I found these news articles disturbing.
Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
Why do Waymo self-driving vans get so much hate?
Arizonans Attack Self-Driving Cars
Why do Waymo self-driving vans get so much hate?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Disturbing events. Trends?
- Thread starter pdxrajiv
- Start date
Tam
Well-Known Member
I understand the neighborhood's frustration.
1) Resentment about a displacement of human:
"There’s a growing sense that the giant corporations honing driverless technologies do not have our best interests at heart...Just think about the humans inside these vehicles, who are essentially training the artificial intelligence that will replace them.”
2) "Not in my backyard" preference:
“They said they need real-world examples, but I don’t want to be their real-world mistake,”
3) Revenge for the dead:
“Haselton stated that he despises and hates those cars (Waymo) and said how Uber had killed someone.”
4) Danger perception:
"Everybody hates Waymo drivers...They are dangerous."
What disturbing is: Does Waymo not know how to establish good rapport with human who live where it tests its fleet?
Why would Waymo still test its fleet in such strong negative sentiment?
Is there any other place more accommodating?
boonedocks
MS LR Blk/Blk 19”
I can say that if my car was allowed to drive itself the way it does now while on NOA withOUT infervention.....I would see my car getting treated similarly!!!
Krugerrand
Meow
A lot of people have trouble with change. The other half are haters who are going to hate because that’s what they have in their hearts regardless of the subject/topic.
Tam
Well-Known Member
San Franciscans may complain a lot but I've never heard any of them pulling a gun on an Autonomous Vehicle.
Why not going to test where there's gun control such as U.K. where most police don't even carry guns. When they are shot at, they would call for an equivalent SWAT team who do.
BluestarE3
Active Member
thecloud
As rhythm raced inside, the ship came alive
This response might be overly dismissive, given that someone was killed by an autonomous vehicle there. As a resident of the area, you might embrace change yet be legitimately concerned for the safety of your children and not want them to end up as a testing statistic. The article focuses on the rage incidents, but only hints at how the residents have been unable to effect change by complaining to the city.
Edit: re-reading the article, it sounds like they are getting results if there is a police complaint or other incident, which then causes Waymo to change their route and go elsewhere. I do get that the rage is probably being driven more by fear of being marginalized and having no say in community development than it is about child safety, but I can see how it would be frustrating if you felt like the city did not have your back.
Last edited:
Krugerrand
Meow
Ridiculous argument that my response was dismissive. Because no one has ever been killed by a car driven be a human before? So suddenly it’s different because the car was being driven by a computer programmed by a human. Dead person either way and one way not better than the other. Except the whole idea of autonomous driving is to reduce accidents caused by human mistakes.
The community better just as as righteously indignant on both matters (autonomous AND not autonomous driving) or they’re over reacting, fearmongering, and hating.
If Waymo is doing something unethical-different story.
roblab
Active Member
Yes, I agree. If the people in AZ can't handle progress, send the driverless cars to CA, preferably to Napa Valley. The tourists won't notice as most visiting drivers are legally drunk after 10 AM, and the locals won't notice because they'll just think they're tourists.
"Reducing" accident deaths means there will still be accident deaths. It is ridiculous to even pretend that driverless cars must be zero accident while car drivers can kill tens of thousands per year.
Tam
Well-Known Member
The unethical part is whether the community has consented the trial run or not.
It is not the part that a machine unknowingly kills a human, it's the part that human might let machine kill human.
It's the case behind Uber. It's not the car that killed the pedestrian. It's the engineers who disabled the Automatic Emergency Braking and wrote the program to allow the killing happen.
That does not happen in Waymo, but the procedure on how to kill a human is available there if Waymo wanted to follow Uber's procedure.
The end result is it's human kills human, not machine kills human but in a traditional scenario, a human driver is held responsible but not in a corporate structure: None of Uber's engineers and leadership was held responsible.
Thus, it goes back to the question of consent again: Is the Arizona community willing to accept that those people in a corporate structure will not be held responsible when something goes wrong?
@Tam
All these cars have responsible drivers behind the wheel at this time though. In reality it was Uber’s safety driver that killed the pedestrian with their lack of attention to the road. That said I can easily see more ethics issues with Uber’s approach than with what we know of Waymo’s of course. Waymo seems to be very safety conscious. Uber not so much.
Has anyone consented to Autopilot being used in their area? Should they be asked beyond a legal (representative) framework?
Interestingly many autonomous car makers are advocating corporate (car maker) responsibility for autonomous car crashes, others than Tesla that is, which has advocated for car owner’s insurance company responsibility.
All these cars have responsible drivers behind the wheel at this time though. In reality it was Uber’s safety driver that killed the pedestrian with their lack of attention to the road. That said I can easily see more ethics issues with Uber’s approach than with what we know of Waymo’s of course. Waymo seems to be very safety conscious. Uber not so much.
Has anyone consented to Autopilot being used in their area? Should they be asked beyond a legal (representative) framework?
Interestingly many autonomous car makers are advocating corporate (car maker) responsibility for autonomous car crashes, others than Tesla that is, which has advocated for car owner’s insurance company responsibility.
Last edited:
Tam
Well-Known Member
The responsibility for every single Autopilot accident has been on the shoulders of the owners. None of the police tickets were issued to the fault of "Autopilot."
However, when a corporation has the potential to do harms such as when Uber engineers purposely make the car unsafe to impress its CEO, none of Uber's managers, engineers or leadership was punished.
So the question is again: Consent: Does the community is willing to please the corporate leadership at the expense of the community's safety?
No, every single Autopilot accident has been on the shoulders of the drivers. Not the car’s owner perhaps sitting at home.
Why would Autopilot accident’s be on the shoulders of their drivers — but Uber’s accident should not be on the shoulder’s of its safety driver in your view? That sounds like a double standard.
I mean just the same Tesla changes its features all the time, including safety features, and expects drivers to remain in charge. Does the community consent to these changes by Tesla?
I guess the answer to both of these is: the communities consent through their representative legislative entities, either directly on indirectly.
That said, it is a legitimate question to ask what requirements the law should set on companies like Tesla and Uber in this example. Indeed perhaps more should be required of them all.
Similar threads
