Trapped! Inside a Self-Driving Car During an Anti-Robot Attack (seattletimes.com) 139
A man crossing the street one San Francisco night spotted a self-driving car — and decided to confront its passenger, 37-year-old tech worker Doug Fulop. The New York Times reports the man yelled that "he wanted to kill Fulop and the other two passengers for giving money to a robot."
A taxi driver would have simply driven away. But Fulop's vehicle had no driver — it was a self-driving Waymo... Self-driving cars are designed to stop moving if a person is nearby. People can take advantage of that function to harass and threaten their passengers.... It was unsettling to be trapped inside a Waymo during an attack, Fulop said. "If he had kept hammering on one window instead of alternating, I'm sure he would have eventually broken through," he said. The attacker did not appear to be on drugs or otherwise impaired, but seemed to be overtaken by extreme anger at the self-driving car, Fulop said.
It did not seem safe to get out and run, he added, since the man was trying to open the locked doors and said he wanted to kill the passengers. They called 911 and Waymo's support line, Fulop said. Waymo told them that it would not manually direct the car away if someone was standing nearby, and that the passengers would be OK with the doors locked. The car's software does not allow riders to jump into the driver's seat and take over during an incident. The attack lasted around six minutes. By then, bystanders had begun cheering on the man, Fulop said. That distracted the man, who moved far enough away from the car that it could finally drive away...
Fulop said he had stopped using Waymo for a time after the January attack and would avoid the service at night unless the company changed its policy of not intervening when a hostile person threatened riders. "As passengers, we deserve more safety than that if someone is trying to attack us," he said. "This can't be the policy to be trapped there."
The article remembers other incidents — including a 2024 video showing three women screaming as their autonomous taxi is spray-painted by vandals. And technology author/speaker Anders Sorman-Nilsson says in Los Angeles five men on e-bikes surrounded his Waymo and forced it to stop. The author felt safe inside the vehicle, according to the times, which adds "He felt reassured knowing that Waymo's many exterior cameras were recording the men. After around five minutes, he said, they gave up and rode away."
It did not seem safe to get out and run, he added, since the man was trying to open the locked doors and said he wanted to kill the passengers. They called 911 and Waymo's support line, Fulop said. Waymo told them that it would not manually direct the car away if someone was standing nearby, and that the passengers would be OK with the doors locked. The car's software does not allow riders to jump into the driver's seat and take over during an incident. The attack lasted around six minutes. By then, bystanders had begun cheering on the man, Fulop said. That distracted the man, who moved far enough away from the car that it could finally drive away...
Fulop said he had stopped using Waymo for a time after the January attack and would avoid the service at night unless the company changed its policy of not intervening when a hostile person threatened riders. "As passengers, we deserve more safety than that if someone is trying to attack us," he said. "This can't be the policy to be trapped there."
The article remembers other incidents — including a 2024 video showing three women screaming as their autonomous taxi is spray-painted by vandals. And technology author/speaker Anders Sorman-Nilsson says in Los Angeles five men on e-bikes surrounded his Waymo and forced it to stop. The author felt safe inside the vehicle, according to the times, which adds "He felt reassured knowing that Waymo's many exterior cameras were recording the men. After around five minutes, he said, they gave up and rode away."
could someone do that to trap an car on railroad t (Score:5, Interesting)
could someone do that to trap an car on railroad tracks?
Re: could someone do that to trap an car on railro (Score:2)
Probably, I know at least last year and before it would not take routes that cross train tracks.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's called a rail blockade. Happens all the time.
https://www.news18.com/news/in... [news18.com]
https://www.sasktoday.ca/highl... [sasktoday.ca]
https://financialpost.com/news... [financialpost.com]
Re:could someone do that to trap an car on railroa (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a blockade done against human drivers, who (usually) know how to drive off the railway track, and the blockaders are only protesting rather than actively trying to murder. They stop cars from passing but don't trap them on the tracks.
