r/technology May 08 '23

Transportation ‘No! You stay!’ Cops, firefighters bewildered as driverless cars behave badly

https://missionlocal.org/2023/05/waymo-cruise-fire-department-police-san-francisco/
925 Upvotes

201 comments sorted by

304

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

Lmao, talking to it like it’s a dog 💀

107

u/ilikedirts May 08 '23

A pig taking to a dog? Sounds like the setup for a joke

62

u/Ludwigofthepotatoppl May 08 '23

Surprised he didn’t just shoot it like one.

86

u/PedroEglasias May 08 '23

He would, but it's a white car

16

u/phish_phace May 08 '23

Got’ dayum. Hello, police? I have a murder to report…

9

u/Zealousideal-Tax-496 May 08 '23

I would be interested to see how it goes up if they actually pierce the battery or other internals, but I bet it would take a lot of small arms fire.

8

u/Charlie_Mouse May 08 '23

I’d lay you decent odds some police departments try to use that as justification for purchasing anti-materiel rifles.

5

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

The only reason I disagree with you is that I doubt they feel that they need a justification at all.

3

u/TastyAgency4604 May 08 '23

Now you gotta put the house and the car out

20

u/mxm0xmx May 08 '23

Cops are like a box of chocolates—they’ll kill your dog.

5

u/-Dirty-Wizard- May 08 '23

That’s a simple one. Cops soul purpose is to protect property not people. He wouldn’t be doing his job unless he was at least shooting someone in the car who may be attempting to harm the property.

3

u/Jeraimee May 08 '23

Wait, I know this one. "But the bacon was good!" Great punchline.

1

u/APeacefulWarrior May 08 '23

Two legs good, four wheels bad.

0

u/Certain-Data-5397 May 08 '23

Reddit take

1

u/ilikedirts May 09 '23

Calm down bud

1

u/Pure_Cucumber_2129 May 08 '23

Serious Animal Farm vibes

1

u/thegreatrusty May 08 '23

Hmmmmmm needs a Rabi

1

u/Outrageous-Machine-5 May 08 '23

Sounds like Animal Farm

145

u/marketrent May 08 '23

Excerpt:1

“No!” shouts the cop, as captured in his body-worn camera footage. “You stay!”

The incident occurred on Feb. 9, during one of San Francisco’s more memorable recent emergencies: A dollar-store Walter White apparently lost control of his Sunset District garage dope factory, resulting in a lethal explosion and fire.

And, to make it a truly San Francisco scene, a driverless Waymo vehicle subsequently proceeded to meander into the middle of things, like an autonomous Mr. Magoo.

“It doesn’t know what to do!” shouts an officer caught in the background of the body-worn camera footage. “I’ll pop a flare!” responds the cop wearing the camera. “There’ll be hella smoke in the front.”

 

Mission Local has obtained some 15 Fire Department incident reports documenting dangerous and/or nuisance situations in which Waymo or Cruise vehicles interfered with fire vehicles or emergency scenes.

The vast majority of these reported incidents occurred in recent months, and a majority took place in April (driverless cars were only in December given the green light by the state to traverse San Francisco 24/7).

1 Joe Eskenazi (1 May 2023), “‘No! You stay!’ Cops, firefighters bewildered as driverless cars behave badly”, https://missionlocal.org/2023/05/waymo-cruise-fire-department-police-san-francisco/

194

u/SuperSpread May 08 '23

Fine them $10000 per violation for interfering with emergency services, plus damages. Problem solved.

111

u/bikesexually May 08 '23

Seriously. You'd be fining a driver for this. Why wouldn't you be fining the company that created this mess.

28

u/Good_old_Marshmallow May 08 '23

At what point does a company lose its license like a driver would

9

u/Particular_Sun8377 May 08 '23

If only these things were thought of before they let corporations do whatever they want. But that's SF for you- anything to placate big tech.

2

u/Kyanche May 08 '23 edited Feb 17 '24

capable bow rain coherent march practice ugly cautious seemly follow

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

5

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

That seems low. Fines like that will get treated as the cost of doing business.

