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.
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.
> 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.