I'm all for it. Cruise cars have been "coning" mine all over the city by stopping wherever and whenever they want and getting stuck in the middle of the street indefinitely. Have been encountering this multiple times a week now. They should not be allowed if they are not subject to the same traffic rules as the rest of us.
I just rode Cruise for the first time tonight. Within the first 5 minutes of the ride, the car got stuck in the middle of two different intersections. Both times it just sat there with its hazards on while someone remotely tried to unstuck it. All the while, drivers around us were honking (rightfully so). Soon after that, the car turned right on red at an intersection with a sign saying not to.
These cars also drive much slower than others and frequently stop unnecessarily, which annoys every other driver, and causes more honking.
Based on that experience, I totally understand why folks are frustrated with them. Especially drivers who need to drive around these stopped cars everywhere.
1. Are there reliable statistics that show SDC are currently more dangerous than the average, non-incapacitated person?
2. Regardless, those people are still driving today and hopefully driving less in a future world full of SDC. I’m just making assumptions (bad idea I know) but I’m guessing traffic mortality goes down when alternative, safer options are more viable
My major moral issue with SDCs is that they lack a human being who can be responsible for their actions and held liable when something goes wrong.
If you have a human in control, they are presumably licensed, they are identifiable, and they have a personal interest in a clean record (presumably). So there is a full legal system in place to take care of problems on the road.
If there is no human, then who's liable? Who's responsible for mistakes? Do you fine Waymo $100 for blocking fire hydrants? If an SDC drives wrong, do you take it out of service? What are the penalties and recourses for shenanigans? I don't like the fact that the legal system hasn't been able to catch up to this, despite having decades of lead time, and now these things are all over the streets like a cancer. I support the coners wholeheartedly.
> don't like the fact that the legal system hasn't been able to catch up to this
Where are these open questions? In California and San Francisco there is specific enabling statute and liability framing. Every car, self driving or not, is registered. There is no liability black hole at the centre of this, just a lack of public understanding of the law.
> Are there reliable statistics that show SDC are currently more dangerous than the average, non-incapacitated person?
Is there any proof that they aren't? If not, they have no business being on the road. It's not society's responsibility to validate every new potentially deadly tech that a for profit company comes out with, it's the people developing and profiting from the new tech that have the burden to show that it's safe.
I wasn't implying anything; rather, I've just seen various forms of "if you exclude drunk/high/etc. drivers then they are more dangerous" repeated multiple times in different comments. Curious where that was coming from.
> ...it's the people developing and profiting from the new tech that have the burden to show that it's safe.
Is there a reason to believe this hasn't happened? I don't know the process involved in approving an autonomous system but I'm guessing they showed some convincing data to regulators.