Instead, how about passing a city ordinance making them responsible for the entire cost of the emergency response. And if, say, their car blocks an ambulance transporting a heart attack victim, and the patient dies? Make the company liable for manslaughter.

3

u/SuperSpread May 08 '23

I did say plus damages. If no special damages happen, the fine is enough.

A fine for misusing HOV or handicap parking doesn't need to be excessive. Just whatever is enough to make people stop.

Since people's lives are at stake here, that is why the fine should be much higher. But it's enough to get people to stop.

1

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

A fine for misusing HOV or handicap parking doesn't need to be excessive. Just whatever is enough to make people stop.

The general problem is that a fine that is large enough to make an individual stop is usually way, way too low to make a corporation stop.

24

u/ChanceStad May 08 '23

The fine should go to the manufacturer, and should be much more punitive.

6

u/HaElfParagon May 08 '23

Why would you fine the manufacturer? The manufacturer didn't order the car to drive through this place, the owner did.

12

u/raygundan May 08 '23

I suspect they mean Waymo here (who converted the car into its current self-driving configuration) not the original car manufacturer.

They built it, they own it, they run it. Makes sense for them to get the ticket.

0

u/HaElfParagon May 08 '23

Then why did they say manufacturer and not owner?

4

u/raygundan May 08 '23

Because like most things, there's dozens of manufacturers involved, including Waymo. If the failure is because of the self-driving software, that would be the fault of the manufacturer responsible for that software.

3

u/SuperSpread May 08 '23

If I built a car to carry industrial loads of fertilizer and it exploded leveling a 6-story building, would I be liable? I would, but it would take a lawsuit.

A fine just formalizes the minimum for the risk involved, without a lawsuit. Because any one of these can kill someone.

A person's negligence and convenience do not take priority over lives.

1

u/ChanceStad May 08 '23 edited May 08 '23

Who do you think taught it to behave the way it does, and has the ability to change it?

-3

u/jews4beer May 08 '23

That logic just doesn't work when applied generally. When you get food poisoning at a restaurant do you blame the chef or their suppliers?

5

u/raygundan May 08 '23

When you get food poisoning at a restaurant do you blame the chef or their suppliers?

That really depends. We've had examples of both in the news in recent years. Sometimes the issue is the supplier's fault (spinach recalls, for example), and sometimes the issue is the restaurant's fault.

6

u/ChanceStad May 08 '23

The software is literally making the decisions. The company that wrote it is telling it to act this way. I'm not saying the owner doesn't share some of the blame, but the software is responsible for how the car acts.

-6

u/jews4beer May 08 '23

You can't think of everything software does as by design. Rather it is not programmed to handle the situation of a cop barking at it.

According to the owner's manual and the agreements people sign when they purchase autonomous vehicles - It is not meant to be used without supervision. This is clearly the user's fault.

Of course that still means the company should address the issue. But people not buying their cars over false misconceptions of how the autopilot works - gives them the exact incentive to do that. All while holding the correct people responsible for the specific incident.

3

u/crazy_forcer May 09 '23

Waymo is a taxi service. You don't purchase taxis. And afaik it is the only service allowed without a backup driver, so it's very much meant to be used without supervision. As to software - we're talking about blame, not whether or not it's programmed to respond to emergencies.

-46

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

21

u/3leggeddick May 08 '23

It would held in court if it becomes law. Speeding doesn’t cause $200+ on road damages yet the cops can give you a ticket and that holds in court extremely well

-36

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

14

u/Masterjts May 08 '23

Which constitutionally protected rights of the drive less car would be violated again? I must have missed the drive less car section of my constitutional rights class...

-18

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

3

u/Masterjts May 08 '23

Ah, 2nd amendment then... gotcha

2

u/HaElfParagon May 08 '23

Literally nothing he said has anything to do with the 2nd amendment, what are you smoking?

2

u/Masterjts May 08 '23

He modified his post, his original post was gibberish so I responded with gibberish.

