upvote
Not today. Not next year, either. And calling taxi service that dangerous is an exageration. Preference enhanced by that type of comments would be more accurate
reply
I guess? I was on a date with someone and we took an uber back to her place after a concert, and she mentioned off-hand afterward that had I not been there she would have just walked... even though it would have been over an hour on foot, it just wasn't worth the risk after multiple bad/creepy experiences taking carshares home late at night.

Maybe it's a bit like cops: they're not all bad, but the system is kind of set up so that bad ones thrive and good ones burn out. It's going to be a particularly kind of person who is willing to spend their late Friday night driving drunk people home from the club, and honestly if you're a vulnerable person, maybe the guy most willing to do that job is the one you least want as your particular driver.

reply
Fair. There is no reason to not believe you. Women are more vulnerable than men. Still, calling the service dangerous without any backing, by some report in addition to annecdata, is offensive, and only does a service to the provider, however well meaning the deduction may be.
reply
It's definitely not nothing, and the numbers bear that out: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59008000

Whether this is one of those "we accept some number of school shootings cause gun freedoms are just so great" issues or not is I guess its own matter for debate. But the fact that this happens, and then as dudes we get to discuss it at arms length on the internet and opine about whether "99% of trips completed without incident" is reason to dismiss it all out of hand may help explain why an individual woman getting home from the bar might choose to walk or take waymo vs getting in a cab and risk joining the unlucky 1%.

reply
The link you posted leads to the lyft report. The incidents we are talking about, vulnerable groups, is at worst 1/800,000 which corresponds to Touching

https://assets.ctfassets.net/q8mvene1wzq4/4jxkFTH5YCQK8T96ST...

1% Is a gross exageration if you go by this article / document.

Since you mentioned weapons: Robotaxis will have a social cost, and in Canada that is important in a way not seen in the US. Unlike weapons, there will be not much discussion about robo-everything.

reply
Surveilling on women without their knowledge and then using that footage as you like is dangerous too. Tech companies are famous for their ethics. Letting women get into a cab controlled by an overseas driver seems dangerous too.

Lets not hide profits behind women's safety.

reply
I'm not sure if I buy this, it seems like it's a bit of a turtles-all-the-way-down discussion. Like a vulnerable person ordering a taxi also has a phone, which is the ultimate surveillance endpoint, and opens them up to potential abusive behaviour from employees of their phone maker, their telco, and every app they have on there, including the rideshare ones which by necessity have precise location and other permissions.

At the end of the day, a man driving them home and knowing their home address while right there is a much more immediate and specific point of threat than "I'm being surveilled while I travel in a Google-controlled robotaxi".

Also, like it or hate it, but Google actually has a pretty decent track record with protecting their customers from their own employees. Gmail and gsuite content stays private, and there are enough protections in place to satisfy insurance companies, medical institutions, banks, and even governments. If a Waymo kidnapped or killed someone under the control of an overseas remote operator, it would be national news and congressional hearings; a person getting assaulted by a cab driver is nowhere near that level.

I just don't think "but Google/Waymo bad too" is a reason to poo poo someone feeling more comfortable sitting alone in a robotaxi than sitting alone in a cab or an uber.

reply