Robotaxis: Innovative or highly dangerous?
San Francisco is experimenting with fully autonomous robotaxis, but is it too soon? Some focus on the mishaps, while others say that AI learns from its mistakes and self-driving cars could save lives in the long run.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00 I know what you're thinking.
00:01 Yes, I have health insurance.
00:02 (upbeat music)
00:04 Driverless cars like this one are a common sight
00:08 here in famously tech-friendly San Francisco.
00:11 But even here, there's a lot of debate
00:13 as to whether the city is ready for them
00:15 or whether they should even be here in the first place.
00:18 To be sure, the tech isn't perfect.
00:20 The cars aren't always waiting where they're supposed to
00:23 and they have a habit of stopping when they get confused,
00:25 blocking traffic.
00:26 I don't know why we're stuck.
00:29 (horn honking)
00:30 It's one thing for regular drivers to be inconvenienced,
00:32 but quite another for emergency services to be affected.
00:36 Like when one of the cars crashed into a fire truck.
00:38 Residents had been divided
00:41 on whether driverless vehicles should be allowed
00:43 to pick up passengers for a fee 24/7
00:46 instead of just test riders within a limited time window.
00:49 As for the companies,
00:51 they say the cars will lead to fewer accidents.
00:54 Robo operators like Waymo and Cruise
00:57 argue that eliminating human drivers from the equation
01:00 makes passenger transport much safer
01:03 because drivers can get drunk, tired,
01:05 or distracted while driving.
01:07 The California Public Utilities Commission
01:09 heard hours and hours of public comment
01:12 urging it to either vote for or against
01:15 ramping up robo-taxis.
01:16 - Which vehicles?
01:17 - I take vehicles.
01:18 - That's not.
01:19 - San Francisco.
01:20 In the end, it gave Waymo and Cruise the green light
01:23 and opponents are seeing red,
01:25 especially drivers of traditional taxis.
01:28 - So we're here to say no, no to robo-taxis,
01:33 no to robo-taxis.
01:34 - They are a menace.
01:35 They stop unexpectedly.
01:37 They actually have broken the law many times.
01:40 We see them signal one way and then go another way.
01:44 - But for some, the ruling was welcome news.
01:48 Sharon Giovinazzo is a test rider
01:50 whose organization has a partnership with Waymo.
01:53 She says that as a blind person,
01:55 having no driver means having no one
01:57 who can discriminate against her.
01:59 - I see nothing.
02:01 So I'm totally blind.
02:02 It's blackout blind.
02:03 I've been this way for 23 years.
02:05 I have multiple sclerosis
02:07 and it choked off my optic nerves.
02:10 One of the things I found out
02:11 with taxis and ride share services,
02:13 because I choose to have a guide dog to navigate the world,
02:16 is they will leave me standing on the side of the street
02:18 and they will cancel rides even after they pull up
02:21 and they see the dog.
02:22 They don't want to have the dog in their vehicle.
02:24 Whereas here, there's no opinion because there's no driver.
02:27 When you're like, "Ahh!"
02:33 Or you know, that sudden stop that's made,
02:35 or you feel people swerving and people honking at you
02:39 and not being able to see what's going on,
02:41 it's fearful.
02:43 I've never had one fear sitting in one of these.
02:45 I just say that it's welcome to the future.
02:47 - But anti-robotaxi campaigner Safe Street Rebels
02:53 say it's a future that ignore the voices of San Franciscans.
02:57 The group is best known for street campaigns
02:59 to disable Waymo in cruise cars
03:01 by blocking their sensors with traffic cones.
03:04 That's why this activist speaking to us
03:07 wants his identity withheld.
03:09 - Waymo has specifically threatened
03:12 to pursue vandalism charges,
03:14 which we're pretty confident putting a cone on a hood
03:17 doesn't meet any vandalism charges,
03:20 but we are a bunch of individuals
03:22 and they are backed by a pretty massive company
03:26 with very deep pockets
03:27 and willingness to spend time in court.
03:30 - He says the real world experience
03:32 the cars need to improve comes at a cost to residents.
03:35 - There's definitely a kind of data,
03:39 need for certain data to conclusively say
03:42 if it's safe or if it's not,
03:44 and the only way to get there
03:46 is through this kind of open experimentation.
03:50 We don't like that we as residents of the city
03:54 have had no say in being subject to this experimentation.
03:58 - Another night, another ride.
04:00 Consultant Mario Herger is a cheerleader for the technology,
04:04 but acknowledges there's work left to do.
04:07 - I've heard from others and seen the videos
04:09 of people riding in the car and being attacked.
04:13 That means somebody throwing an empty box over the sensors
04:19 and then throwing empty pizza boxes on the hood,
04:23 on the windshield, and the car stops.
04:25 So in this moment where somebody's attacking the car,
04:28 I want the car to drive me out of that area
04:32 and put me at a safe area
04:36 and not stop in the middle of the mayhem going on.
04:39 - There's a question at the core of all this
04:41 for all cities coming to grips with innovation.
04:44 At what point should society decide
04:46 that imperfect technology is safe enough
04:48 to roll out on a mass scale
04:50 and that the benefits outweigh any unintended consequences?
04:53 - We normally see in innovation three stages.
04:57 The first stage is an idea,
05:00 and innovation is ridiculed and everyone laughs about that
05:04 and doesn't take it seriously.
05:06 Second stage is people realize,
05:08 "Oh my God, this is gonna stay.
05:09 "We have to fight it because it's threatening our jobs.
05:12 "It's threatening our old way of life."
05:15 The third one is the technology is finally here.
05:18 Everyone accepted it.
05:19 - Whether everyone is eventually going
05:22 to accept the driverless cars is further down the road,
05:25 but California authorities have chosen this path
05:28 for the residents of San Francisco,
05:30 and people will have to reckon
05:32 with the impact of their decision.