Slashdot Mirror


People Are Harassing Waymo's Self-Driving Vehicles (usatoday.com)

Waymo's testing dozens of self-driving mini-vans near Phoenix. Now the Arizona Republic asks why the vehicles are getting so much hate, citing "a slashed tire, a pointed gun, bullies on the road..."

"Police have responded to dozens of calls regarding people threatening and harassing Waymo vans." That was clear August 19, when police were called because a 37-year-old man who police described as "heavily intoxicated" was standing in front of a Waymo and not allowing the van to proceed. "He stated he was sick and tired of the Waymo vehicles driving in his neighborhood, and apparently thought the best idea to resolve this was to stand in front of one of these vehicles," Officer Richard Rimbach wrote in a report.

Phil Simon, an information systems lecturer at Arizona State University and author of several books on technology, said angst from residents is probably less about how the Waymo vans drive and more about people frustrated with what Waymo represents. "This stuff is happening fast and a lot of people are concerned that technology is going to run them out of a job," Simon said. Simon said it is hard for middle-class people to celebrate technological breakthroughs like self-driving cars if they have seen their own wages stagnate or even decline in recent years. "There are always winners and losers, and these are probably people who are afraid and this is a way for them to fight back in some small, futile way," Simon said. "Something tells me these are not college professors or vice presidents who are doing well."

Police used video footage from Waymo to identify the license plate of a Jeep that kept driving head-on toward Waymo's test car -- six different times, one in which the driver then slammed on the brakes, jumped out of their car, and demanded that Waymo get out of their neighborhood. Another local resident told the newspaper that "Everybody hates Waymo drivers. They are dangerous." On four separate occasions, people have thrown rocks.

A 69-year-old man was even arrested for pointing a revolver at the test driver in a passing Waymo car. He later told police he was trying to scare Waymo's driver, and "stated that he despises and hates those cars." He was charged with aggravated assault and disorderly conduct. The man's wife told reporters he'd been diagnosed with dementia, but the Arizona Republic calls it "one of at least 21 interactions documented by local police during the past two years where people have harassed the autonomous vehicles and their human test drivers," adding "There may be many undocumented instances where people threatened Waymo drivers..."

"The self-driving vans use radar, lidar and cameras to navigate, so they capture footage of all interactions that usually is clear enough to identify people and read license plates," the paper adds. (Waymo later cites its "ongoing work" with communities "including Arizona law enforcement and first responders.") When one local news crew followed Waymo vehicles for 170 miles to critique their driving, a Waymo driver eventually pulled into a police station "because the driver was concerned we might've been harassing them. After they learned we were with the media, they let us go on our way."

33 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Massage that title a bit, please by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People Are Harassing Waymo's Self-Driving Vehicles

    Self-Driving Vehicles Are Harassing Waymo's People . . . would be more interesting.

    Self-Driving Vehicles Are Harassing Waymo's Self-Driving Vehicles . . . would be the pinnacle.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Massage that title a bit, please by Memnos · · Score: 3, Funny

      Alexa and Cortana were arguing about which route their Waymo should take...

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
  2. So... by BytePusher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don’t communities vote on whether Waymo is allowed to drive in their town/neighborhood/street? Waymo could take the lead here and conduct the vote. Instead, they’re relying on lawyers, cops and greasy politicians, none of whom represent the people they’re charged with serving.

    1. Re:So... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don’t communities vote on whether Waymo is allowed to drive in their town/neighborhood/street?

      Because we live in a free country, and the public roads should be accessible to anyone obeying the laws. A vote should not change that, anymore than a vote should be able to censor a newspaper or shut down a church.

      If you want to put restrictions on what others can do, the burden is on you to show they are harming you or infringing on your rights in a significant way.

      How is a Waymo car harming you in a way that a human driven car is not?

    2. Re:So... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Guaranteed that if those lawyers' and politicians' own jobs were threatened by technology, there would be a whole lot more barriers to this automation craze.