0

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

2

u/Masterjts May 08 '23

I was posting nonsense because were posting nonsense but you then went back and edited your post to be slightly less nonsensical. Still it doesnt apply at all to your claim that a fine against a driverless car company would be unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that would protect a car company from such fines.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/3leggeddick May 08 '23

Driverless cars are still property like an animal or a house. Did you know if you build a concrete mail box on your property and a car crashes into it you could be liable for damages?, it’s your mail box on your property but you’d be on the hook. Same concept applies to this

9

u/rivalarrival May 08 '23

A fine isn't compensation for damages. A fine is a punitive measure intended to ensure future compliance.

This should be a $10,000 fine and the cost of the road flare.

-1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

The fine is the motivator to the manufacturer for not including technology to prevent the interference of the vehicle in emergency situations. If the technology is not adequate to function within the already established system then it isn’t fit to be an available product yet. The system isn’t going to accommodate a driverless vehicle wandering around bc there’s not enough greater benefit to society, in fact, it’s creating a problem. The car needs to adapt to the environment that existed before it did. They will be fined for that until they find a solution and make their product functional and quit creating problems for the current system

-3

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

This isn’t about cops this is about driverless vehicles interfering with emergency situations. You’re obsessed with everyone hearing your opinion on cops and no one else here is talking about that because that isn’t the topic. Grow up

2

u/rivalarrival May 08 '23

The cop in this scenario isn't the problem. The problem is the car trying to drive over firehoses. What the fuck are you even on about?

-2

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/rivalarrival May 08 '23

Vehicles are just one of many possible ways to secure a scene against vehicle traffic. Officers directing traffic away from the scene is another legitimate method.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/windyorbits May 08 '23

Wait, do you think that $10k fine will be issued to that specific driverless car?

And I’m not sure where unprofessional cop comes into play here. I mean, usually they are but not in this specific situation. Officer told it to “stay” as a joke while he’s trying to get the car to stop inching towards the water hose with a flare and standing in front of it. Then they all laugh about skynet.

0

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/windyorbits May 08 '23

Didn’t see it. But please show me which comment you’re talking about. I’m eager to see how you’ve managed to avoid answering their question as well. Thanks.

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/windyorbits May 09 '23

Ok, well that in no way answered my question.

So let’s try this again - where is the comment you claim is from another user that asks you if you think that $10k fine will be issued to that specific driverless car?

Or we can just go ahead and skip all that and you can just answer the original question. Which is, in case you forgot, do you think that $10k fine will be issued to that specific driverless car?

1

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

A fine is a punitive measure intended to ensure future compliance.

Maybe in the dictionary, sure. Most fines applied to companies are clearly not intended to ensure future compliance, because they are so low that they can be treated as the cost of doing business. If the government actually intended fines to ensure future compliance, they would be defined as a (high) percentage of the company's annual revenue as reported to shareholders.

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

37

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

The smoke probably doesn’t work because these cars switch from LiDAR to microwave radar in foggy conditions.

5

u/TacTurtle May 08 '23

Then why did one run into a bendy bus?

14

u/FinalMeltdown15 May 08 '23

Take out the competition

1

u/HITWind May 09 '23

To get to the other side

18

u/Taconnosseur May 08 '23

"Bad Car, stay!"

6

u/kat_a_klysm May 08 '23

I got really amused at the “I’ve got a bit of a pickle”

140

u/GetOutOfTheWhey May 08 '23

Personally I think driverless cars should obey all law enforcement directives, especially to avoid such situations.

But the problem is that with this line of reasoning, that would no doubt eventually extend to LEOs being able to remotely shut down your autonomous vehicle or control it.

How okay are we with this? Especially with their track record?

117

u/spdng_pdstrn May 08 '23

The big problem isn't the police abusing their power, it's randoms getting access to whatever magic the police are using and abusing it for crime, etc.

That said: It seems ridiculous that police don't have a way of disabling a fully autonomous vehicle. If there's a human in there who wants to take manual control that's one thing, but if there's no human then the bar should be low for allowing it to be disabled; it's the strictly safer option.

56

u/Sardonislamir May 08 '23

The big problem isn't the police abusing their power, it's randoms
getting access to whatever magic the police are using and abusing it for
crime, etc.

Why not be concerned about both? Police can be good, but they also can be thugs worse than common criminals because they are endowed with responsibility they abuse.

10

u/Heartable May 08 '23

I was gonna say the same thing. Both groups would exploit this power.

