Desperate to Stop Waymo's Dead-End Detours, a San Francisco Resident Tried an Orange Cone with a Sign (sfgate.com) 89
"This is an attempt to stop Waymo cars from driving into the dead end," complains a home-made sign in San Francisco, "where they are forced to reverse and adversely affect the lives of the residents."
On an orange traffic post, the home-made sign declares "NO WAYMO — 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m," with an explanation for the rest of the neighborhood. "Waymo comes at all hours of the night and up to 7 times per hour with flashing lights and screaming reverse sounds, waking people up and destroying the quality of life."
SFGate reports that 1,400 people on Reddit upvoted a photo of the sign's text: It delves into the bureaucratic mess — multiple requests to Waymo, conversations with engineers, and 311 [municipal services] tickets, which had all apparently gone ignored — before finally providing instructions for human drivers. "Please move [the cones] back after you have entered so we can continue to try to block the Waymo cars from entering and disrupting the lives of residents."
This isn't the first time Waymo's autonomous vehicles have disrupted San Francisco residents' peace. Last year, a fleet of the robotaxis created another sleepless fiasco in the city's SoMa neighborhood, honking at each other for hours throughout the night for two and a half weeks.
Other on Reddit shared the concern. "I live at an dead end street in Noe Valley, and these Waymos always stuck there," another commenter posted. "It's been bad for more than a year," agreed another comment. "People on the Internet think you're just a hater but it's a real issue with Waymos."
On Thursday "the sign remained at the corner of Lake Street and Second Avenue," notes SFGate. And yet "something appeared to have shifted. "Waymo vehicles weren't allowing drop-offs or pickups on the street, though whether this was due to the home-printed plea, the cone blockage, or simply updating routes remains unclear."
On an orange traffic post, the home-made sign declares "NO WAYMO — 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m," with an explanation for the rest of the neighborhood. "Waymo comes at all hours of the night and up to 7 times per hour with flashing lights and screaming reverse sounds, waking people up and destroying the quality of life."
SFGate reports that 1,400 people on Reddit upvoted a photo of the sign's text: It delves into the bureaucratic mess — multiple requests to Waymo, conversations with engineers, and 311 [municipal services] tickets, which had all apparently gone ignored — before finally providing instructions for human drivers. "Please move [the cones] back after you have entered so we can continue to try to block the Waymo cars from entering and disrupting the lives of residents."
This isn't the first time Waymo's autonomous vehicles have disrupted San Francisco residents' peace. Last year, a fleet of the robotaxis created another sleepless fiasco in the city's SoMa neighborhood, honking at each other for hours throughout the night for two and a half weeks.
Other on Reddit shared the concern. "I live at an dead end street in Noe Valley, and these Waymos always stuck there," another commenter posted. "It's been bad for more than a year," agreed another comment. "People on the Internet think you're just a hater but it's a real issue with Waymos."
On Thursday "the sign remained at the corner of Lake Street and Second Avenue," notes SFGate. And yet "something appeared to have shifted. "Waymo vehicles weren't allowing drop-offs or pickups on the street, though whether this was due to the home-printed plea, the cone blockage, or simply updating routes remains unclear."
Re:What gives them the right (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What gives them the right (Score:5, Interesting)
>and 311 [municipal services] tickets, which had all apparently gone ignored
Then how about they pay public fines? If I had 311 and 11 tickets for the same thing I 'd be forced into court, I would be losing privileges.
This whole thing is really about an imbalance of power where the powerless get stepped on and rich corporations do whatever the fuck they want. Personally, if that was my neighborhood, I would be rolling out spike strips when they back out. If they won't follow any rules and won't pay fines, then assholes can buy fucking tires. Asshole corporations are experience street justice here, of the most gentle kind.
Re: (Score:3)
Then how about they pay public fines?
Achieving what? You think a company with $380billiion in revenue would even notice if someone did or didn't pay 311 fines? It would probably be written off as a petty cash rounding error. Waymo alone makes $6m / week in SF.
