Waymo Has A Charging Problem (insideevs.com) 63
The Santa Monica City Council has unanimously voted to order Waymo to halt overnight charging operations at two outdoor depots near Broadway and 14th Street after months of resident complaints about constant beeping from reverse sensors, noise from charging equipment, traffic congestion and flashing lights between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. As many as 56 autonomous vehicles charge at the two sites. It's unclear whether Waymo or its Virginia-based charging operator Volterra intends to comply.
The Los Angeles Times reported that neither company planned to, claiming city officials misunderstood their existing permit rights. Waymo told the newspaper it had adjusted operations in response to neighbor feedback and would continue seeking community input, though the company did not address the order directly. Local law enforcement has gotten involved after at least one person attempted to disrupt operations at the facilities on several occasions.
The dispute points to a broader challenge facing the autonomous vehicle industry: charging depots need to be close to service areas to minimize deadhead miles (distance traveled without revenue-generating passengers), but situating them in residential neighborhoods creates exactly these kinds of conflicts.
The Los Angeles Times reported that neither company planned to, claiming city officials misunderstood their existing permit rights. Waymo told the newspaper it had adjusted operations in response to neighbor feedback and would continue seeking community input, though the company did not address the order directly. Local law enforcement has gotten involved after at least one person attempted to disrupt operations at the facilities on several occasions.
The dispute points to a broader challenge facing the autonomous vehicle industry: charging depots need to be close to service areas to minimize deadhead miles (distance traveled without revenue-generating passengers), but situating them in residential neighborhoods creates exactly these kinds of conflicts.
Bad zoning laws (Score:2, Interesting)
Really it is up to Santa Monica to zone the usage correctly. It's a hindsight 20/20 on letting the charging station be built in an area where it seems useful and isn't obviously near anyone. But in reality there are a ton of apartments just behind the lot.
For people not familiar with the area, Broadway is a main road with like schools, strip malls, and some apartment complexes. But there are smaller streets around the area, like the one the big parking lot full of chargers is loaded, and those have lots of
Re: Bad zoning laws (Score:2)
Re: Bad zoning laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, learn about punctuation if you want to be understood.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
For reference, Santa Monica has had excessive noise ordiances on the books that the limit is for 50 dBA (for up to 15 minutes) or 55 dBA (for up to 5 minutes) between 10pm and 7am. Being that the decibel levels are a logarithmic scale, 112 dbA is actually over 100,000
One silly law causes problems (Score:3, Insightful)
Laws that require backup noises make no sense and cause problems
Re:One silly law causes problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws that require backup noises make no sense and cause problems
Laws which require backup noises apply to vehicles where there is no person operating the vehicle who can reasonably see behind them. That's why they are on trucks and buses. They also only apply to commercial motor vehicles, which these are.
The charging stations shouldn't be located in these places, and they should also be designed for pull-throughs. Even if there weren't a noise issue (which there won't be if they aren't installed in dumb locations) there still would be other reasons to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws which require backup noises apply to vehicles where there is no person operating the vehicle who can reasonably see behind them.
That raises an interesting question. Should this requirement apply to autonomous vehicles equipped with sensors that would prevent it from hitting a pedestrian when reversing?
The charging stations shouldn't be located in these places
Then the city should have banned charging stations in these locations via zoning before one was built there. Knowing Santa Monica, I bet they loved the idea of a charging station being built there before they realized that being green doesn't mean there won't be negatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Should this requirement apply to autonomous vehicles equipped with sensors that would prevent it from hitting a pedestrian when reversing?
Until they are infallible, yes.
the city should have banned charging stations in these locations via zoning before one was built there
Life is chock-full of "should haves", alas. Instead of each new project being better than the ones before, many people and organizations seem to think they know everything when they should have learned from others. I'm quite sure someone else had figured this out already.
Re: (Score:2)
Should this requirement apply to autonomous vehicles equipped with sensors that would prevent it from hitting a pedestrian when reversing?
Until they are infallible, yes.
Should we then apply the same logic to very fallible human drivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having an individual to sue or put in prison doesn't change the fact that you've been injured/killed. The question is what we need to do to prevent pedestrians being run over by a reversing vehicle. Punishment after the fact is a separate matter.
