264
A crowd set fire to a driverless Waymo taxi in San Francisco, as tensions about driverless tech grow
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
264 points (100.0% liked)
News
31474 readers
2875 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This happened during street festivities for lunar new year, so a lot of people are connecting the dots. They don't mention that the car was aggressively trying to drive through a crowd, but it seems like it was trying to make its way through a crowd.
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/why-did-a-san-francisco-crowd-light-waymos-driverless-vehicle-on-fire/
So the car's presence was annoying them. That's not exactly a great justification for torching it.
The car shouldn't have been present in the first place. It wasn't a place for cars to be at that moment.
If you were to turn down the wrong street, maybe park in the wrong spot, you'd consider it reasonable if a mob torched it?
I'm pretty sure I'm not a self-driving car. I'm also pretty sure if I saw a big crowd of people, I wouldn't keep driving forward.
I didn't say they'd torch you. The scenario can include them graciously allowing you to depart your car before they burn it to the ground.
Seriously, you think it's reasonable for a mob to destroy a car because its presence "triggered frustrations in the crowd"? Bear in mind this isn't France we're talking about, where torching cars to express frustration is part of the common culture. This is San Francisco.
I think it's reasonable for a mob to destroy one of the many self-driving cars that have been pissing off San Francisco residents for a very long time now when it tries to drive into them during a big celebration where cars weren't even supposed to be.
Who got hurt here? Waymo? Fuck Waymo.
Alright, so you're fine with mobs destroying the property of anyone that "pisses them off." I'd say that's a slippery slope, but you're already basically at the bottom.
I'm fine with mobs destroying something that has been a public menace for years.
Why are you making personal attacks? I did not attack you. Are you able to carry out a conversation with someone you're disagreeing with and not make personal attacks?
What personal attacks? I'm giving you ample opportunity to clarify your position on this matter, and it keeps ending up in support of mob violence and lawlessness. I think that's a terrible position to take, but that's an attack on the position, not the person.
This one:
As for my position, I supported it very well. If a public menace is allowed on the streets, then I have no problem with people taking the law into their own hands.
Sorry, I'm not a legal absolutist. I don't believe that every law should be followed no matter what the situation or circumstance. And there are some laws which I refuse to follow entirely. Like the one here in Indiana which says that I can't use cannabis.
These cars are a public menace. They block traffic for no reason, they drive into people, they keep getting into accidents.
Bay area first responders also think they're a menace. So yes, people should listen to ambulance drivers and firefighters when they are telling them that the city is giving its blessings to something inherently unsafe and I do not have an issue when they take care of the problem themselves.
Maybe you would sit back and let the government-sanctioned orphan crusher keep crushing orphans and stand in the way of anyone who would pull the off switch because that would be lawlessness, but I would turn it off.
I was describing your position on the slope. If you think that's an attack, perhaps your position isn't very good.
Is that really all you had to say to what I responded to you with? You wanted me to clarify my position, I clarified it, and you have nothing to say about that? Really?
What more do you want me to say?
I don't know, maybe respond to any of the five other paragraphs I wrote? You know, since you specifically wanted me to clarify my position?
For fuck's sake, at least thank me for clarifying my position like you wanted me to. You can't even do that?
Waymo is not a person.
Does that make torching the car okay?
Yes.
Good luck arguing that in court.
what is legal isn't synonymous with what is right
A court of law, I guess I should specify.
Don't think I have ever heard of a court of "rightness" before.
Thanks! I don't think I'll need any luck though, as I am not subject to such a court appearance.
Waymo's insurance company anyway. And Waymo's reputation.
Oh well.
Crap self-driving cars are now self aware, posting on the Internet, and think they are human. Everybody grab a torch
Was the road officially closed?
A funny thing about life is a lot of things happen unofficially, and humans do fine at adjusting to such situations.
Plenty of humans also accidently wander into places they're officially not allowed to be in, much less unofficially.
I only wander into places I am not allowed on purpose.
And were the "violators will be set on fire" signs posted?
What do you expect to happen if you park in the middle of a fireworks show?
I didn't realize that a "fireworks show" meant "showing how fire works (by burning down any cars that happen to be present)."
They always have fireworks in Chinatown on Chinese New Year. No human would be dumb enough to park there.
But if one did anyway, torching their car would be fine?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. /s
There's at least 3 other cars parked there clearly visible in the videos.
Do you need a sign for every decision you make?
It was the Chinatown Lunar New Year's celebration. What do you think?
I don't believe it was, based on the other cars present in the videos.
Found the driverless car.
Found the irrational mob.
Two driverless cars in one thread! As I live and breathe!
Maybe the driverless cars were the friends we made along the way...
Shut up, CarGPT.