Yeah it's not nice that they get away without paying fines, but fines exist for a reason, that reason is to drive a specific behaviour, and fining a company who moves truly unfathomable amounts of money any less than triple digit millions of dollars won't change any behaviour one bit.
If I had 311 and 11 tickets for the same thing I 'd be forced into court, I would be losing privileges.
And
Re: (Score:3)
It is the principal. If there are arguments about public roads and public access that entitle use then you are also obligated to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Clearly, Waymo is subject to actions by citizens. Waymo will only be tolerated so much before society reacts. The action against Waymo here is gentle, but it certainly does not have to be. Not everyone will give them a free pass.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the principle, but the practical effect is pointless bureaucracy that achieves nothing. If you actually cared about the issue you'd be calling for new and specific regulations and new specific enforcement laws rather than just getting Google to pay miniscule fines.
The action against Waymo here is gentle, but it certainly does not have to be.
Nope, it absolutely has to be, because that's what the current laws are and the current fines are. If you want real action, then call for such. Enforcement of the existing system won't achieve anything.
Re: (Score:2)
So increase the fine for driverless vehicles until they get the point. If the fine isn't a deterrent for a bad actor, then increase the fine for that bad actor until it is.
If they're profiting from breaking the law, then change the law to make it unprofitable, and you'll see the behavior change instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
So increase the fine for driverless vehicles until they get the point.
That is a great idea, one that would require new laws which by necessity does not impact past fines. You get actual meaningful impact, but quite critically the existing fines won't be part of it. If they were, you would be calling to allow your government to retrospectively change and enforce past rules which is something you objectively do not want.
Re: (Score:2)
How would the residents of this street know that Waymo had received all of these tickets, and that they were unpaid?
311 is the online request service for the city of San Francisco. The residents are complaining and nobody is responding, but that doesn't mean that Waymo is not paying their traffic fines.
Re: What gives them the right (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people keep thinking that they matter? They do not. Only money matters and these residents don't have any real money, so, fuck 'em. Who cares?
Re: (Score:2)
311 is the phone number for municipal services. It's not clear whether "311 tickets" in this context means "three hundred and eleven summonses," "three hundred and eleven documented service requests," or "some
number >1 service requests via the 311 phone number."
Re: (Score:3)
Just a guess... They're public streets?
Even in the US I think public roads can be designed for "no entry except for local residents".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, then designate these roads as such. These people haven't done so.
That would be a solution, but it's not up to "these people": if the road is public it's on their municipality.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a guess... They're public streets?
Presumably, but honking your horn and making noise all hours of the night would be considered disturbing the peace ("making unreasonable noise") and is against the law. And driving backward on the wrong side of the street is also against the law.
Why do you support lawbreakers?
Re: What gives them the right (Score:3)
The government permits them to operate. The vehicles are licensed for instance. If the citizenry don't like it, then can complain or vote out thier representives. If noise orders are being violated by Waymo, then get the courts involved.
If there is truely no peaceful process to resolve the conflicts, then giving up on having a society is always an option of last resort. Most vigilentes jump straight to this stage because it seems romantic in thier miswired little brains.
Re: (Score:3)
If noise orders are being violated by Waymo, then get the courts involved.
The signs say "NO WAYMO" from 8pm to 8am. I don't know about San Francisco specifically, but I'm doubtful any applicable noise ordinance is effective at 8pm - most places they seem to kick in anywhere from 10pm to midnight.
I have no doubt this is really an issue for the residents. It's just that there's no real detail in the story, so it's hard to know whether these Waymo vehicles actually are violating any ordinances.