What GP suggests is that by people simply standing there, the self-driving car's software will stop on the track without aggressively trying to escape.
Here in Poland we have campaign teaching people how to get out of a railway crossing if you get stuck. A bunch of differently-smart humans didn't even contemplate driving through the bar gate, and in some cases didn't even evacuate the car either. The bars are designated to break easily when forced by a car, but somehow in a stressful situation drivers regard them as sacrosanct. As Waymo cars behave that way in about every potentially dangerous situation, I'm afraid they'll do the same when on a railroad crossing as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The bars are designated to break easily when forced by a car, but somehow in a stressful situation drivers regard them as sacrosanct.
They are following the rules. The rules say that the arms are an impassable barrier. Sure, the arms CAN be broken, but people who follow the rules will not even try. That is why Fascism can so easily slip into your country without any resistance.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's possible that murderers are able to murder. Why would they choose that method over a lot of other methods?
Re: (Score:3)
Simple: This way it becomes a scary story and some bogus anti-self-driving story can be pushed. Obviously, this is all rare, irrelevant events and does not even begin to get remotely close to the numbers of people killed by human drivers.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's possible that murderers are able to murder. Why would they choose that method over a lot of other methods?
A lot of the people who might want to murder people randomly tend to not be the brightest/sanest bulbs. I have personally met a number of people who were convinced that, due to Castle Doctrine, they could invite people to their homes and murder them with impunity. None of them even lived in Castle Doctrine states. The same sort of person might have the same ideas about blocking self-driving cars this way. From their perspective, they would be completely legally in the clear. After all, they're just standing
Re: (Score:3)
That is why you can always open the doors. Basic safety-engineering. Now, whether the passengers would be smart enough to get out is a different question.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, get out and face the probably armed idiot who jumped on the car. Smart move.
What if it is a real terminator?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Try to keep up. We were talking about an FDS car standing on railroad tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Goalpost moving.
Before it was some crazed lunatic that wants to stop a self-driving car on train tracks to murder the passengers, while the passengers apparently just sit there an wait for the oncoming train to turn them into several hundred pounds of ground chuck mixed with twisted plastic, glass, and steel.
Now, because someone pointed out the most obvious reaction to such an action: get out of the car; now you have made the crazed murderer armed all of a sudden.
If they were armed and intent on murder, why
Re: (Score:2)
If a murderer wants to murder, there are many ways to accomplish that.
What you are suggesting is akin to "murder, but on the internet" patents of the 90s.
Nobody would do this, because there's a dozen easier ways to murder someone if so inclined.
Re: could someone do that to trap an car on railro (Score:2)
Uh.. how? Can't put a large object in the road because the driver will see it and stop before the train or drive around it. Can't put a small object in the road because the driver will drive over it or around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that is just as easy as putting an object in front of a self driving car?
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you are intent on murdering someone, you could just not use a train and cause such a ridiculous scenario that would be caught on video anyway.
Nobody murders people by shoving their vehicle onto train tracks, or "cleverly" blocks some self-driving car on train tracks.
They buy a cheap gun in a peer-to-peer sale arranged on the Internet, and shoot someone in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
Since the baseline of the story is that a person trapped a car by standing in front of it, yes. I do think it would be that simple.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. A humn driver can reverse or do a U turn to get out the way. A waymo will just sit there like the dumb tech it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We are well into highly contrives scenarios where a car is boxed in by a person, unable to move in any direction except over them, and there is some imminent threat that cannot wait for the police to arrive.
I don't know the answer. Maybe their staff can command the car to move, even when it can see a person in the way. I'd have thought the option to remotely drive it manually exists. I think all current Waymo cars do have a wheel and pedals anyway, so if the passenger can drive they can climb into the seat
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt a passenger can take over. While - for now - steering wheels are directly linked to the rack throttle pedals have been drive by wire in most cars since the 2010s if not earlier so the throttle is almost certainly disabled when in autodrive.
