Waymo Pays Workers $22 To Close Doors on Stranded Robotaxis (msn.com) 72
Waymo's fleet of autonomous robotaxis can navigate city streets and compete with human taxi drivers, but they become stranded when a passenger leaves a door ajar -- prompting the company to pay tow truck operators around $20 to $24 through an app called Honk just to push a door shut. The owner of a towing company in Inglewood, California, completes up to three such jobs a week for Waymo, sometimes freeing vehicles by removing seat belts caught in doors. Another Los Angeles tow operator said locating stuck robotaxis can take 10 minutes to an hour because the precise location isn't always provided, forcing workers to search on foot through narrow streets too narrow for flatbed rigs.
Tow operators also retrieve Waymos that run out of battery before reaching charging stations, earning $60 to $80 per tow -- rates that aren't always profitable after factoring in fuel and labor. During a San Francisco power outage last weekend, multiple operators received a flurry of retrieval requests as robotaxis blocked intersections across the city. One San Francisco tow company manager declined because Waymo's offered rate fell below his standard $250 flatbed fee.
Waymo said in a blog post that the outage caused a "backlog" in requests to remote human workers who help vehicles navigate defunct traffic signals. San Francisco Supervisor Bilal Mahmood called for a hearing into Waymo's operations, saying the traffic disruptions were "dangerous and unacceptable." A retired Carnegie Mellon engineering professor who studied autonomous vehicles for nearly 30 years said paying humans to close doors and retrieve stalled cars is expensive and will need to be minimized as Waymo scales up. The company is testing next-generation Zeekr vehicles in San Francisco that feature automatic sliding doors.
Tow operators also retrieve Waymos that run out of battery before reaching charging stations, earning $60 to $80 per tow -- rates that aren't always profitable after factoring in fuel and labor. During a San Francisco power outage last weekend, multiple operators received a flurry of retrieval requests as robotaxis blocked intersections across the city. One San Francisco tow company manager declined because Waymo's offered rate fell below his standard $250 flatbed fee.
Waymo said in a blog post that the outage caused a "backlog" in requests to remote human workers who help vehicles navigate defunct traffic signals. San Francisco Supervisor Bilal Mahmood called for a hearing into Waymo's operations, saying the traffic disruptions were "dangerous and unacceptable." A retired Carnegie Mellon engineering professor who studied autonomous vehicles for nearly 30 years said paying humans to close doors and retrieve stalled cars is expensive and will need to be minimized as Waymo scales up. The company is testing next-generation Zeekr vehicles in San Francisco that feature automatic sliding doors.
Don't they know how to close a door remotely? (Score:2)
Don't they know how to close a door remotely? Move forward a few feet. Rapidly accelerate backwards and then slam on the brakes hard.
Better yet, install door closer mechanisms like Tesla uses. It can't be that expensive. At that price, ten closes per door would just about cover the parts cost of doing it right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have the tow truck employees dress like Tesla robots. Problem solved!
Re:Don't they know how to close a door remotely? (Score:4, Interesting)
Better yet, install door closer mechanisms like Tesla uses. It can't be that expensive.
The article mentions seatbelts jammed in doors. Personally I think Tesla should make clear instructions to the passenger to ensure the door is fully closed before leaving. And if the passenger chooses to disobey the directive, then the passenger should be responsible to pay a charge for this.
At this point it is not Waymo's responsibility to implement a risky forced closing mechanism. If the passenger neglects the door, then the passenger pays $50 in costs to get it closed + the costs in lost fares + overhead fees to have Waymo's providers shut it.
Re: (Score:2)
If the passenger neglects the door, then the passenger pays $50 in costs to get it closed + the costs in lost fares + overhead fees to have Waymo's providers shut it.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Waymo is going to figure out a way to have the door close correctly in the next iteration of the hardware. Of all the difficulties of self-driving cars, that one is definitely solvable.
Re:Don't they know how to close a door remotely? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure the "seat belt caught in door" is easily solvable. It sure seems like car companies haven't cracked the "seat belt needs to always fully retract when taken off" nut yet.