Side note... looking at the photo of the dead end "street" (more of a stub) that's in the
Re: (Score:3)
The signs say
Most cities have laws against putting up permitted signs. I ignored the signs in the article entirely because I don't really care what they say on them.
but I'm doubtful any applicable noise ordinance is effective at 8pm
SF doesn't put hours on the noise ordinance, at least what I can see from reading it. It has enough wiggle room to define almost anything as a noise that the city could regulate, especially if it exceeds 35 dBA ambient or continuous noise inside a residential apartment. But the ordinance also doesn't specifically mention honking cars. It does specifically me
Re: (Score:2)
Basically you have to drive around like you're going to have to stomp on the brakes at any moment, because the place is full of tourists that run the stop signs and pedestrians that walk into the street.
As it should be! America's stop sign are pretty silly and the laws against jaywalking are an insane. As a Londoner, the one time I drove in SF, it was... fine? Compared to the mad max hell of Tooting-bloody-Highstreet (its official name) it was a picnic.
Jokes aside though in dense cities, cars are usually by
Perfect (Score:2)
Excellent!
Fewer cars make the city so much better.
Before you rant at me, BART is right there. And if you're afraid of public transport you should just stay away, you're hopeless.
Re: (Score:3)
BART is right there
That was how we usually handled it, especially for a bar crawl. Go to Daly City and park there for free instead of paying $30 or so to park for an evening in the City.
Right after San Jose got BART, I moved away even though I was about a mile from the station. Unfortunately, taking BART the whole way to SF from San Jose is quite a trek. It's nice for visiting the Easy Bay but not the best way to the peninsula (Caltrain is)
What I don't like about BART is that services ends at midnight. Meaning we either need
Re: (Score:1)
They're public streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most countries have done sort of public nuisance law because you cannot cover every possible way today people might unreasonablely disturb others.
So they probably don't actually have the right, but you know big companies don't really have to obey laws.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wants to, they can drive up and down that street all day, every day, simply because they feel like it. It's a public street.
If you want the benefits of living in a gated community, where access is restricted to residents only, you need to pay to live in that kind of community.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone wants to, they can drive up and down that street all day, every day, simply because they feel like it. It's a public street.
Are you 100% sure about that? There are generally rules about public nuisance and noise. Driving down a road a couple of times at night is OK. Repeatedly going up and down all night could easily fall foul of those laws.
Also Waymo isn't a person. There is absolutely a difference between something a person can do at a cost to themselves, naturally limiting the fallout and havi
Easy to make it a bigger problem they HAVE to fix (Score:5, Funny)
If its simple to keep robotaxis from entering, should be just as easy to fool them into not being able to leave.
See how many of them you can collect there until actual people are forced to retrieve them.
Betting THEN the programmers would suddenly discover enough time to update the maps of that area
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now there's an interesting thought, summon a Waymo, douse it in kerosene, throw on a match, and then send it elsewhere where there's flammable materials. Robofireships.
Send it to waymo HQ
Re:Easy to make it a bigger problem they HAVE to f (Score:5, Interesting)
should be just as easy to fool them into not being able to leave.
Your proposal is more difficult, less effective, and legally riskier:
* More difficult, because you need to stay awake, wait for the car to enter, then put the cone behind; then repeat the procedure with more Waymos; then herd your angry circling reverse screaming Waymos so they stay stuck behind a single cone. (Maybe someone will vibe code that game.) In the other option you put a cone and you're done.
* Less effective, since the whole purpose was to sleep in peace, and you're not sleeping. Plus the reverse noise still happens so your family and neighbours aren't sleeping either. In the other option everybody sleeps.
* Riskier, because you're then messing with traffic and freedom of movement, Waymo and the possible passenger might sue you. In the other option, you're objectively helping Waymo and the passenger since they likely never intended to drive into your dead end, so it's safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Less effective, since the whole purpose was to sleep in peace, and you're not sleeping.
Less likely to be a problem if you make it a game the whole neighborhood can play.
Re: (Score:3)
It also traps a car in the dead end. Given it's a neighborhood, there's probably not much space so stacking cars in the dead end will also mean neighbors are inconvenienced by having cars blocking their street or just making it much harder to navigate around.
