• empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    These cars need to have a panic button that allows a remote operator to talk to the passengers, assess the situation, alert police and override the auto driving to get them out of bad situations. Same as an emergency call button on an elevator basically. I dont understand these cars to have any feature like that so far, and I’m assuming this woman would have used it if one was available, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

    These cars are likely going to turn into hijack machines if they’re programmed for “maximum safety” in situations where, realistically, breaking every traffic law, hitting a pedestrian or causing damage to the vehicle through dangerous terrain may be the only way out with a living passenger. The second it begins to percolate among criminals that these things are super easy to stop at the perfect location of your choosing like this, they are going to become a massive target.

    Or they turn into a hearse if the passenger has a medical emergency and the car doesn’t redirect while the passenger is incapacitated. They might be coherent enough to press a button, but not to open their phone, navigate the app, call for help or redirect the car to a hospital…

    But that of course requires labor so it will not happen until legally mandated after a minimum threshold of people die.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      “The men came over to the car again and stood in front of it for a few minutes. Finally when they left, the car was still stalled but I clicked the ‘in car support’ on the screen and they seemed to be aware of the issue,” Amina said. “They asked if I was OK and the car began to drive towards my location. They asked if I needed police support and I said no.”

      When she was almost to her destination, Waymo support called her again to ask if she was ok, she said. “I assured him that I was fine and he told me I would be given a free ride after,” she said. “After many hours I was called one last time by their support team. They asked if I was OK and told me that they have 24/7 support available. They also said I would get the next ride or next two rides (uncertain) free.”

      “In an instance like this, our riders have 24/7 access to Rider Support agents who will help them navigate the situation in real time and coordinate closely with law enforcement officers to provide further assistance as needed,” a spokesperson for Waymo told 404 Media in an email. “While these sorts of events are exceedingly rare among the 100,000 trips we serve a week across Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix, we take them very seriously. We continuously look for ways to improve rider experience and remain committed to improving road safety and mobility in the cities where we operate.”

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Agreed, but to play devil’s advocate, the support wasn’t branded as such and customers could’ve not reported out of shame, which wouldn’t happen if they knew they could do that at the beginning before it became anything substantial.

        • Etterra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly a proper panic button would have an alarm go off and speed dial 911. But I’m sure people would abuse it.

          • erwan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            She talked to an operator who asked if he should call the police and she said no. It’s in the article.

            Not sure what a button would have changed…

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They have customer support that provides words of platitude, an ineffective police call with a 15minute response time, and no control over the situation. She got lucky this time, but my point remains standing.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It sounds like Waymo were already aware of the situation, in fact they called her in the vehicle as it was happening.

      Not to say this isn’t a good suggestion, but they seem to have other systems in place that worked.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It worked, only because these men were only being creepy sexist pieces of shit and didn’t have worse intentions. Customer support according to this article has no control over the vehicle other than restarting the auto driving routines to make the car move again.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      override the auto driving

      I must be tired right now but I don’t see how a remote operator could have driven better in this situation.

      You can’t get away from someone blocking your car in traffic without risk.of hitting them or other people or vehicles.

      You probably meant they ought to drive away regardless of what they hit, if it helps the passenger escape a.dire.situation? But I have to wonder if a remote operator would agree to be put on the spot like that.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

        I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person

          You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.

          You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.

          • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)

            • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

              Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

              This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

              You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

              So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

              https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure, there are some states that let you mag dump through your front door if someone rings the doorbell

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The “hitting pedestrians” is an extreme hypothetical, and not one you should particularly get hung up on. But it is one that still has to be considered. Passive security measures only go so far for the passenger.