Re: (Score:2)
Also: the windshield is still standard glazed safety glass. In this highly contrived scenario of the self-driving car not being able / refusing to move, and some imminent threat is coming, and for some reason the doors don't work, you can still put your heel to the windscreen and climb out. The car is going to be a total loss anyway and the shitbird who's standing in the way would be liable anyhow for any number of criminal reasons.
Kick that fucker out, and then go kick the asshole in the dick who's block
Re: (Score:2)
Right, Waymo will do that remotely, after you spend 4 minutes waiting for an operator, then another 2 minutes verifying your identity, then another 3 to explain wtf is happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. In the preposterous scenario where:
1. some dipshit is blocking you on railroad tracks for longer than:
a. it takes for waymo to respond to their help button and do something
b. it takes for anyone on the street or passing by to see what is happening and deal with the dipshit blocking you
c. it takes for you to get out of the car and deal with the dipshit blocking you (doors work)
2. the car cannot / will not reverse
3.
Was anyone arrested? (Score:4, Interesting)
Story says they called the police. Did they ever come? Was the attacker arrested? Should we be on the look out? Don't these things have tons of cameras, should be easy to find the guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they ever come?
Given the story said there was an official police report I'm going to go with yes, also if they didn't come that would certainly have been the headline. Beyond that there's a lot of no comments.
Should we be on the look out?
Yes the world is full of crazy people. You should be on the look out, whether this one particular person has been arrested or not.
Re:Was anyone arrested? (Score:5, Informative)
The attack lasted around six minutes...San Francisco police officers showed up shortly after.
Re: Was anyone arrested? (Score:2)
If the police are looking out for the interests of rich people wouldn't they throw the book at this kind of thing?
The rich people want robo taxis more than anyone else I suspect.
Edge cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Edge cases are why human override is required until the computer is as smart and flexible as a human being.
If I have good reason to believe someone is trying to get into my car to kill me, I am going to try to get away, and I am completely morally fine with that meaning I run them over if that is my only viable option.
The robotaxi would effectively sacrifice me so as to protect my attacker.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I would like to point out that the rider signed a fuckton of waivers to his legal rights, and the attacker...did not.
Re:Edge cases (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'll find you lose significant legal protects when you make credible death threats and appear to be interested in following through immediately.
Self defense can be a valid defense for your target killing you, and you don't have to sign anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was not trying to say riders do not have a right to defend themselves from attackers, if that was how you read it. I am suggesting that Waymo's contracts may be so full of waivers that Waymo would get into more trouble if they allow the car to be used to drive over attackers than if they literally allow the murder to take place.
If this seems unlikely, my basis for this line of thinking is Disney attempting to use, what was it, a Disney+ trial subscription EULA as part of their justification they were not
Re: Edge cases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He could be talking about how, in states with stand your ground laws, they pretty much only work for white people. I highly doubt that's what he is talking about though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court's deference to police, qualified immunity, color of law, etc. make that pretty unlikely. Many courts allow the crime of "resisting arrest" to apply to illegal arrests and even when the officer is plainclothes and fails to identify. So many basic self defense principles, let alone extreme ones like stand your ground, don't apply when police are involved. For extreme examples, consider cases where undercover officers, embedded in rival gangs, have gotten in shootouts with no other real gang members
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's San Fransisco, of course the criminals have all the rights. Especially compared to a tech-bro. What a weird city.
Re: Edge cases (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying criminals shouldn't have rights but when you coddle the criminal and blame the actual victim for the incident, you've gone off the rails. A passenger shooting a crazy person that just bashed in their Waymo's window should not be facing legal problems. It's clearly self defense at that point but I would hate to have to defend myself in a San Fran court of law on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Edge cases are why human override is required until the computer is as smart and flexible as a human being.
Yet this edge case has demonstrated that this wasn't needed. Police exist for a reason (even if they are borderline non-functional in the USA. But I find it funny when people comment on a non-story about how they need to address edge cases. How many people have died in a Waymo?
