Stay updated on the latest news about Driverless vehicles with our free updates. Sign up now!
We’ll send you a myFT Daily Digest email summarizing the latest Driverless vehicles news every morning.
Over the past two weeks, I’ve experienced the wonders of driverless taxis in San Francisco. Their smooth navigation through busy streets left me captivated. I would often invite others to join me in a ride. However, my enthusiasm waned when I encountered a car malfunction that left us stranded, unable to open the doors.
In the tech world, they say that if you’re not paying for a product, then you are the product. In the case of driverless cars, you’re not just the product, but also the test subject. San Francisco has become a living laboratory for these vehicles. What initially started with a few safety drivers circling Golden Gate Park has evolved into hundreds of unmanned cars across various neighborhoods. And if companies have their way, there will be even more in the future.
Waymo, a subsidiary of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), and General Motors’ Cruise both have ambitions to offer 24-hour taxi services. However, current permissions are limited. Waymo can’t charge for rides, while Cruise can only charge at night in specific parts of the city. A vote to consider Waymo’s request to collect fares and Cruise’s application to operate a daytime service has been postponed to mid-July.
San Francisco’s embrace of driverless cars may seem contradictory to its stance on other disruptive transportation solutions. In 2018, for instance, the city banned electric scooter companies from operating without permits. Rideshare companies have also faced restrictions along certain parts of Market Street. However, when it comes to driverless cars, the city has limited say in the matter. Companies received approval from the California Public Utilities Commission and the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Nevertheless, some city agencies are unhappy with the situation. The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, responsible for overseeing street transport, has called for a slower rollout. Stephen Chun, deputy spokesperson, expressed cautious support for the technology but raised concerns about the increase in traffic incidents. He stated, “We’re excited to be the test city, but this is still a developing technology. We’re not rejecting it, we’re just requesting a gradual expansion.”
So far, traffic incidents involving driverless cars have been more of a nuisance than a cause for alarm. There have been reports of autonomous vehicles blocking lanes and hindering firefighters. However, there hasn’t been significant backlash from residents. Both Cruise and Waymo have long waiting lists, proving that there is still enthusiasm for participating in this experiment. What people may not realize is that pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers are inadvertently involved as well.
I had firsthand experience of this when I encountered an empty Waymo car sitting in the middle of a pedestrian crossing. With no driver to make eye contact with, I was unsure if the car would stay stationary or attempt to reverse. In the end, I decided to wait until it had driven away before crossing. Waymo claims that if I had walked behind the car, it would have detected my presence and remained still. The car’s primary objective is to avoid collisions. If it’s safer to sit on a pedestrian crossing, it will do so. Furthermore, these cars have gesturing perception, meaning they can follow instructions from someone signaling them to stop or proceed.
Initially, I had intended to end this column with enthusiastic support for robotaxis. Their ability to sense and evade obstacles using radar, lidar, and cameras is commendable. They don’t speed, they stop at crossings, and they slow down for pedestrians. Removing human error would undoubtedly lead to safer roads. However, my opinion shifted after my last ride. On a Thursday evening, I called a driverless Cruise car for a friend who had never experienced one before, and who had listened to me rave about them all evening. A few minutes into the journey, the car suddenly changed course. What should have been a six-minute trip now showed a duration of 24 minutes. The car then attempted to switch lanes before coming to an abrupt halt, its indicator blinking. A line of cars behind us honked their horns, but the car remained motionless. Realizing there was nothing we could do, we tried to end the ride, but the doors remained locked.
Although it lasted only a few seconds, those moments served as a stark reminder of the risks associated with technology that is still in development. Cruise highlights its safety record and the 2 million miles driven without any serious injuries or fatalities. However, it will be some time before I trust a car without a human driver behind the wheel.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