Re:Don't they know how to close a door remotely? (Score:4)
Bring back those old school 80's style retracting shoulder belts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Put the seat belt mount in the middle of the car, not near the door. Maybe put a rubber roller on the door sill to "brush" a hanging belt into the car as the door closes. Or, you know, build a belt recoil with a sensor that makes sure the belt has retracted properly, and check that no weight is detected on the seat or floor to make sure the passenger is clear before enabling a stronger retract motor.
These are electric taxis, not normal passenger cars. They don't have to be built within the same ergonomic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that they should make it the customer's responsibility. It's difficult to make sure you're communicating with the customer about this, though.
I think there's a better solution to this problem long term. Use minivans with power sliding doors on both sides, and no other doors. These can easily be designed so that it's not really even possible to create this problem. These don't have to be and in fact probably shouldn't be totally new designs, they should be based on designs automakers are already sell
Re: (Score:3)
Minivans truly the superior vehicle choice in so many ways other than reputation. Easily 1/2 of pickup truck drivers would be better served by one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sez the slashdotting drywaller...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to make sure you're communicating with the customer about this, though.
They booked the ride via some app/interface and the customer is surrounded by screens and speakers during the entire ride.
"Thank you for riding with Waymo. Remember to fully close the doors after exiting the vehicle or we will charge you USD 100."
"*ping* One of the doors of your Waymo ride isn't fully closed. Please return to the vehicle and close it or we will charge you USD 100."
Seems pretty easy.
I do agree that preventing the issue is even better.
Re: (Score:2)
The article mentions seatbelts jammed in doors.
Seatbelts jammed in doors indicate that the seatbelt retractor is bad and needs to be replaced. That's considered a critical safety failure, because it means that the seat belt won't retract correctly in an accident. So if that happens, the vehicle should be immediately pulled from active service as a robotaxi. And if that is happening frequently on those vehicles, then the manufacturer of the car should do a mandatory safety recall to replace the entire lot of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's considered a critical safety failure, because it means that the seat belt won't retract correctly in an accident.
You're conflating two different things.
Attached to the belt reel is a spring, which retracts the belt when it's not being used, and a mechanism to stop the reel from moving when the vehicle jerks suddenly. It doesn't affect safety if the former doesn't work, but the latter is essential.
The thing you're talking about - the pre-tensioner - is usually located where the belt buckles in. In the event of an accident a small pyrotechnic charge is used to tighten the belt to hold the passenger more firmly in their
Re: (Score:3)
That's considered a critical safety failure, because it means that the seat belt won't retract correctly in an accident.
You're conflating two different things.
Attached to the belt reel is a spring, which retracts the belt when it's not being used, and a mechanism to stop the reel from moving when the vehicle jerks suddenly. It doesn't affect safety if the former doesn't work, but the latter is essential.
The thing you're talking about - the pre-tensioner - is usually located where the belt buckles in. In the event of an accident a small pyrotechnic charge is used to tighten the belt to hold the passenger more firmly in their seat. Some manufacturers may put them in the reel mechanism but all the ones I've seen were in the buckle. I've read that some of them even use miniature Wankel engines to convert the pressurised gasses from the charge into rotary motion.
Ah. Thanks for the correction.
Either way, it's still a defect in the car that should be fixed. And I would argue that it is still a safety issue if the belt ends up being significantly loose around the passenger — just a different safety issue than I thought.
Re: (Score:2)
And I would argue that it is still a safety issue if the belt ends up being significantly loose around the passenger — just a different safety issue than I thought.
Fair point.
Re: (Score:2)
They just need a robot that sits in the driver's seat and can get out and close doors properly when the passengers don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. This silicon valley techbro culture disconnect is off the charts.
First Law Of Car Robotics: "The customer is always right"
Re: (Score:2)
First Law Of Car Robotics: "The customer is always right"
Where ever do you get a weird idea like that from?
This is no more than a 2025 equivalent to being fined $10 by Blockbuster in 1995 for Failing to rewind the stack of rental tapes you returned.
Or bringing back your rental car with half a fuel tank and getting a $10 fill up charge. Of course after 30 years of Inflation; that 10$ is now reasonably at least $30. And that action not filling that fuel tank back up on your car rental in 2025 sets you
Re: Don't they know how to close a door remotely? (Score:2)
Is it?
I saw a comment from a random person suggesting the fee. Nothing from a tech bro.