Re: (Score:2)
The guy in the car was annoyed for six minutes and then it was over. I have some sympathy but not really.
Re: (Score:3)
Annoyed? He was threatened with credible violence. As the article notes, if the attacker had concentrated on one window, he could have broken into the vehicle. The Waymo support person should absolutely prioritize the safety of the customer over the safety of the attacker.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The article is making a baseless assumption. Glass windows (especially passenger ones) are not laminated. If they windows didn't shatter there's not reason to think they would have shattered if the focus was just one one over and over again.
Yes the person was threatened, but again, the risk postulated in the article was not credible.
safety of the customer over the safety of the attacker.
Who said the attacker? A car speeding away out of control isn't about the attacker, it's about another bystander. We're making a mountain of assumptions here. Maybe speeding awa
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was crazy when I read that bit about "if he would have worked on just one window"
That's now how auto glass works. The windscreens (front and rear) are laminated, so they would take some work to make a hole that you can then grip and rip out the sealants and adhesives holding the whole windshield in place. The side windows are just safety glass. They'll break, and they'll break into a shitload of little cubes with sharp corners. But you have to be able to deliver enough force to shatter the g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People probably made the same argument for the horse when the car was invented: "A horse requires no fuel. What if someone attacks you and the car runs out of fuel?"
I would be very surprised if someone had that argument when the car was invented. You're really stretching for this one.
Re: Edge cases (Score:2)
Because if someone wanted to shoot you that badly they wouldn't just shoot the horse first?
Re: (Score:2)
These edge cases basically never happen. The sensationalist way this is reported already demonstrates this nicely. The whole "story" is a non-event.
Why is this portrayed as a bug in the cars ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... rather than a bug in the humans?
It's the feral humans involved that needed to be taken offline for maintenance ...
Re: Why is this portrayed as a bug in the cars ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if it weren't a self driving car, there wouldn't be a story to begin with. Human drivers have no issue dealing with this situation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither do armed people.
I don't think there's a whole lot of overlap in the Venn Diagram of "people who exercise their 2A rights" and "people who ride in robotaxis". Typically, the sort of mindset that leads someone to feel they need a gun for protection stems from valuing self-reliance, and owning your own vehicle falls under that umbrella.
Re: (Score:2)
Some/many of us carry concealed every day.....as the scouts used to say "always be prepared".
Re: Why is this portrayed as a bug in the cars ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. But institutions for the mentally ill costs money, so the US does not do those anymore. Far cheaper to put those people on the streets, and as an added bonus they create fear and make doing politics easier. Funny how basically all of the civilized world does this differently.
That man will be Rosa Parks for the resistance. (Score:3)
John Connor? Just some out-of-work cabbie?
When seconds count (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually a security concern, not safety. The car was in fact conforming in accordance with good safety practices.
Re: (Score:3)
And if he'd poured fuel over the car and lit it? Still only a security concern?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, of course. Anything deliberate falls under security. Anyone can jump off a bridge if they choose to. The safety barriers only serve as accidental protections.
Someone is angry at the robots, (Score:4, Insightful)
(removes eyeglasses and rubs eyes)
Are we sure that the robots are the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the person making the threats here is the problem. And that this person is not in a closed mental institution. But the US thinks it is cheaper having these people out on the street ...
Re:Someone is angry at the robots, (Score:5, Interesting)
robots are soulless things without free will. It's pointless to attack them, because they won't learn. The human traitors aiding and abetting them, on the other hand... are attackable.
I'm not necessarily thinking like that, just speculating what the attacker could have thought.
Re: (Score:2)
so he attacks the... wait for it.... the humans.
(removes eyeglasses and rubs eyes)
Are we sure that the robots are the problem here?
The attacker didn't express anger for robots. He expressed anger at the car's occupants for funding robots. But the problem isn't the robots or the human passengers; the problem is the attacker.
Wallet, keys, phone, Glock* (Score:2)
which is why I retired in Tucson.
