• CondensedPossum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Some guys were annoying/sexist to her while she participated in a public menace and I guess this is supposed to mean something to me beyond “stay away from California”

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Nah, California sucks, there’s way too much traffic, and too many NIMBYs to solve the traffic problems.

        Weather is nice, but that’s not enough to get me to move there. I have family there, so I visit fairly often, but I honestly don’t really enjoy being there. They have some gorgeous national parks though, so it’s worth a visit for that.

  • Alpha71@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    See now if she had a HUMAN driver, this would have turned out alot differently. But no, we gotta remove another career so Corporations can make more money…

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The victim’s statement here ends with an oddly volunteered tangent and specific praise of driverless vehicles, before it finally takes an eerie turn in the last sentence…

    "…With that said, I think the Human Factor in this issue is going to be a lot harder to solve than anything else.” …FREEZE CITIZEN!

    I do hope she’s okay, and those two folks seem to be clowns, but this thing also all reads as likely guerilla marketing for Waymo - who the article informs me, in a very capitalism-friendly turn of events, that they now have their service open to the public in 3 cities, cars have a safety feature that checked in with her multiple times and they “rewarded” her with an extra ride. It’s a light enough “crime”, with a very engineered feeling and enough to feel “real” while providing ready fodder for morning radio talk shows, Jimmy Fallon and good morning America talking heads to drone on about this morning across America as time filler that quietly advertises waymo “saving” a person from the scary outside world.

    Note: Also, was very funny that throughout drafting my comment here “waymo” was constantly being autocorrected to “say no” :)

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’d expect the Waymo video to have captured footage of these guys. It might not be that difficult to track them, and street harassment might well qualify as assault if the DA of San Francisco were interested in prosecuting.

    That said, it’s telling that they freely and openly harassed a strange woman on the street once the threat of being run over was not a factor.

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Some nasty jerks they are. Well now internationally famous nasty jerks.

  • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    These cars need to have a panic button that allows a remote operator to talk to the passengers, assess the situation, alert police and override the auto driving to get them out of bad situations. Same as an emergency call button on an elevator basically. I dont understand these cars to have any feature like that so far.

    These cars are likely going to turn into hijack machines if they’re programmed for “maximum safety” in situations where, realistically, hitting a pedestrian or causing damage to the vehicle through dangerous terrain may be the only way out with a living passenger. Or they turn into a hearse if the passenger has a medical emergency and the car doesn’t redirect and the passenger is incapacitated.

    But that of course requires labor so it will not happen until legally mandated after a minimum threshold of people die.

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      They have a button on the center-front thingy but it’s not labeled panic or anything.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Considering the length of your comment, you could have started by reading the article.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It sounds like Waymo were already aware of the situation, in fact they called her in the vehicle as it was happening.

      Not to say this isn’t a good suggestion, but they seem to have other systems in place that worked.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It worked, only because these men were only being creepy sexist pieces of shit and didn’t have worse intentions. Customer support according to this article has no control over the vehicle other than restarting the auto driving routines to make the car move again.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      “The men came over to the car again and stood in front of it for a few minutes. Finally when they left, the car was still stalled but I clicked the ‘in car support’ on the screen and they seemed to be aware of the issue,” Amina said. “They asked if I was OK and the car began to drive towards my location. They asked if I needed police support and I said no.”

      When she was almost to her destination, Waymo support called her again to ask if she was ok, she said. “I assured him that I was fine and he told me I would be given a free ride after,” she said. “After many hours I was called one last time by their support team. They asked if I was OK and told me that they have 24/7 support available. They also said I would get the next ride or next two rides (uncertain) free.”

      “In an instance like this, our riders have 24/7 access to Rider Support agents who will help them navigate the situation in real time and coordinate closely with law enforcement officers to provide further assistance as needed,” a spokesperson for Waymo told 404 Media in an email. “While these sorts of events are exceedingly rare among the 100,000 trips we serve a week across Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix, we take them very seriously. We continuously look for ways to improve rider experience and remain committed to improving road safety and mobility in the cities where we operate.”