Even setting that aside, it's not clear to me that you'd be better off trying to recover some sort of compensation from an individual with an unknown level of insurance than from the deep pockets of Waymo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Liability insurance is required in the US. Uninsured drivers still exist. I'm sure they do in Canada, too. Insurance also behaves the same fundamental way. If you have a history of at-fault claims you'll quickly find yourself uninsurable.
3 gender benders within 10 years and you are uninsurable.
I don't know if that's an official policy, but I imagine if the anti-woke wing of the current government has their way it might become the case ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Should we then apply the same logic to very fallible human drivers?
The entire positive side to bureaucracies and committees and governments is that they have enough people in them to do multiple things at once.
Usually when someone says something like what you said and I quoted above here, they are trying to argue that human drivers shouldn't exist. Maybe this is true, for some particular set of truths, but there's always a number of ways you can look at a situation. For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are cu
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I would argue that no one and no computer should be driving in the bulk of situations we are currently driving in, because cars are a terrible mode of transportation in the cities where most people live.
I don't agree with it, but that's a valid opinion. My response was written in response to the position that many commenters take (though perhaps not you) that self-driving cars need to be infallible before they're allowed on the roads, while ignoring the fallible human drivers that most don't seem to have a problem with.
Re: (Score:3)
Kinda wonder why the volume of the "backup noise" isn't auto adjusted based on the ambient sound level.
It's not like they can't find a computer and microphones on those cars.
Re: One silly law causes problems (Score:3)
I'm not reading the code rn but I would assume the volume is mandated. It's got to be over a certain level to be considered audible to people with hearing disabilities. We had one on our RV as it used to be a bus, I disabled it. I will probably put it on a switch at some point though
Re: One silly law causes problems (Score:1)
I've seen videos of these waymo lots and it is far and away the most idiotic system designed by people who are probably rather intelligent.
The problem is insisting that a charging depot for autonomous cars should look and behave as a traditional car park. It should be a fully enclosed garage, to keep out the rifraff, with a palletized racking system. When there is vacancy, the car would be signaled to drive onto the pallet, and the robot in the garage slots it into an available spot, silently. When the char
Re: (Score:2)
This suggestion solves the problem, at the tradeoff of costing 10-100x more. Parking decks (let alone underground parking) are massively expensive compared to a surface lot. And that's before installing a stacking robot.
I think the simplest solution is for Waymo to find a way to safely disable their reverse beeps in depots. Failing that, make every charging stall a pull-through so there's no need to reverse.
Re: (Score:3)
Laws that require backup noises make no sense and cause problems
Like the warbling all EVs do at low speeds. It's louder and more annoying than a regular car.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, when you live in a parallel dimension you may think they are louder than a regular car. Unfortunately not at all on planet earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, when you live in a parallel dimension you may think they are louder than a regular car. Unfortunately not at all on planet earth.
My experience agrees with that of CubicleZombie, especially when the vehicles are travelling at lower speeds. Keep in mind that frequency content is important - the levels recorded on a sound level meter don't necessarily correlate well with human perception, interpretation, and emotional response.
I think that rather than weird synthesized noises, EVs should use actual recordings of IC vehicles. Pitch and volume should be adjusted according to speed, so the EVs mimic the sounds we've already become familiar
Re: (Score:2)
the levels recorded on a sound level meter don't necessarily correlate well with human perception
I would have left this part of your post out since you just demonstrated you don't know how sound meters work. Hint: They are not linear, in fact most sound decibel meters don't offer a dB(Z) measurement. The modes that are measured dB(A) are a weighted model that specifically aligns with human sound perception.
But honestly your experience is at odds with mine, and about half the cars in our street are electric. The only time you can hear them is when they reverse (when did reversing beeps become a thing in
Re:One silly law causes problems (Score:5, Funny)
Laws that require backup noises make no sense and cause problems
Except they objectively do make sense and improve safety. The fact that there's unintended consequences at a heavily congested charging station doesn't change that. Though this is America we're talking about, I'm surprised pedestrian safety ranks anywhere at all on the Fucks-To-Give scale.
backup beepers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Seems like, with all that technology, they could turn off all that beeping and flashing while they're in the charging station area.