5

u/josefx May 08 '23

Because that opens the can of worms that is police abuse of power, which is never ending and will make you run into a wall of deniers.

Just focus on the fact that any random idiot could drive through the city and shut down traffic for good along the way.

2

u/xDulmitx May 08 '23

Suspect was driving erratically and tried to run over officers... we lost the records of all recent car control incidents; why do you ask?

-2

u/mrbrambles May 08 '23

Don’t give power to police, make a separate Autonomous vehicle dept.

36

u/Sherbert-Vast May 08 '23

To be honest, I kinda suprised they are allowed to drive without external emergency off buttons.

If for whatever reason the system does not know where it is, or worse thinks it knows where it is but is wrong and does something unpredictable, how do you stop it if its not your car?

I work in heavy industry and that would not be allowed in ANY working enviroment, why is it allowed on the road?

Emergency OFFs are mandatory!

How do you stop it if it drives towards a dangerous situation it cannot understand?

There would be abuse but having a ton of steel with a hundret horsepower do whatever it wants is also very bad IMO.
There are points when you need to communicate with humans to be safe while driving, be it hand signs, shouting, whatever.

You could intergrate something like chatgpt but since AIs still tend to lie and misunderstand reality completly that probably would be worse.

Autonomous cars are still a bad idea with current technology.

19

u/E_Snap May 08 '23

An external E-stop button is so, so stupid in a scenario like this. I have several acquaintances that jump in front of driverless vehicles and dance around and shit and throw cones in front of them just to fuck them up. If they had an external E-stop, idiots like that would just run out into the road, smack it, and run away. Just for shiggles. Then we’d have ridiculous traffic problems all over the place.

Edit: Plus, for a multi-ton robot potentially moving at high speed, it probably creates a false sense of safety to even have the external E-stop. Because if there is a problem, the absolute last thing you want is some random bystander to charge at the car and try to hit the button. The car may try to juke out of the way, or it may not see them, or the person may just powerslide under the wheels by accident.

11

u/TreAwayDeuce May 08 '23

Yep. There would probably be tick tock challenges for it too

5

u/Accomplished-B May 08 '23

This. Primary user of a T7- Brain. Even people who know better will hit the E-stop for giggles and petty reasons. The last guy i chatted with about not touching the robot said (ps: we know who did it because it takes pictures and video), "but it kept following me specifically, and making me move" he stopped it at a busy intersection blocking everything, smh. It's following a preprogrammed root.. not you. It's not that smart.. yet.

15

u/Sherbert-Vast May 08 '23

Then maybe if you can't make a usable emergency stop and the software is not good enought to not freak out and put people in danger maybe we should not allow autonomous cars.

People will mess with autonoumous cars no matter if they have an e-stop or not.
You just need a spray can or stickers, cover the cameras.

Even Leidar can be easily messed with. Thats really no argument for me.

Autonomous cars will be messed with. With E-Stop or not, I would prefer to have ANY option of telling it to stop if it f's up.
A emergency off on a machine can also be abused but we value human life more than the lost production time.

If this wasn't a techbro thing I doubt this would be legal anywhere.
I doubt autonomous cars will be legal in Europe for the next 20 years and I am happy for that.

-7

u/E_Snap May 08 '23

I’m very glad you’re not in charge of the regulation regarding these cars then. Mile for mile they cause far fewer problems than human-operated vehicles.

3

u/Sherbert-Vast May 08 '23

Its just a techbro Hype anyway, i am not concerned.

Like I said it won't be a thing in the near future.

Tesla already abdoned full self driving, autopilot is a joke.

NONE of the autonomous taxi services ever broke even till now.

They will burn the rest of the venture capital they have and pay themselfes nice wages. Then go Bankrupt.

When sensors and AI are actually where they need to be in terms of accuracy and price in a few decades we might have actually useful autonamous cars.

2

u/Iceykitsune2 May 08 '23

Tesla already abdoned full self driving

Source?

0

u/Sherbert-Vast May 08 '23

Thats the only thing you reply to?
Maybe I am wrong with autopilot here but that really was not the main point of my argument.

Searching for something to attack?