Re:Wallet, keys, phone, Glock* (Score:5, Informative)
The three large, urban counties with the lowest homicide rates were San Jose, California; Anaheim, California; San Diego, California; in 2023 with less than 7 homicides per 100K population.
Tucson, Arizona, had a reported violent crime rate of 47.74 per 100k and drop to 54 homicides overall, (about 5 per 100k) reportedly a big improvement in 2025. So it seems Tuscon has actually commenced a trend toward safety. A single incident could blow that out though with 1.1M pop.
Best to stay home until it reaches something like London in the UK 1.1 per 100k.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth hurts. Ever wondered why the murder-rates in, say, Europe, are much, much lower? No, you clearly have not.
Re: (Score:2)
300k+ killed in Iran. What if they had guns too?
Re: (Score:2)
Relevancy? Oh, I see, none at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
which is why I retired in Tucson.
Because you're just itching to kill someone needlessly? In this scenario here precisely zero people were injured or killed. Having a gun would very likely have changed that.
The next phase of grieving (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The rule of law is optional everywhere. There are a variety of specific requirements for prosecution to occur that are usually very straight forward to evade if cognizant about one's own activities. Law is mostly a big stick intended to scare the little people who do dumb things on the open public stage. Let's not pretend the "rule of law" is some morally superior code - it's the rules the wealthy apply to the poor to keep themselves wealthy and enable tranquility among the working class, while the wealthy
My sensors indicate you're somewhat disturbed (Score:3)
K.I.T.T. would have known how to handle this situation
Deranged person threatens murder.... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is basically the story here. The self-driving car part does not matter. The fix? Start to care for the mentally ill again, even if that costs money. Putting them out on the streets is a very bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the major point is that self driving car service passengers are pretty much stuck and in potential danger if a random someone comes up to them while they are in the car.
Unlike in a traditional vehicle, where even if there is no driver, you can at least try to get into the driver seat and drive off (assuming the car is running).
Escalation threat? (Score:2)
it's not subject to the Three Laws (Score:2)
Remember?
1. Red means STOP
2. Yellow means SLOW
3. Green means GO
Oh, it is...my bad
EV trolly problem? (Score:2)
this looks like the EVs are going to be forced to decide in advance on the trolly car problem. "Do I save my passenger by injuring pedestrians, or almost certainly get my passenger killed?"
This is going to have to be coded in software. And if you think you can just avoid coding it, the choice will be made for you, BY THE CODE. It's a binary decision, you can't opt out of making the decision because INACTION is one of your options.
So eventually legislation is going to have to get on the books to answer it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're going to outsource the decision making to a trained AI, then they'll say they can't precisely predict the choices it will make in advance, but that they will be in alignment with the training data.
For me, the real question is "is it statistically better than humans?", and wherever the answer is "yes", then we have to live with the machines killing people once in a while because they'll kill fewer people than people would.
Texas (Score:2)
Crime = call the police (Score:2)
When someone is threatening you, you should call the police,not the car company.
When the car company gets a call about someone threatening someone in their car, they need to call the police themselves.
Or do we have to wait till someone stops the car, dissasembles it, then proceeds to shoot the occupants before people realize:
When you are threatened, you call the cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Not clear that calling the police in SF is a winning proposition.
Fucking california (Score:2)
They talk a big bucnh of shit about personal freedom, but let anyone not march in lockstep with those stupid fuctards and you then see their real fucking colors:
JUST AS UNSTABLE AND FUCKED UP IN THE HEAD AS ANY OLD NAZI THEY'D CARE TO NAME.
Fall into the ocean, california, or secede. Either way, get the fuck away from here.
external cameras (Score:2)
Always encouraging to know that the external cameras will help find the perps who murdered you.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, this is San Fransisco. The tech should of apologized haha. Guns? Those are dangerous. Can't have them. You need to ask "permission" from the local sheriff to even carry a gun. Next time, maybe the crazy person will destroy the window and harm the passengers. Then, some how, some way, Waymo will be the wrong party despite the crazy person doing everything.