        • Etterra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Honestly a proper panic button would have an alarm go off and speed dial 911. But I’m sure people would abuse it.

          • erwan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            She talked to an operator who asked if he should call the police and she said no. It’s in the article.

            Not sure what a button would have changed…

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          They have customer support that provides words of platitude, an ineffective police call with a 15minute response time, and no control over the situation. My point remains standing.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Agreed, but to play devil’s advocate, the support wasn’t branded as such and customers could’ve not reported out of shame, which wouldn’t happen if they knew they could do that at the beginning before it became anything substantial.

        • Kalysta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s blocked for me unless i want to sign up. And I don’t for one article.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      override the auto driving

      I must be tired right now but I don’t see how a remote operator could have driven better in this situation.

      You can’t get away from someone blocking your car in traffic without risk.of hitting them or other people or vehicles.

      You probably meant they ought to drive away regardless of what they hit, if it helps the passenger escape a.dire.situation? But I have to wonder if a remote operator would agree to be put on the spot like that.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can’t think of a NY cab driver that couldn’t have handled this situation.

        This guy isn’t doing fedoras any favors either - I’m already a bit on the skeptical side when I see a fedora.

      • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If a man jumps out in front of my car in traffic and points a pistol at me after I stop. I am going around or thru him and there is no other option. Anyone else trying to stop me even without visible weapons is going to get evasive maneuvers to protect myself because I am not dealing with that bullshit. That includes weaving far outside my travel lane or going over a sidewalk. That is self defense and a split second decision that any driver may have to make. Waymo prioritizes all outside obstacle avoidance which means it doesn’t even want to leave it’s set travel lane, which makes them trivial to stop like this with no recourse.

        The point I am making is that self driving has a really hard time interpreting traffic edge cases or passenger emergencies like this. A remote operator could make the decision to drive over curbs and other lanes, if free, to save the passenger, and realistically should avoid hitting pedestrians too… but in the case of an armed attacker - well, yknow. Like force for like force.

        Calling police would only be an auxiliary function. They cannot be depended on to respond in time to most calls to actually make a difference.

        Would a remote operator interpret things accurately in 10 seconds or less, or be a job anyone would even want? How does the liability chain of command work? Who knows. But the current system makes no decision at all, and that is unacceptable. And the medical point still stands too, a remote operator could immediately reroute the vehxile to a hospital and alert the medical staff. A panic button is absolutely needed.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yea I’m not too keen on giving authorization to hit pedestrians. If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person so why should a driverless car gain that right? And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

        I could defintely see a case for some extra safety features that help keep the doors locked and shut, maybe thicker windows too if needed to prevent robberies/assaults.

        • nyan@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          And if the panic button is going to call the police, how is that any different from the passenger using their phone to contact police? Seems like extra steps of middlemen and confusion when the passenger could just call once they feel the need.

          Think of it as a backup for the phone in the case where, say, there’s an adult and a kid in the car, the kid has no phone of their own, and the adult loses consciousness with their phone locked. Or the car is being actively jostled by a group of people (say it drove into the middle of an embryonic riot), causing the passenger to drop their phone, whereupon it slides under the seat. Or the phone just runs out of charge or doesn’t survive getting dropped into the passenger’s triple-extra-large fast-food coffee. It won’t be needed 99% of the time, but the other 1% might save someone’s life, and (presuming the car already has a cell modem it in) the cost of adding the feature should be minimal.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If I feel threatened in my car, I am not allowed to run over the person

          You are not allowed to run people over merely because you feel threatened.

          You are allowed to use deadly force, in the USA when you reasonably believe that it is necessary to prevent someone from unlawfully killing, causing serious physical injury, or committing a short list of violent felonies. The harassment described in the article probably does not rise to that level, though an ambitious lawyer might try to describe intentionally causing the car to stop as carjacking or kidnapping.

          • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Is there any law in any state that would allow you to kill a 3rd party to escape being killed yourself? (If there were, I’d probably opt for not living in that state)

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sure, there are some states that let you mag dump through your front door if someone rings the doorbell

            • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

              Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

              This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

              You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

              So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

              https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

            • tal@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I vaguely remember reading in my criminal law textbook, years back, that murder is one of the few exceptions to the doctrine of necessity (this would have been in the context of US law), so I don’t think that it’s ever legally-permissible to intentionally kill some random person to save yourself. IIRC the rationale was that it prevents thing like terrorist groups from coercing someone to do actions for them by threatening someone else.

