Men Stall Waymo Driverless Car to Catcall Female Passenger Inside
pcmag.com
pcmag.com
Is that really a common thing? Men see a woman getting harassed nearby, so they all scurry over to join in?
You'd think people would be more likely to either help or do nothing, if they saw what was happening.
But, no, it isnt a thing
Interestingly, someone in my comment history here said Waymo will be more appealing to woman than Uber’s drivers until criminals figure out that they’re sitting ducks. That was 20 days ago.
I am unsure whether doors can be opened while in motion, unless you've issued a "Pull Over" command, but I suppose that I could find out!
Typically, it takes a double-pull on the inside handle to open the door, just for safety's sake.
Also whenever these hijinks occur, you're strongly urged to contact Support immediately, and they are empowered to dispatch a human agent and/or emergency services.
In terms of the context-free social media post which spurred this rabble-rousing article, I'd say that other bystanders are more likely to intervene and fight off the aggressors, than joining in seemingly random harassment of seemingly innocent women. It's probably already illegal to stand in the middle of a moving traffic lane just to impede its flow, yeah?
Not sure if I follow. If I were driving I’d feel somewhat in control. But alone on the backseat somewhat more vulnerable. Without a driver in some situations even more so. In the moment I’d hope the drivers doors were locked but how to know for sure?
That's a bit ridiculous. Of course it does; how many people do you know are OK with some random dudes making an ass of themselves in the middle of the street, blocking your right-of-way?
Should probably also disclose you work for Google when making such a statement about one of its products.
I don't work at Google. Why do you think I work at Google (I worked at Google, but not on self-driving cars; I am sympathetic to their mission, but also skeptical about the product's future). And even so, why would that matter? All I'm doing is pointing out there are systemic problems and having a driver in the car really wouldn't have addressed any of those.
>[...] I worked at Google
The reason I'm defending waymo is not that I worked at Google. It's that I think self-driving cars are a good idea and I don't want to see them invalidated through viral social media and "think of the children" press articles.
Oh c'mon; are you just trolling now? Of course you didn't say that in this thread, but you did say it lol.
I mean, do you think I just made a wild guess that some random HN user worked for Google and happened to be right?
Not fundamentally. But therein lies the solution.
A driver would have yelled at and presumably threatened the young mean. The Waymo, in turn, could chastise the men over loudspeaker before turning it over to a remote human being who can remind the men that they’re being recorded.
That said, a driver can credibly threaten to impact someone threatening them or ram a car in a way self-driving vehicles cannot.
Put down your weapon! You have 20 seconds to comply!!
> That said, a driver can credibly threaten to impact someone threatening them or ram a car
See "The Deadlier Weapon" by Larry Niven.
Of course it does, watch the video. For one, having another person in the car might have made them behave differently. For another, a human could have safely driven around them. Plus, I doubt they’d be as eager to be douche bags in front of a car if they weren’t as sure they wouldn’t be hit.
What you are describing are speculative solutions that a human driver may have done. I think the problems here are systemic, and related more to caddish men than driverless cars.
> Drive around how?
For starters, there’s a period where they got out of the way and a human could’ve just… Continued to drive forward. Mind blowing, I know.
> and the right lane is a bus lane
Considering the amount of cars in the video that momentarily go over it and don’t burst into flames, it seems like a perfectly acceptable approach. But again, not even that would’ve been necessary.
Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car. In particular, doesn't that seem to imply that women in cars would need some sort of protector? I'm not going too deeply into the argument.
The reason the waymo didn't drive forward is that Google has programmed their cars to be exceptionally cautious- perhaps overly so- to stave off the huge negative press cycle that will happen when they hit or kill somebody in a dramatic way. Same for the bus lane- nobody at Waymo ever thought "Oh, we should violate some driving regulations to save a person from being harassed by assholes". That, like the trolley problem, is literally not something they are concerned with. Because self-driving cars aren't general intelligences designed to solve problems outside the "driving a person to a destination" problem.
> Now, on to the part where you mention a person could be a deterrent: if that's the case, society has far more problems than just a single self-driving car.
Yes, it does. You've surely stumbled on something new here...
I'm not sure what your point here could be. Because society treats women terribly, we should ignore ways our technology might put them in further danger, because... wahhh, bad media reporting about Waymo?
No one is making that argument in this thread. The matter being discussed is if this situation would have been handled differently by a human driver.
No. You do realise women are human and can drive, right? And that men can be harassed too? The argument was about numbers, you’re weirdly making it about gender.
> The reason the waymo didn't drive forward
Is irrelevant. This conversation started because you said it didn’t make a difference that it was a self-driving car. Because a human could’ve made better decisions while still being safe, it follows that it being a self-driving car makes a difference. I’m not arguing that Waymo is wrong to be cautious, I’m just saying it is patently obvious that having a (current tech) robot or a human at the wheel does make a difference, despite your insistence that it doesn’t.
I fully acknowledge that having a physical human driver at the wheel could lead to different outcomes. I do not agree those would necessarily be "better decisions". It looks like the things a human driver could do include: getting out and attacking the offenders (not something I expect my taxi driver to do), racing off (which comes with significant risk, of running people over, getting in an accident, violating regulations), yelling and/or gesticulating (unlikely to have much effect), and running over the offenders intentionally ("I was afraid for my life and moved forward slowly to give them time to move out of the way").
I think you're over-interpreting my statement and misunderstanding my intent. I hope to clarify: I don't think the safety of passengers from external adversaries is a legitimate reason to oppose self-driving cars, nor do I expect self-driving cars to handle external adversaries in the ways that a human driver might. I do expect over time that Waymo will reduce its safety buffers around people who are behaving aggressively.
Hope that clears up my intent.