Take your GOTCHA, I don't care, it makes no difference.

How long are Muskys promising "Next year"? For the last 10? 5 for sure.

They will never offically abandon it until either Musk is deposed and someone sensible is in charge or the company is taken under by any other of his schemes.

I will end this here. You start to get too adverserial for me to care.
One word responses are a good sign of that.

7

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

An external E-stop button is so, so stupid ... I have several acquaintances that jump in front of driverless vehicles and dance around and shit

Your acquaintances are an order of magnitude more stupid than an external E-stop button.

1

u/E_Snap May 08 '23

As we all know the best safety design philosophy is “ignore the fact that idiots might be present” /s

1

u/spdng_pdstrn May 08 '23

Damage from this sort of thing could be pretty easily mitigated by having:

  1. A stop-override button inside the cabin that passengers can press and hold to allow the car to continue.

  2. An automatic phone home when the e-stop is hit. A remote operator can observe what's going on through the cameras and release the stop and/or call the cops.

2

u/TacTurtle May 08 '23

Why don’t autonomous vehicles have an external emergency stop button like any other piece of industrial hardware?

4

u/mr_mcpoogrundle May 08 '23

The big problem isn't the police abusing their power

I strongly disagree

2

u/JamesR624 May 08 '23

No. Police are the ones most likely to be those “randoms”.

0

u/LowPTTweirdflexbutok May 08 '23

In the article it mentions a separate incident where one of these vehicles would not detour and kept trying to drive through an emergency sealed off area and drive over fire hoses. So putting lives at risk. They eventually broke its driver window and that disabled it.

-3

u/HaElfParagon May 08 '23

The big problem isn't the police abusing their power, it's randoms getting access to whatever magic the police are using and abusing it for crime, etc.

I disagree. I believe a big problem is that our citizens are not allowed to have access tot he same tools that police are.

1

u/slide2k May 08 '23

This is my main issue with a lot of controls. I don’t mind a current decent government to have them. The point some crazy guy takes power, the tools are there to destroy everything

32

u/9-11GaveMe5G May 08 '23

Well there's no driver to shoot what are they supposed to do????

6

u/Pure_Cucumber_2129 May 08 '23

Shoot the passengers. Duh

2

u/belovedeagle May 08 '23

Just a matter of time.

3

u/T732 May 08 '23

So anyway, I started blasting.

1

u/krum May 08 '23

That’s the real problem.

1

u/Datdarnpupper May 08 '23

he screams, for he does not know

8

u/aladdyn2 May 08 '23

Dispatch should just be able to call one number or notify electronically a central service. They could give them the nearest cross streets and what size radius they want blocked. Then the central service would notify any self driving car services operating in the state and they could block off that area that the cars are not allowed to enter temporarily. Seems like that shouldn't be too hard to do.

1

u/___zero__cool___ May 08 '23

Yup. Autonomous drones can respect no fly zones, there’s no reason an autonomous car shouldn’t be able to respect a no drive zone. Idk who would stand something like that up though, the NHSTA, the FHWA, state DOTs?

3

u/rivalarrival May 08 '23

Personally I think driverless cars should obey all law enforcement directives, especially to avoid such situations.

Not just law enforcement. All humans attempting to control traffic. Flaggers in construction zones, for example, or random individuals directing traffic around a crash.

I think if you want to control your car, you should be behind the wheel. If you are not behind the wheel, your vehicle should follow the pointed commands of anyone trying to divert it.

2

u/mailslot May 08 '23

Kids will have a field day with that one. “Turn on and open doors.”

1

u/rivalarrival May 08 '23

I was referring to autonomous operation. If your car is empty, and I tell it to pull over or turn around, it should pull over or turn around, marking that section of road as closed.

If it turns out I have no actual authority or reasonable justification to stop your car, you can sue me or charge me later.

14

u/ShoulderSquirrelVT May 08 '23

Personally I think 4000 pound slabs of metal should not be allowed to roam around on their own without a human in them that can override on-site.

2

u/i_should_be_coding May 08 '23

You realize the wet dream of autonomous vehicles is driverless trucks that get things from A to B with zero humans involved, right?

12

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

5

u/Iceykitsune2 May 08 '23

We invented trains for that.