          Realistically, a car can get out of a vast majority of situations evasively without hitting hostile pedestrians, such as reversing rapidly and then turning around or driving in an opposite travel lane to bypass the blockage. Or hopping a curb and using a sidewalk if it is not occupied (or just blasting the shit out of the horn if it is occupied). These are all things that waymo’s auto mode cannot and will not do, because it doesn’t have the reasoning to understand when such measures are necessary.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you legitimately believe your life is in danger, you have the right to escape or defend yourself, even if that means running someone over. This has happened in multiple countries with similar outcomes.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you are in literal, actual mortal danger you are generally allowed to escape with the goal of escape. Especially relevant where waymo operates.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If a man jumps out in front of my car in traffic and points a pistol at me after I stop. I am going around or thru him and there is no other option. Anyone else trying to stop me even without visible weapons is going to get evasive maneuvers to protect myself because I am not dealing with that bullshit. That includes weaving far outside my travel lane or going over a sidewalk. That is self defense and a split second decision that any driver may have to make. Waymo prioritizes all outside obstacle avoidance which means it doesn’t even want to leave it’s set travel lane, which makes them trivial to stop like this with no recourse.

        The point I am making is that self driving has a really hard time interpreting traffic edge cases or passenger emergencies like this. A remote operator could make the decision to drive over curbs and other lanes, if free, to save the passenger, and realistically should avoid hitting pedestrians too… but in the case of an armed attacker - well, yknow. Like force for like force.

        Calling police would only be an auxiliary function to report the video evidence. They cannot be depended on to respond in time to actually make a difference.

        Would a remote operator interpret things accurately in 10 seconds or less, or be a job anyone would even want? How does the liability chain of command work? Who knows. But the current system makes no decision at all, and that is unacceptable. And the medical point still stands too, a remote operator could immediately reroute the vehicle to a hospital and alert the medical staff. A panic button is absolutely needed.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can’t think of a NY cab driver that couldn’t have handled this situation.

        This guy isn’t doing fedoras any favors either - I’m already a bit on the skeptical side when I see a fedora.

  • IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    One of the men repeatedly made a “call me” gesture with his hand, then took his fedora off and literally tipped it at her…

    It’s assholes like this that make dudes in fedoras look bad. This and -you know- the hats themselves.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can see criminals easily exploiting this default behavior to stop the car and steal from those inside.

    Where’s a Johnny cab when you need it, it knows how to deal with criminals.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I doubt choosing to stick up a vehicle covered in cameras with someone who likely isn’t even carrying cash is anyone’s idea of a good payoff.

      • Wildly_Utilize@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        idk i think plenty of people carry expensive stuff on them

        what a thief could actually get for them is another matter but clearly that doesnt stop them from trying

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was in response to being robbed.

          I think the phrase you’re looking for is “defending yourself”.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t live in a 3rd world country, so I guess I just don’t understand the concept of needing to arm myself before leaving my house because I’m likely to need a deadly weapon while I go about my business.

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t live in a 3rd world country

              lol the US has the highest death rate from gun violence - it’s literally the #1 killer of children.

              which is not to assert that adding more firearms will help the situation, but it’s got fuckall to do with living in a first world country or third world country.

              • Obi@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                In these kinds of discussions you can assume the third world country jab was a reference to the US.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                As an aside: part of the definition of a First World Country includes being a “stable democracy”.

                If a poll was done of American citizens asking them “do you think fraud will play a part in the upcoming election?” I would be shocked if less than 80% said yes. That doesn’t sound like a stable democracy to me.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              What country do you live in? I’m curious which one has no theft or violent crime.

              • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not OP check out my username for an idea of where I live. Besides a bit of gang on gang action in our capital, violent crimes are extremely rare. It’s maybe once a year that police have to shoot at a person, and even then police officers will assess the situation and if possible not go for center mass.

                Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Note how I left out theft. That’s because you can’t directly use violence to protect property.

                  I remember hearing this when I lived in the UK for a few years and I was blown away. What are you expected to do if being robbed? Let it happen?

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve never been in a serious vehicle accident.

                  Still wear my seat belt though.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone. “You should have an easy way to kill someone on you at all times, and keep it hidden so they don’t know” is not self defense, but clear signs of a dystopia.

            • intensely_human@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.

            • capital@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              In civilized countries “self defense” means you might have to punch someone.

              My back is fucked and have an 80% rating from the VA. I’m not getting into fist fights anymore.