      Automation of legal research and legal document processing has been common for decades. Number of laws restricting progress in this area: 0.

    3. Re:So... by quenda · · Score: 2

      Why don’t communities vote on whether Waymo is allowed to drive in their town/neighborhood/street?

      Because that is how a representative democracy works. You can't have people vote on everything.
      And do you want that anyway? Could be embarrassing if there is a vote on whether gays are allowed in the community.

      If the majority of people are really that bothered, not just a few Luddites, why wouldn't the politicians listen? Arizona problem?

    4. Re:So... by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because communities, subdivisions, etc. don't get to vote on who / what gets to drive on public roads that are maintained by public dollars.

      A few years back I recall a subdivision put up a roadblock / gate across a back entrance to a subdivision because of all the through traffic that was utilizing it as a means to bypass heavy traffic on the main street. They tried every trick in the book including the infamous " Think of the children " bullshit. They got educated in the whole public vs private roads issue as well and that roadblock was removed with haste with a warning that if it happened again there were a whole list of laws that would turn into an expensive court fight waiting for them.

      You want the final say so in who gets to drive on your roads ? You use private funds to install and maintain them on private property and you can have all the say so in the world. If you use public funding in any way to maintain your roads, you don't get to complain about who drives upon them as long as the vehicles are street legal.

    5. Re:So... by LordKronos · · Score: 2

      The law says a Driver must be in control of a vehicle at ALL TIMES. Waymo’s vehicles and inherently illegal.

      It's really too bad that laws cannot be amended. Oh wait. They can be. And they have been:

      http://www.ncsl.org/research/t...

    6. Re:So... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Huh? I can think of a few neighborhoods who have successfully lobbied city hall to change the streets, speed bumps and even blocking roads, to limit who can drive on their roads, usually targeting through drivers, occasionally trucks.
      Any neighborhood has the right to lobby city hall to get traffic changes in their neighborhood. In some countries, they can also use an envelope of money or campaign contribution to help their case.
      They may not be able to actually stop individuals from using the roads, but they can sure discourage them.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:So... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you saying that a vote shouldn't be able to change the law?

    8. Re:So... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you saying that a vote shouldn't be able to change the law?

      Laws can be changed, But the regulations about travel on the public road are the purview of state authorities not your neighbors. Because laws restrict freedom there are constitutional safeguards against "tyranny of the majority" in our republic on what laws can limit or prohibit, and laws that excessively limit freedom are subject to scrutiny based on evaluation of the rational basis or bonafide interest -- there are many laws about vehicle operation that are allowable as protecting safety; However, prohibiting all autonomous vehicles seems strictly discriminatory and not supportable under that rational basis, so the prohibition could very well be unconstitutional.

      Access to the publicly owned roads that happen to run through a particular neighborhood cannot simply be arbitrarily restricted by residents of that neighborhood as if they were private property.

      Blocking arbitrary members of the public or types of vehicles just because locals don't like them or feel uncomfortable about them isn't an acceptable proposition in a free society. Again, while voters can cause laws to be changed (If there are enough of them to persuade their state legislature to do so) there are limits on what laws are acceptable.

    9. Re:So... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They got educated in the whole public vs private roads issue as well and that roadblock was removed with haste

      Well, the roads in a subdivision are primarily for access and services to the residents typically very low-volume, often used by joggers for exercise and kids at play, not designed nor safe for through vehicle traffic, so occurences of Rat Running unreasonably high through traffic IS are definitely legitimate safety concerns, disturbance to the peace through pollution, noise, unexpected traffic jams, etc and may result in reduced property values also.