How do you plan on getting things from the train to the stores?

-4

u/Sequenc3 May 08 '23

Trains have people on board.

7

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

-7

u/Sequenc3 May 08 '23

Your comment is that trains are a solution to driverless vehicles.

Just pointing out that trains have drivers and thus your comment makes no sense. Carry on.

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Sequenc3 May 08 '23

I think you missed the entire topic of conversation.

2

u/TacTurtle May 08 '23

So trains but with extra steps?

0

u/i_should_be_coding May 08 '23

Trains are not unmanned, and only run on a very specific infrastructure. Unmanned trucks can drive wherever, regardless if there's a train station or not. It doesn't have to conform to a train schedule, etc.

2

u/JamesR624 May 08 '23

Yeah. Your explanation is exactly why driverless cars should not do that.

3

u/Farty_Marty_ May 08 '23

A standard emergency override or shutdown seems logical. Maybe not adhering to commands but something to make it sit down and shut up. Like they have devices to ground drones near stadiums or to change lights for emergency vehicles.

-2

u/ClammyHandedFreak May 08 '23

As is usually the answer to your question there is no “we”.

You can’t stop tech companies at this point. Regulations aren’t popular with the CEOs.

3

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

So we take out the CEOs. Or just make them personally liable for the entire cost of the emergency response that they're interfering with.

The idea that executives should get to hide responsibility for their actions behind a corporate structure needs to end, by force.

-16

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

Legalize all drugs, UBI, then driverless cars will work because there’d be no crime or close to none.

2

u/Art-Zuron May 08 '23

disingenuous argument alert

1

u/TacTurtle May 08 '23

2/10 comedy album.

1

u/LeicaM6guy May 08 '23

I’m not okay with it. At all.

Personally, I plan on driving my twenty-year old car until it just can’t run or be repaired anymore, and then invest in something equally old.

1

u/KingofCraigland May 08 '23

How do you keep non-law enforcement personnel from abusing whatever system is in place? People that don't feel safe pulling over when a cop is pulling them over in a dark deserted area will feel even less safe when their car is complying completely outside of their control.

I wonder if it would make sense for such a situation to cause the car to report to the nearest police station or something. Or, if it's a simple traffic violation, why not treat it the way you normally would with a person? Issue a citation and move on. The citation could be issued the same way red light cameras work if departments want to get efficient with the whole exercise.

1

u/Particular_Sun8377 May 08 '23

LEO can disable drones so I don't see the problem.

1

u/danielravennest May 08 '23

One way to handle this is a "hazard zone" transmitter. Police and fire vehicles have it. It knows where it is by GPS, and they can set a hazard radius. Any undriven vehicle should stop or get out of the zone, and notify the vehicle operators so they can disable/take over control/send someone to take over.

Then make it a license requirement for autonomous vehicle operators to have equipment in place to receive the hazard signal and know to get away from the area.

1

u/awkwardstate May 08 '23

Maybe they just need "first responder avoidance". Rather than making them stop, just have them find an alternate route.

11

u/friendoffuture May 08 '23

TL;DR; Driverless cars stop moving when you bust out their windshields.

8

u/TheQuarantinian May 08 '23

If a driver ignores traffic signs and barriers, or causes repeatable and avoidable traffic problems they get tickets, fines, points, and can have their licenses taken away.

Why shouldn't AVs face the same penalties?

That said, should it be on a car by car basis? Or should the points be assessed against the software that runs fleetwide, since it is essentially the same driver?

10

u/lollacakes May 08 '23

Wow they drive more like us every day.

25

u/Stephen_Gawking May 08 '23

Nobody to shoot so the cop doesn’t know what he’s supposed to do.

9

u/tristanjones May 08 '23

only a matter of time until these articles are of cops dumping whole clips into an empty car

4

u/Dramabeats May 08 '23

Reminds me of delamains lost cars in cyberpunk 2077

5

u/KickBassColonyDrop May 08 '23

Tesla's FSD has its fair share of problems. But I'd trust it more in these situations because it still requires a driver behind it when in use. There's still an active intervention point available.