That's already accounted for (Score:1)
When you cause problems for corporations and rich people those problems get fixed very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Betting THEN the programmers would suddenly discover
I'm betting THEN you'll find that Waymo doesn't just have programmers on staff, but also a legal team.
Re: (Score:2)
Just render the cars unusable.
Logging incidents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Waymo should keep video & data of the travels into problem spots so human reviewers can verify the problem.
Re: Logging incidents (Score:2)
Re: Logging incidents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do wonder why the car needs to make a backup sound, when nobody is around, normal human driven cars don't
You are about 5 years out of date. Idiots in NHSTA made Congress pass a law requiring artificial noise when backing up or driving below 5 MPH on the theory that dumbshits looking at their phones in the middle of parking lots might get hit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Logging incidents (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
congress pass a law requiring artificial noise when backing up or driving below 5 MPH on the theory that dumbshits looking at their phones in the middle of parking lots might get hit.
Implying it's not on the car to drive into people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They're probably too busy adding new features, like special pastel coloring to the app to make it more attractive to transsexuals.
Re:Quit hating (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, people have been complaining about this exact problem on these specific streets for a year or longer. Since you didn't specify a timeline, your statement will only be false if all human life is extinguished and Waymos are still getting stuck down this road, but in the meantime what the fuck is taking so long? You can be damned sure that this wouldn't be going on if any Waymo executives lived on one of these streets.
And yet the problem has persisted for at least a year.
This is largely due to the fact that they don't travel at speeds likely to cause fatalities. Don't get me wrong, it's the responsible thing to do while the technology is being developed, but it's a different story when self-driving cars are traveling at highway speeds where they have far less time to make life-or-death decisions and the speed involved is far more likely to result in a fatality.
"Murdered" is a bit of a strong word, especially when you state you're referring to an "accident".
People are capable of supporting self-driving technology while simultaneously being frustrated with Waymo's complete lack of ability or willingness to fix problems that have persisted for over a year. These are certainly not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:1)
This is largely due to the fact that they don't travel at speeds likely to cause fatalities.
Then how did the human drivers kill 40 people? Anyway, now that Waymo cars have driven over 30 million miles, the statistics exist that show they are much safer than humans within the same driving area: https://waymo.com/safety/impac... [waymo.com]
Why do you guys keep trying to ban this technology which is already showing that it has saved lives. It's not speculation anymore. There will eventually be a Waymo-fault fatality, that's a statistically possible reality, and if we actually care about human life we'll have to
Re: (Score:1)
This is largely due to the fact that they don't travel at speeds likely to cause fatalities.
That is incorrect on all accounts*. Firstly Waymos do travel on highways at highway speeds. Secondly highways account for only 9% of fatalities. Most fatalities occur in rural areas where idiots are about, but just shy of half are in urban / residential / low speed areas.
* The exception here is if you are saying that Waymos don't have accidents because they actually stick to the speed limit and don't drive like morons. In this aspect I agree with you. Speeding beyond the limit of the designated road is a ma
Re: (Score:2)
There's the quote from Hot Fuzz about favouring "collision" over "accident", but I'm not convinced that the word "accident" implies that no-one was at fault. Turn it around: if you say "That collision wasn't an accident" then the implication is stronger than merely "Blame can be assigned": it's "It was intentional". And since intentionality is the difference between murder and manslaughter, organgtool is right on the nail.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right but legally it's more complicated than that. For example vehicular manslaughter charges do not get brought up in every "accidental" death either. It's kind of like the difference between negligence and gross negligence. The reality is laws governing the stupidity behind the wheel are way out of touch with the entire rest of the legal system.
Killing someone is unacceptable in general, unless you run over them in a car, in that case you get a fine when you pretend you're too stupid to drive,
Just put ... (Score:2)
Please move [the cones] back after you have entered so we can continue to try to block the Waymo cars
The disabled person ... (Score:2)
Waymo vehicles weren't allowing drop-offs or pickups on the street,
On the other hand, is there any chance that summoning a Waymo to these addresses is a prank?