              That being said, there are obviously points where people are forced to take actions where either one group of people is going to die or another; in ethics, the trolley problem is a well-known example. For a maybe-less-artificial problem, closing hatches in a ship where not everyone is out of a compartment to prevent the ship from going down, say. I don’t know how law applies in the situation of weighing lives; my assumption is that it doesn’t mandate inaction.

            • Zak@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s likely the harassers can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, a misdemeanor. It is illegal to use deadly force such as hitting people with cars to prevent/terminate a misdemeanor.

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you legitimately believe your life is in danger, you have the right to escape or defend yourself, even if that means running someone over. This has happened in multiple countries with similar outcomes.

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you are in literal, actual mortal danger you are generally allowed to escape with the goal of escape. Especially relevant where waymo operates.

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The “hitting pedestrians” is an extreme hypothetical, and not one you should particularly get hung up on. But it is one that still has to be considered. Passive security measures only go so far for the passenger.

          Realistically, a car can get out of many situations evasively without hitting hostile pedestrians, such as reversing rapidly and then turning around or driving in an opposite travel lane to bypass the blockage. Or hopping a curb and using a sidewalk if it is not occupied (or just blasting the shit out of the horn if it is occupied). These are all things that waymo’s auto mode cannot and will not do, because it doesn’t have the reasoning to understand when such measures are necessary.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    They are quite lucky that woman was not my mother because she’d have pulled out her gun and been like, I told you to move, damnit.

    • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s pretty stupid of her.

      Without hesitation, because she is brandishing a weapon, anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense.

      Never draw a weapon unless the intent is to use it, and in her case she would only intend to use it as a threat not a deterrence, and therefore deserves to die in this imaginary scenario.

      • grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wait so the people that are justified to shoot her to death, would I be justified to shoot them since they’re pulling weapons too? Is it then open season on me

        • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes. This is why brandishing a weapon is so fucking stupid, and why cops always get a wrist slap after shooting first instead of asking questions or deescalate.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        anyone else simply watching the scene from a distance feeling even slightly any emotion is justified to shoot her to death as a form of self defense

        That really depends on your area and what witnesses exist to corroborate your testimony. You can’t just “say” you felt endangered just because a gun was drawn, it needs to pass the “reasonable person” standard (i.e. would a theoretical “reasonable person” feel threatened in this scenario?). I’m guessing an elderly woman pointing a firearm at an individual who is clearly harassing her doesn’t present a danger to a reasonable person who isn’t in the line of fire.

        That said, if the elderly woman appears jumpy or something, maybe there’s a case. But it’s not an open-and-shut case like shooting someone who is taking hostages or something.

        Source: am American in gun-friendly state who reads news articles about justified and unjustified shooting cases.

        • yamanii@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Do you think it’s normal to see a civilian draw a weapon and point it to another one? First thing I would think is that she’s gonna kill them, but I’m not American.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, but that doesn’t necessarily present a danger to you, and if it’s clear that she’s shooting as self-defense (and I think two young men accosting an elderly woman while physically preventing the car from moving qualifies), there’s no reason for you to feel threatened.

            If we put it in a non-gun context, let’s say grandma pulls out a knife to defend herself from these men, and then someone sees that and immediately pulls a knife of their own and engages. Why would you do that? It’s incredibly unlikely that grandma is going on a killing spree or anything, she just wants to defend herself from these aggressive individuals.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m sorry but doing creepy shit like stopping the car a stranger is in to freak them out is what actually gets you shot in America. Th3se two are lucky this woman wasn’t a red blooded american.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The fedora tipping is too funny, seeing it from outside the situation, but she certainly was very scared because it’s such a bizarre event.

  • shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Too bad the cars can’t realize the people are being assholes and run the fuckers over.

    Edit: Might help take stupidity out of the gene pool.