This implementation with Cruise is just plain bad. It's also massively concerning that their ability to handle EMS vehicles is nearly as bad as Tesla from several years ago. It's almost like they haven't trained the AI model at all to deal with EMS. Which I'd argue is quite dangerous.

9

u/400921FB54442D18 May 08 '23

I'm firmly pro-technology and anti-cop, but I would support a city ordinance making the company that operates the vehicle 100% liable for the entire cost of the emergency response if their vehicle crosses a barricade, blocks an emergency vehicle, or interferes with the scene in any way. This would include a company being criminally charged with manslaughter if their vehicle prevented a timely response in a life-or-death situation, like blocking an ambulance that's transporting a heart attack victim, or similar.

Why? Because the only way to motivate a company to fix a product is to threaten their bottom line. If their product is a threat to the safety of the people in their community, they need to remove that product from that community until they can fix it. Full stop, period.

1

u/TacTurtle May 08 '23 edited May 08 '23

It is almost inevitable that someone dies from an AV-induced emergency response delay and the family sues the operators for wrongful / negligent death and wins millions.

3

u/Danthemanlavitan May 09 '23

Surprised the police don't have a portable Stop sign or barrier they could deploy in front of the car. I would think a Stop sign appearing in front of the car should make it stop and then call a uman if the stop sign doesn't move.

Hopefully the car has been taught what a police barrier looks like and it should be programmed to see that and then escalate to a human for help.

9

u/RonYarTtam May 08 '23

We need a handle on the current state of HUMAN drivers honestly. I feel like they're just handing out licenses to anyone who can breath.

3

u/FinalMeltdown15 May 08 '23

The faster the cars drive themselves (and actually do it well and is widely available) the faster that problem is also solved

1

u/RonYarTtam May 09 '23

Oh I agree, but until then (50-75 years who knows) I think lets tighten up the requirements for the privilege of driving.

14

u/Groundbreaking_Pop6 May 08 '23

Cops don't like driverless cars, you can't drag the driver out and kneel on his throat.....

2

u/theoneronin May 08 '23

The writer is hilarious

2

u/watchuwantyo May 08 '23

Police unions will demand a kill switch, MARK MY WORDS

2

u/LordCaptain May 08 '23

Clearly Emergency Services need some kind of control mechanism over driverless cars. This raises immediate flags from a cyber security perspective though as cars have traditionally been poorly designed to handle threats and this would open an obvious and difficult to secure attack vector. That being said though self driving cars have so far shown themselves incapable of acting in a controllable manner in these unpredictable situations.

3

u/DeadTried May 08 '23

Wouldn't just kicking the front of the car as hard as you can make it stop, because the impact sensor went off and it might be running over a child it can't see?

13

u/aerozona47 May 08 '23

I worked at a different driverless car company. All you have to do is block the vehicle to make it stop.

4

u/DeadTried May 08 '23

I have seen that before but don't some of them then just try to go around or reverse, if the car control wants it to get somewhere it might just go I have turned my wheels as far right as they can go that means I can go forward again

1

u/LowPTTweirdflexbutok May 08 '23

The article cites incidents where some of these cars drove through the plastic yellow barricades or yellow tape.

3

u/MonkeeFrog May 08 '23

I don't understand how these got street legal. Why are the roads allowed to be used for beta testing?

3

u/Iceykitsune2 May 08 '23

Because the way the AIs are being created require real world driving data.

2

u/Kinexity May 08 '23

This is true but with current machine learning approaches teaching a car how edge cases is hard. It would make more sense to have human drivers drive them until they get enough data. Before you say they already did it - judging from the video they didn't do it enough.

-3

u/Iceykitsune2 May 08 '23

It would make more sense to have human drivers drive them until they get enough data

Except that it doesn't work like that.

1

u/Glory_Pumpkin May 08 '23

Can’t wait for a 40 ton semi to be doing this.

1

u/icoder May 08 '23

"I don't trust this AI", while standing in front of it

-6

u/Superb_Ad_5565 May 08 '23

Cops just mad cause they can’t belittle and abuse anyone and breaking a window just ain’t the same without it.

-2

u/becauseiwantedto May 08 '23

Now car is going to find out cops behave badly too!