Very backwards place but you know what they say, voting has consequences.
Re:One of these morons is going to fuck with (Score:5, Funny)
Full scenario:
- SF Man attacks Waymo
- Passengers call 911
- Police never come
- Man finally breaks through window and attacks passengers
- Passengers open fire on the man in self-defense
- Police finally show up and arrest the passengers
- Man sues Waymo for medical expenses for his cut hand and gunshot wound
- Public blames Waymo for (1) inciting the incident and (2) not driving off to de-escalate
- SF Board of Supervisors demands Waymo change its terms of service to forbid armed passengers
terms of service really can't stop the 2th and who (Score:2)
terms of service really can't stop the 2th and who will enforce it?
Re: (Score:3)
terms of service really can't stop the 2th and who will enforce it?
Why do you think there is any overlap between the SF Board of Supervisors' demands and reality?
This is the same city that keeps trying to ban corporate shuttles so that all the tech workers will have no choice but to ride public transit, and then will have no choice but to pay to fix the transit system for everyone else too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sounds about right, though I am curious how many people are legally conceal carrying and also taking a Waymo. Those two demographics don't seem like they would have a lot of overlap. San Fran doesn't just let anyone carry a gun. You have to have some coin and have a reason to carry it. It being in the Constitution has zero concern for San Fran.
Still, your break down does sound like about right for San Fran and California at large. We'll cry over the dead criminal then go after the richest entity involved, r
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious how many people are legally conceal carrying and also taking a Waymo. Those two demographics don't seem like they would have a lot of overlap. San Fran doesn't just let anyone carry a gun.
Between 2012-2021, San Francisco issued a total of 11 concealed carry permits. (source: https://calmatters.org/politic... [calmatters.org])
In 2022 alone, San Francisco police seized over 1000 illegally-possessed guns. (source: https://sfbos.org/sites/defaul... [sfbos.org])
Many people in SF are carrying. Few of them are doing so legally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One of these morons is going to fuck with (Score:4, Insightful)
Without all those "restrictions" the attacker would probably have had a gun, used it, and the problem would have solved itself as passers-by opened up by kinetically demonstrating their rights patriotically. The surviving passengers, if any, naturally, would have already commenced a return barrage of their own to suppress the incoming.
The passers-by and onlookers would of course have shot at the armed passengers in the car in a defensive move as they well might have fired first and appeared to be the aggressor perpetrating a casual drive by shootup.
Many are likely to have shot as well at the now armed lunatic attacking the robot car as clearly a large moving target will always catch the eye.
This division of effort may then have been interpreted as gang warfare, with the invested general public breaking up into factions to return fire at other armed and aggressive passers by.
The arrival of the police could then have become the focus of the now all out warfare, with their own likely defensive response being 360 all round weight of fire drills designed to suppress the incoming.
Ther is a name for this entirely predictable sequence of events: Turesday, Ocala, Florida.
Re: One of these morons is going to fuck with (Score:2)
Isn't that the American way though? I mean, it's protected in your constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but on top of that the self-driving cars could have a button that passengers can press if they feel threatened. Then, upon using its cameras and AI the car can proceed to secure their safety in the safest possible manner even if it means harming the attackers. I believe Asimov covered this in his laws of robotics. The Waymo should never harm other humans except when required in defense of its passengers.
Re: 2nd amendment (Score:2)
Defense for one person is going to be a weapon for another.
Re: (Score:2)
Defense for one person is going to be a weapon for another.
This is the point no one seems to have recognized yet:
Any emergency-mode rapid escape maneuver you force the company to install in their software becomes a potential way for a malicious actor to induce the car to ram into pedestrians, either for kicks or for terrorism.
I can see the 2032 headline: "Incidents Of So-Called 'Waymo Bullfighting' On The Rise Among Teens And Gangs Calling Themselves 'AutoMatadors' or 'Matties' For Short".