      Blocking off through traffic IS a common solution.
      Its just that some random activists with a private subdivision cannot arbitrarily take it upon themselves to install a private gate or blockade across a public roadway --- they need to get the DOT or other municipal authorities involved to prohibit certain routes (Such as Official No Through-Traffic signs), replace some of the roadway with cobblestone, install a permanent curb or concrete barriers limiting vehicle use of one of the former entrances or install traffic calming measures as commonly done such as chicanes (reducing to one narrow lane/making one-way), installing speed tables, curb extensions, additional stop signs, and Police-enforced "No Entry (during certain hours)".

    10. Re:So... by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      Can they read all road signs? What is their recognition rate - as in how often do they miss road signs.

      And when are autonomous cars tested? There obviously should be tests but I've never heard of one being taken.

      I'd love to see an autonomous vehicle try and pass UK driving license tests, both the practical and the theory and hazard perception tests. I'm sure they'd fail miserably.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    11. Re:So... by mysidia · · Score: 2

      How do you propose self driving vehicles meet these requirements?

      For now they don't have to, because -- for now, the human safety drivers are the legal drivers of the vehicle who is to retain
      ultimate control and responsibility for what the autonomous car does, and they will be a qualified vehicle operator possessing a legally valid driver's license.

      Ultimately different laws will need to be developed by the legislature (or the courts) once the technology evolves further and safety drivers are no longer going to be used; that is, once some manufacturers feel their autonomous cars are ready to be set free and drive themselves without a human operator -- that is without a licensed human driver at the wheel monitoring the operation and bearing the responsibility for vehicle operation.

      The current law in many states, accepted as rational and constitutional, requires those who want a drivers license to be at least 16 years of age, take a class, pass a written test, and pass a driving test in a state provided vehicle.

      The states require licensing of human drivers, because humans must be of sufficiently sound mind to safely operate a vehicle;
      Humans also need training or self-learning on the operation and the rules of the road, and since some seem to ignore it, unsafe/reckless drivers cause
        many accidents, and lack of proper knowledge of the rules is a factor: testing is required to help verify the training.

      Those under 16 are children and are not in general capable of safely operating a vehicle and taking responsibility --- the age requirement
      for licensing or registering is for awarding a driver's license to a human.

      You might notice that.... Age Requirements basically don't apply when it comes to registering or insuring a vehicle to a corporate entity or
      a non-human is involved in a business transaction, and verfiying an autonomous vehicle as capable of competent self-driving would be the same.

      Autonomous vehicles will only really need to prove themselves a single time per each software+hardware implementation, once the code is finalized,
      and for any new patches or data releases.

  3. Re:Protest smarter by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are much better ways of protesting than throwing rocks or pointing guns at the vehicle itself.

    They are not protesting. They are just venting their anger. It is only directed an Waymo because they aren't sure who else to blame.

    Protesting only makes sense when you can articulate an alternative. That isn't happening here.

    Automation is not going to go away no matter how they attack it.

    Then what is the point in protesting? It is going to happen no matter what. That is why they are angry.

    These are dumb and crazy people, frustrated with their lives, believing (correctly) that nobody gives a crap about them. Even voting for Trump didn't fix their problems. So now they are lashing out at a symbol of the world passing them by.

  4. Re:What a pompous fuck by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we found one of the car harassers here.

  5. Re:Protest smarter by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    We set traps for them.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. No Surprise by jaa101 · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised this kind of thing hasn't been considered before; it has a huge potential to damage the viability of automated vehicles. This report is just about people being annoyed but you're going to have criminals targeting unmanned vehicles to steal them and/or their cargo. Automated vehicles will be seen as softer targets when they have no people aboard. I expect driverless taxis to suffer much the same issues that things like automated bike hire systems already do. "This is why we can't have nice things."

    1. Re:No Surprise by mysidia · · Score: 2

      They're not necessarily soft targets for (non-professional) criminals, because criminals don't like getting caught -- and these things Video Record Everything and collect other data; to use an Automatic taxi you'll probably have already had to identify yourself before you even get into the vehicle --- it doesn't take much more to stream footage in real-time or automatically upload it the moment something suspicious is detected.

