A peculiar sight has become increasingly common on the streets of San Francisco in recent days. Driverless taxis are being targeted by a group of masked activists who believe that all cars, regardless of who or what is driving them, are inherently unsafe. The group, known as “Safe Street Rebel,” aims to promote pedestrian and bicycle safety and views the arrival of driverless cars as a perpetuation of car dominance rather than a revolutionary mode of transportation.
Activists Disable Waymo and Cruise Taxis
To convey their message, activists have been disabling driverless taxis operated by Waymo and Cruise, the only two companies currently authorized to operate in San Francisco. By placing traffic cones stolen from the streets on the hoods of the cars, the activists force the vehicles to come to a halt, rendering them disabled. These acts of resistance have gained significant attention online, with millions of views on social networks. The timing of these protests is particularly relevant as state authorities are considering expanding driverless taxi operations to a full 24-hour paid service in the city.
Friction Between State and City Officials
While the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposes allowing Waymo and Cruise to directly compete with ride-sharing apps like Uber and Lyft without drivers, this decision has caused tension between state and city officials. Driverless cars were initially introduced in San Francisco in 2014 with mandatory human “safety drivers” on board. However, California eliminated the requirement for a human driver in 2018, leading to concerns among city officials about the increasing number of incidents involving autonomous vehicles. Instances of cars blocking bus lanes, disrupting crime scenes, and getting stuck in the middle of roads have raised alarm bells.
Controversy and Postponed Decisions
The San Francisco County Transportation Authority reported 92 incidents involving autonomous taxis last year, prompting City supervisor Aaron Peskin to criticize the CPUC’s decision to allow a rapid expansion of driverless taxis on the city’s streets. As a result, the CPUC’s decision on whether to further expand Waymo and Cruise’s services, which was originally expected by the end of June, has been delayed twice and is now scheduled for August 10. Currently, Cruise is only authorized to charge customers for routes between 10 pm and 6 am, while Waymo cannot charge for rides without a human driver on board.
Mixed Reactions and Safety Concerns
Despite the controversy, Waymo and Cruise have managed to build loyal customer bases through their experimental schemes. Riders like Jaeden Sterling, an 18-year-old who prefers they/them pronouns, find self-driving cars convenient and safe. They feel more secure in a self-driving car compared to traditional ride-sharing services like Uber or Lyft, which can be driven unsafely due to the pressure of meeting ride quotas. Sterling appreciates the cautious nature of self-driving cars, as they often make frequent stops to ensure safety. The manufacturers of driverless cars emphasize their safety records, with Waymo claiming “no collisions involving pedestrians or cyclists” in over a million miles of autonomous operations.
However, some local residents, such as software engineer Cyrus Hall, remain skeptical. Hall worries about the potential consequences if a glitch occurs in a car’s computer system. He believes that previous incidents involving autonomous vehicles should serve as a warning and that establishing a robust regulatory framework is crucial before scaling up the deployment of potentially glitchy software.
The proliferation of driverless cars in San Francisco has sparked controversy and resistance from activists who view them as a threat to pedestrian and bicycle safety. While Waymo and Cruise have established loyal customer bases, concerns about safety and the need for strong regulations persist. The decision regarding further expansion of driverless taxi services has been postponed, reflecting the ongoing perplexity surrounding the issue.
Leave a Reply