              If someone gets blown away stealing shit, the world has become a better place, frankly.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Property is more valuable than human lives.”
                A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…

                • capital@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  “The strong should be allowed to do whatever they want to the weak” A statement from a person in a developed country apparently…

      • TheKMAP@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I prefer to reduce demand, instead. Everyday people who feel happy and safe don’t feel the need to be violent.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oops now everyone got guns and you get killed by some random. I’m sure judge dredd will save you. Try being more violent, violence solves all problem. It’s self defense that mean it’s right. Always remember, dead bodies tell no tales. Aim for the center of mass and always empty the mag to make sure there is only your side of the story left.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Would you rather be reading a story about how this woman was arrested for murder? Just because these men were being pigs doesn’t mean you get to kill them…

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.

          An armed society is a polite society.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Polite society my ass. I’ve owned guns for over 15 years and never has a gun de-escalated a situation. People who carry in public are way more likely to kill someone and to get themselves killed. Guns cause aggressiveness far more often.

            The woman was never in danger, if she pulled a gun, her, the harrassers, and all other bystanders would have been in danger.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I once had someone get in my face and say, “Are you man enough to fight me?” I responded with “I’m man enough to find non-violent solutions to my problems.” Why should someone be proud of the problem-resolution method of choice for 3-year-olds?

          • dubious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            there aren’t always non-violent solutions. i accept that reality. it’s nothing to be proud of, but i would be ashamed if i couldn’t deal with that truth.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d expect the Waymo video to have captured footage of these guys. It might not be that difficult to track them, and street harassment might well qualify as assault if the DA of San Francisco were interested in prosecuting.

    That said, it’s telling that they freely and openly harassed a strange woman on the street once the threat of being run over was not a factor.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are quite lucky that woman was not my mother because she’d have pulled out her gun and been like, I told you to move, damnit.

    • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s pretty stupid of her.

      Without hesitation, because she is brandishing a weapon, anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense.

      Never draw a weapon unless the intent is to use it, and in her case she would only intend to use it as a threat not a deterrence, and therefore deserves to die in this imaginary scenario.

        • yamanii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do you think it’s normal to see a civilian draw a weapon and point it to another one? First thing I would think is that she’s gonna kill them, but I’m not American.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry but doing creepy shit like stopping the car a stranger is in to freak them out is what actually gets you shot in America. Th3se two are lucky this woman wasn’t a red blooded american.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have to admit, I expected a lot worse from the style of writing. This was written like some true crime stuff lol

  • DeadNinja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    In an instance like this, our riders have 24/7 access to Rider Support agents who will help them navigate the situation in real time

    Clearly that’s what a human driver would do, but I guess those Rider Support Agents work for free, so why not fire the driver? /s

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      And then when you have an emergency the response is along the lines of:

      “Thank you for requesting to speak with a rider support agent. All agents are currently busy assisting other Waymo customers, but the next available agent will assist you as soon as possible. There are currently 32 other customers in front of you. Thank you for your patience.”

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. The instant response that exists now is only because this is a pilot program and they want to prove that it works. Once it’s normalized they will lay off most of the rider support and fuck you if you have to wait on the line.

  • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This made me wonder though…the car obviously has cameras on the outside, and there’s also a way to communicate with the support team from inside…so is it a stretch to think that these cars could be auto-recording everything that’s happening inside the car?

    Should we - as riders - have any expectation of privacy in a car with no driver?

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, but then the same is true of taxis and Ubers. They all have some kind of recording equipment in them for ensuring safety and cover in case someone claims something.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I love how 404 Media call out other bad practices on the web, but at the end of the day they still want you to sign up and give them your metadata.

  • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, this really seems more like a case of sexual harassment, rather than harassment of Waymo customers, which was my first suspicion. Had it been the latter as part of a politically motivated action against the company I might have had a lot more sympathy, but this is disgusting…

      • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I saw “driverless waymo” in the title.

        Also: Prejudice against people wearing fedoras is still prejudice and thus not really a great thing to have. One of my best friends also likes to wear a hat at times (not sure if it counts as a fedora, I know very little about heads) and is one of the sweetest people I know.