Re: (Score:3)
Main entrance for the both buildings is on the main road, only some service entrances and garages in the dead end.
Re: (Score:3)
Main entrance for the both buildings is on the main road,
Then why would anyone even give an address on the dead end road for a Waymo ride? Sounds suspicious. Like a prank.
Traffic control (Score:2, Insightful)
Traffic control, including what vehicles can use which roads is a solved problem. There are standard road signs that tell human drivers the rules of the road. Car companies have spent a fortune in developing computer vision algorithms to read signs meant for humans.
As semi and fully autonomous vehicles become more prevalent, traffic control signage should adapt. The addition of QR codes to existing signs, or additional signs, that specify rules of the road seems to be an obvious (to me anyway) progression.
Re: Go stare at at cones you insensitive clod! (Score:2, Informative)
I have a degree in Electrical and Computer engineering. Know what, neither that nor CS are directly applicable to traffic control. That seems to be the purview of unban planners and CivEs. Letâ(TM)s skip the ad hominem comments please.
I didnâ(TM)t say proper signage would fix everything. The OP was about a chronic problem with autonomous vehicles entering a dead end street. There are always going to be cases where things change quickly and require cones or someone standing in the middle of the st
Re: (Score:2)
If you own a publicly traversable road, then it's not surprising that there's some rules you have to follow for placing them out for notifying people of a hazard. Otherwise it shouldn't require any maths
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Do you personally maintain a road? I do. Do you own traffic cones? I own 3. I've set up cones for safety purposes several times and its not as simple as you think (and I have a degree in computer science).
What does having a degree in computer science have to do with traffic cones?
Did you have some kind of unusual CS degree requirement that involved a course in traffic cone deployment and demonstrating proficiency in their use? Did you have to write some kind of traffic cone simulator software in one of your courses? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: Go stare at at cones you insensitive clod! (Score:1)
What kind of traffic cones do you have that require a CS degree to place? Are they self deploying? Operate on a mesh network? Inquiring minds want to know!
Re: (Score:2)
hmm. How about
ALL WAYMO
[picture of mushroom cloud]
INITIATE
SELF DESTRUCT.
Offtopic, but... (Score:2)
WHY is the formatting so awful?
WTF is isnâ(TM)t
Re: (Score:1)
The forum software has trouble with character encoding, to put it mildly. Handliing encoding can be a kind of a black art, but Unicode has been around for how long now? Like 38 years?
Re: (Score:3)
The forum software has trouble with character encoding
Not so much trouble as avoiding Unicode is one (rather crude) method of preventing IDN homograph attacks. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Offtopic, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot doesn't support Unicode and assumes all input is ASCII. If you enter a non-ASCII character, your browser encodes it as UTF-8 but Slashdot reads it as ASCII (or possibly one of the 8-bit character sets).
IIRC they did support Unicode at one point but trolls used it to mess up the page formatting (ridiculous numbers of combining characters, right-to-left markers, unmatched combining characters, etc) and kept evading simple sanity checks, so they just went with "no extended characters at all, ASCII onl
One way to fix that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fix what? The problem of having too much money and not enough lawyers from a large corporation suing you for damages?
Re: One way to fix that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must not be busy for the next 50 years, as you'll be doing serious time on terrorism charges.
Re: One way to fix that (Score:2)
Why can't a car report (Score:1)
...a dead-end to the central database? Or at least create an alert for somebody to investigate. If records show multiple turn-arounds at a road then cars should automatically be forbidden from going there until better researched.
Racist (Score:1)
This post is racist against Waymos, who are digital aborigines. For shame!
So... (Score:2)
Waymo can't afford neither Google Maps, nor Waze, Apple Maps, TomTom or anything?
They spent it all on the shitty self-driving?