Re: (Score:1)
first time a passenger gets whacked for $50+ for not closing the door may be the last time
If the customer is repeatedly Ignoring directions given at the end of their ride to make sure the door is closed properly after they disembarg; then that passenger is essentially costing Google (The amount of money Google has to pay to get someone to close the door Is more than the $20 or so you have to pay to ride on a Waymo). Plus during that time period the vehicle is out of service waiting for someone to close th
Re: (Score:2)
> The article mentions seatbelts jammed in doors. Personally I think Tesla should make clear instructions to the passenger to ensure the door is fully closed before leaving.
You mean Waymo, not Tesla there, but they absolutely do yell at you to close it if you leave one open for even a minute or so. I know because we used one and got yelled at, though we were just unloading stuff at the time and closed it afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they know how to close a door remotely? Move forward a few feet. Rapidly accelerate backwards and then slam on the brakes hard.
Yep, great idea! Run over the occasional pedestrian behind the vehicle, damage the brakes and drive-train, create a disturbance. You clearly are not a competent engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they know how to close a door remotely? Move forward a few feet. Rapidly accelerate backwards and then slam on the brakes hard.
Yep, great idea! Run over the occasional pedestrian behind the vehicle, damage the brakes and drive-train, create a disturbance. You clearly are not a competent engineer.
Why would any of those things happen? There are no pedestrians where the car just was, plus you have cameras to make sure no pedestrians are coming. You can't damage brakes by using them to stop the car. You can't damage the drive train (realistically) by accelerating. And there's no plausible reason to believe you would create a disturbance by driving three or four feet and hitting the brakes.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called safety engineering. No surprise you have no idea what that means.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called safety engineering. No surprise you have no idea what that means.
Nothing to do with safety engineering. It's just another driving scenario or several.
With twenty-nine cameras (inside and out) and multiple Lidar and radar units, those cars should have no trouble spotting parking meters, signs, and other obstructions that could be at risk and handling them appropriately. It just has to be trained to do it.
Would it require careful programming and model training to ensure that the vehicle doesn't start the maneuver without enough time to safely complete it before any other
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're upset that you didn't know or think of that method so you're trying to find reasons why it won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be functionally illiterate. I never claimed it "will not work". What I actually claimed is the probably side-effects make this slap-dash amateur approach useless.
They've never been to Japan? (Score:3)
Every Japanese taxi has a lever that the driver can use to open and close the passenger door without getting out of the car.
And yes, generally there is only one passenger door and it is the one back and on the left, the one that is on the sidewalk side. The drivers get really upset if you ride shotgun or try to get out on the other side.
Ya think ... (Score:2)
pay tow truck operators around $20 to $24 through an app called Honk just to push a door shut.
... some enterprising bicycle messengers can make a few easy bucks on the side by just riding by and kicking a car door? With much lower overhead as well.
Heck, they do this for free in my town.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, paying drivers of gigantic trucks to do something that can much better be done by people on bikes or on foot is a very American solution to the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
... something that can much better be done by people on bikes or on foot ...
"On foot"? Are they supposed to keep hundreds of agents on call 24/7, all around the city, to close a handful of car doors a week? Because it's not like people on foot can cover significant distances in a short amount of time...
Now piggy-backing on existing bicycle messenger services, on the other hand, does seem like a reasonable idea.
Re:Ya think ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? A little phone app that alerts you when there's a car within 500m that needs the door closing? I bet lots of people would sign up for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, you might be right - hadn't thought of that approach. But I can also see ways that could go south.
Good for the goose... (Score:5, Funny)
Seems to me that tow truck operators should charge Waymo surge pricing...
The beginning of the end (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as Waymo is "cool", it will mostly be used by "nice" people who take care of the cars. What we're seeing here are people starting to be less careful.
Once robotaxis become normal, you will get the rest of the population. They will be trashed, vandalized, and generally abused in ways that a driver would prevent. Druggies and homeless will occupy them.
But surely this is obvious. I wonder how Waymo plans to deal with the problems ...
Re:The beginning of the end (Score:4, Insightful)
We all need to recognize druggies and homeless are not Waymo's problem but our societies and that mean's us, that is If we want a cool future with robot taxis that arent made absolutely hostile to their passengers and ends up positively dystopian because Waymo has to make them entirely out of hard plastic and uncomfortable with fines everywhere, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Obvious why you posted this as AC because it is fucking retarded. Are we 13? Do better.
