public meeting on Monday providing commissioners testimony before Thursday's vote. "I am not anti-technology, I am pro-safety."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Allows Robo-Taxis To Expand More

California Allows Robo-Taxis To Expand

Comments Filter:

  • California Allows Robo-Taxis To Expand

    Does this mean that they're now allowing autonomous driving conversions of stretched Lincoln Town Cars and Ford Excursions?

  • who is deemed to be in control for things like DUI?
    as some sleeping an in car can get an dui by just having the keys on them.

    • Re:who is deemed to be in control for things like (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday August 11, 2023 @12:47PM (#63759634)

      who is deemed to be in control for things like DUI?

      For Tesla Autopilot and other self-driving technology available to the public, the driver must be alert and ready to take control. So the driver can be charged with DUI even if the software caused an accident.

      The self-driving taxis in California are licensed differently, and the passenger is not required to be alert so can sleep or pass out or whatever.

      The laws may be different in other states.

      sleeping an in car can get an dui by just having the keys on them.

      These cars don't have keys. Even if they did, the passengers would not have them.

      • but keys = control of the car.
        so an court can see that access to an app = in control.

        also keys can = being able to enter the car and cars have digital keys now days so they do have the keys.

        • but keys = control of the car.

          There are no keys and the passenger does not control the car, other than setting the destination.

          so an court can see that access to an app = in control.

          That makes no sense, and the law permitting these robo-taxis makes it clear the passenger is not the "driver".

          • setting the destination may = control under the laws
            also if there is an E-stop button in side that may also = control as well.

            • If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, then it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic. - Tweedledum

              • In some states If the person in the vehicle can be argued to be "in control" of the vehicle in any way, then they can definitely be charged.

                • In some states If the person in the vehicle can be argued to be "in control" of the vehicle in any way, then they can definitely be charged.

                  Citation needed. What state says that using an Uber app makes the customer the driver? Or any other app that ONLY allows the user to set a destination?

                  And stop using weasel words like "can be argued".

                  It "can be argued" that there are purple elephants living in Antarctica. That doesn't make it so.

                  • well the laws are vague on control and with cars that don't have an old style ignition (make the point of whether they're in or out of the ignition) not be an thing.

                    also when you have things like Tesla App can that act as an key that may very well have an app = in control of the car. also groups like madd make fight laws that make easier to get off on an DUI.

                  • https://manshoorylaw.com/blog/... [manshoorylaw.com]
                    While California law does not include a definition of the word “driving,” it does define the word “driver” to mean “a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.” The courts have also clarified this definition to mean that driving requires any deliberate movement of a vehicle, no matter how slight.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'd rather ride with a human driver that is drunk than a computer driver whose vehicle is not on rails.

      • And the data you have to support that conclusion is... what, exactly?

        • A work in IT and know the limitations of programmers, I've been a truck driver, and I went to college for civil engineering and transportation management. I've also been watching the rollout of spicy cruise control and seen it fare only slightly better than the motorhome in Anchorman 2. Cars are dangerous enough without putting an algorithm that's only slightly worse than the NPC cars in American Truck Simulator out on the road. At least they consistently can see and understand the world around them comp

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by PCM2 ( 4486 )

            Waymo self-driving cars cruise around my neighborhood all the time. I figure I see one about every other day, and sometimes twice in one day. We aren't talking about "spicy cruise control," here. We're talking about fully self-driving cars with nobody in the driver's seat—something Elon Musk can only stutter and fantasize about.

  • as will almost all taxies. Robo taxies still can't handle bad weather, so I suspect they'll be some "gig" workers living like migrant farm workers who get made to drive when the robot can't. It's not going to be a nice life though. These are people already scraping by. I suspect they'll be joining the 40-60% of homeless with full time jobs [councilfor...meless.org].

    It's one of the dirty little things we don't talk about. How do places like fast food restaurants manage to stay open in ultra high cost of living places like San Fra

    • Robo taxies still can't handle bad weather

      Accidents increase in bad weather, but for Tesla Autopilot, accidents increase in bad weather by less than the increase with human drivers.

      So the safety gap between Autopilot and humans actually increases in inclement weather.

    • The guy at the sandwich shop near my old job in downtown SF commutes in on BART. Just like I did. Because city housing is too expensive for everyone who isn't super rich or got locked in years earlier.

      Paying $50/hr won't make a difference in places like that.

      I have no idea what to say to your bizarre idea that there will be roaming packs of migrant gig cab drivers drifting from place to place driving people when robo taxis fail. That's some weird ass dystopian comedy drama you got going on. We should hi

  • Well, humans also get in the way of rescue operations, and probably also run through yellow emergency tape, block firehouse driveways and refuse to move for first responders.

    Some drivers are remarkably bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Well, humans also get in the way of rescue operations, and probably also run through yellow emergency tape, block firehouse driveways and refuse to move for first responders.

      They do. And human drivers will continue to cause these problems in the future.

      For self-driving cars, now that the problem has been identified, situations with emergency tape and fire hoses can be added to the training data, and the problem will be fixed.

      Software improves. Humans don't.

      • Well, that would depend on whether the software is ignoring police tape and fire hoses because it has yet to be told to react to them, or whether the software is ignoring police tape and fire hoses because the sensors lack the resolution to identify them.
        What does police tape look like to a LIDAR, anyway?

        • Teslas don't use LIDAR.

          Other cars use LIDAR in addition to multiple high-resolution cameras.

          The cameras can see the yellow tape.

          • So your plan is we turn city streets into a live action beta test zone for corporations to run us down and fuck up emergency services so they can profit.

            Fabulous. I can't wait to be a street Guinea pig for every fucking idiot company with a "break it fast" coding mentality where I'm the thing they're breaking.

            If the CEO and Board were subject to criminal charges for getting innocent people killed these things would be a lot safer and they'd already have thought of things they currently ignore until after t

            • Look at it this way - if you're going to be beta-testing self-driving cars, I can think of no better place than California. Whatever collateral damage they produce will only be a plus.

              • Look at it this way - if you're going to be beta-testing self-driving cars, I can think of no better place than California. Whatever collateral damage they produce will only be a plus.

                If that's the logic being applied... I'd prefer the self-driving vehicles be beta-tested around Mar a Lago in Florida.

      • The thing is that software does not always gets better with new version, it does get worse sometimes. With humans you do something you get better at it. With software you can completely ruins some feature with a clever bug in the new version. With humans you can *expect* some average behaviour, not so much with current driving AI. It can be very careful with some police tape here and now, and just drive through a bunch of children 5 minutes later and 1 km away from here. You just never know. You just have t
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • who is responsible for the operation of a vehicle? in case say some dies in an crash?

  • Can this be an Olympic sport?

  • Autonomous driving is luxury not necessity. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Friday August 11, 2023 @01:51PM (#63759916)

    Therefore until it's perfected it need not be on public roads.
    There is zero reason to rush.

    • There are many people who cannot drive themselves, such as elderly people or those with certain physical limitations. Some may not be comfortable with an unknown Uber driver. There are certainly many good reasons to want autonomous transportation.

      The technology will *never* be perfected, no technology ever is. How good is good enough?

      Perfect is the enemy of good.

  • If California was centrist or progressive, it wouldn't be tripping over itself to give billionaires with bad ideas legal access to killbots like this.

    • California is right wing conservative?

      No.

      California is elite rich liberal progressive run.

      Being pro-billionaire is not anti-progressive these days.

      California needs taxes from tech companies to pay for their socially progressive policies.

Slashdot Top Deals

And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

Close