-5

u/bananacustard May 08 '23

These cops aren't exactly the sharpest crayons on the box are they?

0

u/auditorydamage May 08 '23

RISKS Digest material.

0

u/YggdrasilsLeaf May 08 '23 edited May 08 '23

Kinda like the guy that created them in the first place huh?

Funny how that works.

Edit: Given enough time and power….. when Elon feels ignored? Entire cities might shutdown and fail. Just for the LOLS.

And he’s already completely intertwined within our society, as humans, on an international scale. One bad day and he could shut half the planet down if he wanted to.

Edit: and his super wealthy peers have taken notice. Might also attempt the same one day. Amazing what some green paper/1s and 0s can do….. eh?

-17

u/poke133 May 08 '23

if this was Tesla, this would sit comfortably on the frontpage with 20k upvotes.. just to put things in perspective

12

u/josefx May 08 '23

If this was a Tesla it would have a driver behind the wheel to handle police orders. Not even Elon is insane enough to let the current state of FSD on the road without a driver to stop it.

8

u/G0PACKGO May 08 '23

To be clear through the car in question has so many more sensors than a Tesla

5

u/Badfickle May 08 '23

The number of sensors isn't the issue. The brain driving the car is the issue. You only have two sensors and you can drive better than the waymo (for now).

-1

u/G0PACKGO May 08 '23

Not sure about you but I use all my senses when driving ..

3

u/Badfickle May 08 '23

...are you saying you lick other cars? I guess you do you.

-1

u/G0PACKGO May 08 '23

Ok I guess I don’t use taste .. but I use the rest of them

1

u/Badfickle May 09 '23

Check out the all new Waymo, with smell-o-vision!

1

u/G0PACKGO May 09 '23

If you smell smoke or something on the interstate I become more alert to a possible car fire especially if it smells like electrical or gasoline fire

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/Login_rejected May 08 '23

The cop who popped a flare was using it incorrectly. He needed to smash the car's window and put the flare inside the car to get it to stop.

-3

u/Death_Watcher_ May 08 '23

That guy wanted to pop a flare for a long time.

-3

u/GeekFurious May 08 '23 edited May 08 '23

This is the future. Get used to it. Also, get used to being replaced by AI and having no job prospects because your resume will be filtered through AI that flags any resume where someone was replaced by AI.

AI will downvote this.

-2

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

Will cops shoot at driverless cars for not obeying instructions? Maybe just black ones? When a driverless car gets pulled over, do they beat and harass the passenger since there is no driver?

-3

u/Snibes1 May 08 '23

You would think that after all this time, the fire department could deploy a ramp with their delicate fire hoses so that cars could continue using a perfectly good intersection.

1

u/Jnorean May 08 '23

Surprised that the cars don't have a built in way for First Responders to stop the car, if necessary. Otherwise, firing an emp pulse at its electronics may become the way to stop it by destroying the internal electrical system of the car.

2

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

Killing the car isn’t a viable solution because now it means that either someone has to tow it, or it’ll block traffic

1

u/No_Hat2792 May 08 '23

Dogs with no leash run wild 😛

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '23

[deleted]

2

u/crazy_forcer May 09 '23

Compare the number of sensors on a Waymo to a tesla. There's your answer. Along with a ridiculously more complex software I imagine

1

u/ShirtStainedBird May 08 '23

I honestly don’t know who to root for. Pigs are idiotic. And so are SD cars.

Let the animals eat one another I say. Pit the pigs against the full self driving fleet

1

u/tiktaalink May 08 '23

Anyone else notice that the video is appropriately 9:11 long?

1

u/antnipple May 08 '23

How about LEO's have an app that enables them to temporarily create a no-go area. Like, they have a street map, and can create an outline on the map. Autonomous car companies immediately transmit the data to cars.

Make it work people!

1

u/HikerDave57 May 08 '23

Waymo corporate is as responsive to the press as their cars are to the first responders. They are probably right about their cars being better than humans; a very low bar.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '23

Could they not have just thrown a fire blanket or jacket over the sensors to cause it to shut down due to faulty readings. You’d think the radar sensors can easily read through the smoke created by the flare and still recognize objects