  7. Google versus Americans by Kohath · · Score: 2

    Don't call it harassment, call it "advertising". Don't call it stalking, call it "targeted attention placement". Don’t call it hostility, call it "active engagement".

    If the people at Google don't treat regular Americans with respect, then why should regular Americans treat Google's robots any better?

  8. Re:Yay! Cancer! by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To wit, has anyone considered the fallout to occur from thousands of radar units blasting people with small amounts of radiation, every day?

    Yes, they have, and it's negligible.

    You want to know what blasts people with large amounts of harmful radiation every day? The sun. It causes skin cancer in everyone who doesn't die of something else first. If you want to worry about radiation damage, start there.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  9. Re:Dumbasses by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, they were doing a news report on how well the Waymo cars actually drive, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You can see a summary (including the police stop) here. The basic summary: they're good at stopping for threats, but they suck at lane changes and some turns. Despite being in a tightly geofenced area (aka, the cars are "trained to the test"), they found one left turn which the cars could never manage to take without human intervention.

    It's understandable that people would be upset if they see the cars as bad drivers. You don't have to invoke motives that people see them as a "threat to their future" when the people are literally telling you that they're upset with how the cars drive.

    --
    Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
  10. Re:It's cute when kids tease robots though... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hopefully those kids will grow tired of it before they grow into adults.

    They will grow tired of it in about an hour. People rapidly adjust to new things. Some people rag on self-driving cars, but nobody is complaining about self-driving elevators and phones that no longer need human switchboard operators. Certainly no one complains about the automatic looms that riled up the original Luddites.

    They only complain about the "new" thing, and stop when it is no longer new.

  11. Re:If you can't take the heat, stay off the street by HiThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but you need to read about the protests against cars when horses started being replaced. This is one (of a number of) normal human reaction(s) to unforeseen changes. And that they didn't foresee it tells you about the kind of person they are.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. Re:It got a waiver to the state driving test. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't like Google Recaptcha either. But what in hell does that have to do with their cars?

    What people don't like about automated cars is their scrupulously careful driving habits, which puts them in the way of garden-variety asshole motorists. The need for this will gradually go away as fewer and fewer human drivers share the road with them.

  13. Who's gonna buy? by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    What are Waymo and others going to do if most people don't have a job and are living in tents?

  14. Re: Protest smarter by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

    The alternative to "is happening" is "is not happening." What I'm saying is your claim that protesting only makes sense when there is an alternative is absurd, since there is always an alternative. That statement doesn't make any sense at all.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  15. Re: There is no journalistic integrity anymore by edris90 · · Score: 2

    Because if you let people know they're being watched they alter their behavior and corrupt the data collected

  16. Safe as a human by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Waymo should take this as a learning experience; if their cars act human, than there is no problem. But they don't currently, so people don't like them. Do we not all want these cars to act human and therefore come close to being as safe as one?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  17. Not just Waymo by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I used to ride a bike to school in a suburb of Phoenix. Occasionally drivers would yell or throw stuff at me as they passed.

    Later, I delivered pizza in another suburb. I stopped putting on the car topper because people would yell and honk at me. So you see, Phoenix drivers are intolerant of anything on their road that falls outside the norm.

    Phoenix is also one of the road rage capitals of the USA. So it isn't just Waymo.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  18. Re:Protest smarter by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    They're "frustrated" that they're not going to survive without a job and without a social safety net. They're being killed.

    Unemployment rate in Phoenix: 3.5%, a 40 year low.

  19. Re:Dumbasses by dcw3 · · Score: 2

    "... in all of them we are required to register our ownership of automatic weapons"

    Automatic weapons actually do require a federal license.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  20. what? by SuperDre · · Score: 2

    The man's wife told reporters he'd been diagnosed with dementia

    what kind of excuse is that? if he's got dementia, he shouldn't even be allowed to be near a f-ing gun. And that's why regular people shouldn't have guns..