Re: (Score:3)
But surely this is obvious. I wonder how Waymo plans to deal with the problems ...
The usual "tech bro" approach is to off-load the company to someone else before the obvious-to-us problems become obvious to the rich guys who've never ridden in a cab.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll whine about it, and a combination of money to the brass and a bunch of overtime for FoP members will solve that.
Re: (Score:2)
"Thank you for taking Johnnycab. Hope you enjoyed the ride."
Re: (Score:2)
They will be trashed, vandalized, and generally abused in ways that a driver would prevent. Druggies and homeless will occupy them.
But surely this is obvious. I wonder how Waymo plans to deal with the problems ...
Probably they'll deal with that sort of misbehavior the same way hotels do... by always having someone's credit card on file before allowing access to the shared resource, and charging service/cleanup fees to that card as necessary to recover costs and discourage bad behavior.
Re: The beginning of the end (Score:2)
They require a credit card which eliminates the unbanked.
That should handle eliminating most homeless and people near homelessness due to drugs.
I do imagine that drug users not on the edge of homelessness will use them as a place to shoot up and get back to where they were, but I'm not sure how that negatively impacts anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as Waymo is "cool"
The arbiter of cool (me) scoffs at this notion.
tokyo (Score:2)
I seem to recall that some Tokyo taxis have powered door closers, and have had for over 20 years. But Wamos are Jaguars, the cream of Coventry.
Gigwork wiping robot ass (Score:2)
“The future has arrived - it's just not evenly distributed yet.”
distributed denial of service (Score:1)
Autonomous vehicle systems are a lot more fragile than given credit, and engage much more in tragedy of the commons than they purport.
If I wanted to monkeywrench Waymo, I might arrange a group of similarly thinking human beings, maybe a dozen would be all it takes, to randomly, periodically arrange Waymo trips and upon exit leave the door ajar. Coordinated effectively, would have the same end result as the recent SF power outage, stranding robocars throughout the city. I mean heck, if I was one who got pai
Re: (Score:2)
Autonomous vehicle systems are a lot more fragile than given credit, and engage much more in tragedy of the commons than they purport.
First, yes/ Lika all robotics. Second a clear NO. They already kill and maim far fewer people per distance drive than cars under the control of the average idiot. And no, the numbers CANNOT be fudged. Eventually, only professional drivers with additional insurance will be allowed manual control of a vehicle on public roads. Anything else is just far too expensive and damaging.
Re: (Score:2)
You are not accounting for the unknown knowns. Until there are embedded sensors in all roadways, mandating autonomous vehicles is a non-starter. Long time in the future, and the human drivers who see driving as freedom will not go lightly into that good night. Monkeywrenching and other swarm attacks will pick up in frequency towards these systems. Are they capable of dealing with them? They ain't even capable of dealing with brownouts or severe weather events.
Re: (Score:2)
You are just trying to throw FUD. You have nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Safety is not the primary tragedy of the commons of autonomous vehicles. This rather long but worthwhile video [youtube.com] details the problems.
Why not an Uber style app? (Score:2)
Why not offer $5 bounties to nearby Waymo users good toward their next ride?
Use the app (Score:4, Interesting)
Ride ends but the car signals it can't move? Message the last rider "you forgot to close the door, we'll bill you $1/minute until you fix this".
Re: (Score:2)
$1 a minute might be excessive. But asking the rider to cover the $22 fee seems appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
$1 a minute might be excessive.
Not for a problem you can diagnose while standing right next to the device in question.
If they can't get this right... (Score:2)
If they haven't done enough analysis of predictable situations to mitigate "passenger left the door open", why should I believe they've done a good job with all the edge cases that would make for a comprehensive safety hazard analysis?
Add a $500 non-occupied commercial vehicle fee (Score:2)
Or make it $1,000. Or higher (I'd say higher, $2.5k, it's commercial, make it hurt and pay).
If a company a "abandoning" 30k+ assets in public areas, it should be retrieving them. It is THEIR problem.
If a tow action is needed, but a human is not there to manage the transaction, the fee hits.
Any commercial vehicle, doesn't have to be autonomous.
Done.
Philip Koopman (Score:1)