The benefit is profit for the taxi companies.

It seems like a solution in need of a problem to me.

It's more like the drive to earn more profits, which is driving this (pardon the puns).

Also why was a police car blocking "another lane" I can't get to the article because of paywalls. So I am picturing a 4 lane wide one way street. The claim is that 2 driverless cars are blocking the far right lanes. The 3rd lane was blocked by an officer and the 4th was moving traffic? If so why on earth would they block the third lane instead of parking behind or in front of one if the taxis? If there is video footage in the article?

Pretty sure they already do have that as I've seen video from a similar incident recently where a police officer smashed the window and then some Cruise rep began talking to him over the car's stereo system.

The driverless cars could have drivers assigned to monitor them 24/7 either in person or remotely until they have proven themselves

They really need something like this, if for no other reason as to protect the vehicles from people trying to troll the AI, by quickly manipulating the road in front of them for social media filming reasons, etc.

The city government allowed it and the city residents have to put up with it.

Combined with e-bikes to “flatten” hills and make distance traveling easier, we could really make some amazing improvements to city design.

I agree that the US actually needs more public transport. Fatalities aside, that’s often going to be the best solution for congestion and climate change. Congestion alone in SF is still a fucking nightmare. SF is small as fuck, but driving across that town between 3 and 7pm can take 1-2 hours.

As a local, I feel like the current state of MUNI, BART, CalTrans, AC Transit, and cycling are not going to be a good fit for EVERY single use case. If I’m injured, am carrying bulky stuff, or am trying to hit up a part of town that would take too long with public transport, an AV EV could be a good solution.

I usually try to avoid cars in SF. They’re often more trouble than they’re worth. But, there are times, IMHO, when cars solve a current route and use case better than alternative solutions. And it if they’re still going to be used for certain use cases, it would be nice if they killed fewer people.

Driverless cars could really help solve the "last mile" issue in many transit systems.

I dislike taking transit because I have to take one unpredictable bus from my house to the train, take the train the majority of the distance, then take another unpredictable bus to my destination.

The issue of infrequent buses through neighborhoods isn't going to be solved anytime soon. But if I could take an electric driverless car from my house to the train I would be a lote more likely to take public transit over just taking my existing car.

Thats not what hes asking. Humans are notoriously awful drivers. Does gradually replacing humans with AI drivers save more lives than unintentionally blocking an ambulance?

Good lord.

Read what he says with your thinking cap on.

Have they been rushed though? It’s been a decade of testing in public. Regulators forced AV companies to go through multiple trials with increasing levels of road density, vehicle autonomy, and fleet size. After a decade of trials and reporting safety data, SF is only now letting the general public hail an AV at any hour of the day.