Good idea, but you'd also need a pretty robust safety verification mechanism, showing that the vehicles are indeed in an area where they can turn safety features off, with no humans accidentally in the area.
Re: (Score:3)
Good idea, but you'd also need a pretty robust safety verification mechanism, showing that the vehicles are indeed in an area where they can turn safety features off, with no humans accidentally in the area.
We already have a satellite-based positioning system, that can tell the position of a receiver anywhere on the globe. This can be verified with a short-range radio system like bluetooth - just put a transponder in the charging stations. And finally, don't these autonomous cars already have robust detection of humans? Detecting humans then refraining from mowing them down near a charging station seems no different to detecting humans on sidewalks or crosswalks. Easier perhaps, because the vehicles should onl
Why backup beepers? (Score:2)
...And finally, don't these autonomous cars already have robust detection of humans? Detecting humans then refraining from mowing them down near a charging station seems no different to detecting humans on sidewalks or crosswalks. Easier perhaps, because the vehicles should only be moving very slowly....
So... what is the purpose of the beeping alerts, then, if there is no danger to which you need to alert humans?
Just remove the beepers entirely.
robot parking lot: no need for lights, sounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
if all the cars that are in the lot are all robotaxies, then why not just have them turn off the lights (they use lidar, after all, no lights needed), and also turn off the "back up beep beep beep" audio. no need for that when no human drivers are around.
there, problem solved.
i'm sure someone will step in and correct my misunderstanding, here. i AM pretty sure i must be missing something
Re: (Score:1)
Re:robot parking lot: no need for lights, sounds? (Score:4, Interesting)
From here in my comfortable chair it's hard to judge how bad the situation is, vs. to what extent it might be a form of protest by somebody who just doesn't like self-driving cars.
There's lots of video of one of the lots in question. Here's a good one where you can see one car backing up causing a chain reaction honk on all the others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Even if they legally can't disable the horns while in that lot, there's at least two simple things I can think of off the top of my head they could do to help mitigate it: The first would be redesigning that lot to be pull-through so that the cars don't ever have to back up. The second would be tweaking the algorithm (and they should be able to easily do it specifically for that geolocation since Waymo considers mapping data to be another sensor just as important as the lidar) so that the cars don't creep up on each other like that and trigger a chain reaction when one backs up.
But even if they were able to make those change, I'd say that Waymo probably shouldn't be operating out of a lot that's directly underneath a big apartment building. Particularly not during the quiet hours.
Re: (Score:2)
She said they fixed it, but they'd have to, a month of that and someone is going postal and shoot every waymo in the lot ... justifiably.
Re:robot parking lot: no need for lights, sounds? (Score:5, Insightful)
why not just have them turn off the lights (they use lidar, after all, no lights needed), and also turn off the "back up beep beep beep" audio.
Because we don't want them to instantly kill the first kid who jumps the fence, or the next careless service technician. Automated industrial robots (which is what these cars are, really) have these things for a reason. The regulations requiring this stuff are all written in blood.
And because they require all of that stuff, having a lot full of them in a residential neighborhood makes no more sense than putting a bus depot or airport there does. Waymo should shove its "disruption" up its ass, eat the deadhead miles as an operating expense, and move the lots. If that makes its service too expensive to be profitable, that is their problem.
Re: (Score:1)
Because we don't want them to instantly kill the first kid who jumps the fence, or the next careless service technician. Automated industrial robots (which is what these cars are, really) have these things for a reason.
I really hope that Waymo's cars aren't relying on their Nader-beepers to avoid killing people. They should be (and AFAIK are) relying instead on their video cameras, LIDARs, and other sensors to stop the car before it hits the wayward kid/technician.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're at the point where more people are killed because the incessant beeping drives them crazy, than are saved because they weren't paying attention until they heard the beeping. My flat's being renovated for the past 8 months, and I'm seriously contemplating sabotaging the fucking horns on all the construction equipment.
Re:robot parking lot: no need for lights, sounds? (Score:5, Interesting)
if all the cars that are in the lot are all robotaxies, then why not just have them turn off the lights (they use lidar, after all, no lights needed), and also turn off the "back up beep beep beep" audio. no need for that when no human drivers are around.
