Spyke
DarkCloud
lemmy.world

If Waymo doesn't respect the Social Contract like this, they shouldn't expect it to be available to them. It should be open season on Waymo sabotage/destruction. Human lives are more valuable that Waymo.

40
bishopreply
lemmy.world

It doesn't take much to weld nails into tire annihilators and fill a bag with them. Can't drive in a cycle lane without functioning wheels.

5
9point6
lemmy.world

Then it should be unrealistic to expect they are allowed to operate, frankly

27
sp3ctr4l
lemmy.dbzer0.com

I guess bicyclists not carrying sawed off shot guns to shoot at robot murder cars is also unrealistic.

21
mannycalaverareply
feddit.uk

😅

Waymo, the autonomous driving tech firm whose so-called ‘robo-taxis’ are now roaming the streets of London, has told cycling campaigners that expecting their driverless cars to respect cycle lanes is “too high a bar” – because their customers want to be dropped off in them.

This is in Europe mate. London to be precise. Not the US. People don't casually carry guns around here.

10
sp3ctr4lreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Things can change.

Didn't used to be robot murder cars on the road either.

Maybe crossbows, aim at the tires? Sorry: tyres.

Maybe some kind of light that is extremely bright in a particular wavelength, that blinds their cameras and sends them into an emergency halt mode?

But anyway lol, sawed off shotguns are extremely illegal in all the US as well... I guess the analogy was lost in translation =P

15
wizardbeardreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

High powered lasers that can burn a hole in the sensor aren't too hard to get ahold of. A sticker slapped over one could probably work just as well though, and there's more plausible deniability.

3
sp3ctr4lreply
lemmy.dbzer0.com

... I was thinking more like an IR/UV floodlight, than a laser.

Less chance of accidentally blinding someone.

Granted, you'd have to figure out a frequency range that would be 'super effective' against particular cameras, but... I would feel bad about accidentally giving someone a non consensual amateur lasik surgery.

2
TrackinDaKraken
lemmy.world

We were promised these things would be better, and safer than human drivers. Now, even with the assistance of remote human drivers, they can't follow the law?

No, you don't get to move the goal posts and say we should still accept them because they don't drive any worse than humans. If that's the new standard then what the fuck do we need these things for? What is their purpose, but to take jobs?

10
jet
hackertalks.com

Cities that want to keep cars out of bike lanes should keep all cars out of them, autonomous or not, by ticketing them. But they don't, so taxis and delivery drivers stop in them. That's traffic enforcement's fault.

Given that human drivers stop in bike lanes, Waymo then has a tradeoff:

1) Be the only ones to follow the letter of the law, break a lot of people's expectations, and catch backlash for disrupting traffic.

2) Follow the most common expectation, even if wrong, and incrementally add to the problem.

IMO, cyclists shouldn't lobby Waymo directly, but should lobby cities to actually enforce the rules on everyone. Then Waymo would fall in line naturally. And if they're inclined to take direct action against Waymo's they should also act against Uber and DoorDash drivers who are a far bigger problem by volume (and wait time for deliveries).

8
vratajin
piefed.social

The article is a steaming pile of garbage. I was ready to hate on Waymo, but the article is conflating what happened in the US with whatever might or might not happen in the UK.
It's pretty obvious the AVs need to observe the traffic rules, otherwise they will be fined into oblivion and have their licence revoked. The click bait worked.

6
MrSulu
lemmy.ml

Waymo now fucked across most continents. Shoots self in both feet.

2

You reached the end

Waymo says expecting driverless taxis to stay out of bike lanes is unrealistic | Spyke