ISTR reading someplace that they already did turn off the beeps within their depots... yep, here. [spectrumnews1.com] Whether or not that's still in effect or what else is being complained about, I don't know.
Having grown up just outside the fence of an international airport, and lived in an apartment where I could reach out the window and touch passing metro trains, I get it. Living next to infrastructure kind of sucks.
If the infrastructure was there first, suck it up, you chose to live there. In this case, it looks like the people were there first, and Waymo bought some property and turned it into noisy infrastructure. And I kinda concur with the NIMBYs: put your noisy infrastructure out by the airport or next to the garbage depot or something. The few deadhead miles it incurs is cost of doing business. You'll just pass it along to customers anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
if all the cars that are in the lot are all robotaxies, then why not just have them turn off the lights (they use lidar, after all, no lights needed), and also turn off the "back up beep beep beep" audio. no need for that when no human drivers are around.
there, problem solved.
i'm sure someone will step in and correct my misunderstanding, here. i AM pretty sure i must be missing something
Imagine telling someone back in the 80/90s that in 2025 we'd have driverless taxis that could run from renewable electricity, but people would be bitching and trying to get them shutdown because of the noise from their backup sensors.
We truely live in the age of stupidity.
The city has issued an order (Score:3, Insightful)
"The city has issued an order" and "it's unclear whether Waymo will comply".
Since when does Waymo get to decide if they'll comply with local laws or not?
Now the next step is to take them to court, shut their operation down completely and ban them from setting up shop again until or unless they show that they have figured out how to comply with the law.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when does Waymo get to decide if they'll comply with local laws or not?
When the "order" came from the City Council (legislature), the branch of the government that has no power interpreting or enforcing the law? You acknowledged it in your own post; that the city would need to sue the companies in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when does Waymo get to decide if they'll comply with local laws or not?
Who said law? Just because the city votes to consider you a public nuisance doesn't mean you've broken the law, especially when your activity was originally granted a permit for operation.
All the city has done is sent a letter. Waymo is free not to comply. If they don't the city will need to actually take legal action and convince a judge that their opinion is worth more than the permit granted for them to operate before any "law" is in effect.
Just put some nails over the charging spots (Score:2, Insightful)
They'll soon get the message.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll soon get the message.
The only person who will get a message is you, one from the police and the courts for sabotage / damage of property.
I'm not sure why you think vigilante justice will work out in anyone's favour other than the group being targeted. Are you new to planet earth?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think vigilante justice will work out in anyone's favour other than the group being targeted. Are you new to planet earth?
It does in Gotham! [discourse-cdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless there's CCTV watching every charging point how would they prove it? You think the police have time to DNA sample every tack and force every adult in the local area to give a sample?
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless there's CCTV watching every charging point how would they prove it?
You're questioning whether you'd be captured on some sort of camera in a depot full of self-driving cars? The things are sensor platforms on wheels.
street justice is real (Score:2)
When you send in an army of robots that annoy humans, and you refuse to hear what the humans have to say about that, then you are subject to street justice. You probably won't like street justice, better to be friendly to your future customers up front.
Re: (Score:3)
And just make the parking spots all pull-through so there is no backing. I know this takes forethought and all.
Profits First (Score:2)
charging depots need to be close to service areas to minimize deadhead miles
No, they don't. It just costs less. The idea that creating a public nuisance is acceptable if it will enhance your profits is modern corporations at work.
Noise Ordinance (Score:3)
I'm confused as to why one of the pre-existing noise ordinances wouldn't have already covered this, and if for some reason it didn't, why not just amend it rather than pass a bill specifically targeting a site?
The larger issue at hand (Score:2)
The larger issue at hand is anything autonomous, that previously required people, taking up public resources that it does not contribute back to in any meaningful way.
The agreement should be that if Waymo is going to operate in a dense area like this, then they need to find a way to build out the infrastructure necessary to accommodate their usage of the system.
Same with data centers, same with all of it
Right or wrong... (Score:1)
Santa Monica could do some emergency road work in the area. At least making it so far as to get the road signs and barrels/Jersey barriers up.