Connect with us

Business

What does the future of driverless taxi service in Los Angeles look like? It's already here

Published

on

What does the future of driverless taxi service in Los Angeles look like? It's already here

Los Angeles commuters: Don’t be alarmed, but driverless taxis may soon become a more common sight on local streets.

On March 1, state regulators gave Waymo, the self-driving taxi company owned by Google’s parent, Alphabet, the green light to expand its robotaxi service to Los Angeles County, clearing the way for the company’s expansion into one of the biggest markets in the country.

While local transportation agencies deal with day-to-day traffic operations in their respective jurisdictions, the California Public Utilities Commission oversees the regulation of driverless vehicles across the state, superseding local governments.

Waymo has not disclosed a timeline for when its service will become widely available, but a handful of Waymo vehicles are already roaming about the county, including around the USC campus, as part of its ongoing testing and promotion program.

Advertisement

Under its new approval agreement, Waymo’s driverless fleet can operate in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Inglewood, East Los Angeles, Compton and many more locales.

Here’s what we know so far about the future of driverless taxis in L.A. County:

What is a Waymo One vehicle and how does it work?

Just like Lyft or Uber, Waymo One is a ride-hailing service, with prices based on the distance for each trip. But unlike those other services, there will be nobody to make small talk with while riding in a Waymo One vehicle because the vehicles are controlled by computer software.

Passengers input their destination via an app and can sit in the front or the backseat, but are not allowed in the driver’s seat, according to Waymo.

The company currently uses the all-electric SUV Jaguar I-Pace as part of its fleet in San Francisco and Phoenix, which are equipped with lidar, cameras, radar and an AI platform to safely maneuver through traffic.

Advertisement

For the record:

10:29 a.m. March 8, 2024A previous version of this article reported that Waymo worked with electric vehicle brand Zeekr and China Euro Vehicle Technology AB to develop its AI software. Those companies are the manufacturers of Waymo’s next-generation vehicle platform and are not responsible for the AI development.

Waymo, previously known as the Google self-driving car, developed its own AI software.

Driving automation can be broken down into six categories, according to the standards-setting organization Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). On a scale of 0 to 5, with the lowest being a human being in complete control of the vehicle and 5 being fully automated, Waymo’s vehicles could be categorized as 4 or 5, according to the SAE.

Where will Waymo’s vehicles be deployed in Los Angeles County?

A Waymo spokesperson said the company will “take a careful and incremental approach to expansion” while working with city officials, local communities and other groups to make sure the service is safe and accessible to its customers.

Advertisement

The California Department of Motor Vehicles has given several companies permission to operate driverless vehicles across the state. Waymo is allowed to deploy its fleet at all times of day in its designated domains. The vehicles can operate in inclement weather, rain and fog, with speeds up to 65 mph.

In L.A. County, Waymo will be deployed to portions or all of the following cities:

  • Bell
  • Bell Gardens
  • Beverly Hills
  • Carson
  • Commerce
  • Compton
  • Cudahy
  • Culver City
  • El Segundo
  • Gardena
  • Hawthorne
  • Huntington Park
  • Inglewood
  • Lawndale
  • Long Beach
  • Los Angeles
  • Lynwood
  • Manhattan Beach
  • Maywood
  • Paramount
  • Redondo Beach
  • Santa Monica
  • South Gate
  • Torrance
  • Vernon
  • West Hollywood

What should a passenger do if their driverless vehicle gets into a fender bender?

Waymo provides customers with a list of frequently asked questions after they enroll with the service that provides basic information about their ride, but the company declined to answer specifics about what a passenger should do if they’re involved in a fender bender while riding in one of Waymo’s autonomous vehicles.

In a Nov. 2023 MarketWatch article, Waymo’s Tilia Gode, head of risk and insurance, compared the insurance carried on Waymo’s vehicles to the coverage a rental car company has for its vehicles.

“Just like any commercial entity, we have insurance coverage in place that covers the Waymo driver over the course of the driving task,” Gode explains. “Essentially, there’s a shift from human being drivers to the autonomous system being the driver — Waymo is the driver.”

So, where does that leave its passengers?

Advertisement

Well, that’s where the rubber meets the road.

Like any company that offers its service through an app, customers enter into an agreement when they sign up with Waymo. Passengers are supposed to report any damage to the exterior or interior of the vehicle during their ride and could be held responsible for that damage if it’s discovered at a later time, according to the terms of service.

That includes a collision, flat tire or any reason the vehicle is not able to reach its destination.

“I would strongly suggest that somebody immediately involve law enforcement, even if it’s not a category of crash where reporting is mandatory,” said Bryant Walker Smith, an associate law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Getting a police report that shows the narrative of events is a good idea and can allow for police to interact with Waymo if there is any type of investigation.

Advertisement

What if a Waymo vehicle strikes a pedestrian, bicyclist or someone’s property?

There are decades of legal cases when it comes to car collisions and drivers, but not so much for driverless vehicles.

Gregory Keating, professor of law and philosophy with the USC Gould School of Law, said there’s a lot of speculation about how those autonomous vehicles will fit into existing law.

The question becomes whether a case will turn on product liability, the vehicle, the software that trained the AI or all of the above in a lawsuit.

“We’re entering into new territory,” Keating said. “The operator of the vehicle, like Waymo or GM, should be liable, but it’s not clear if it will play out that way.”

Because Waymo’s vehicles are equipped with cameras, all of the events leading up to any type of collision will be recorded by the vehicle, Smith said, but that footage is also Waymo’s property.

Advertisement

Law enforcement could procure that footage as part of an investigation, and a lawyer could seek it as part of a lawsuit or a state agency overseeing the program could request the data.

Smith notes that the public is deeply concerned about every instance where an autonomous vehicle is involved in a car crash, but over 40,000 people are killed each year in motor vehicle crashes, according to federally available data.

Still, the burgeoning driverless car industry garners public attention because they’re now joining other commuters on the road — albeit sometimes a bit bumpy.

In February, a bicyclist in San Francisco was struck by a Waymo vehicle, causing minor injuries, according to Reuters.

Waymo reported that its autonomous vehicle was at a complete stop at a four-way intersection when a large truck crossed the intersection toward the Waymo vehicle. When it was the Waymo vehicle’s turn to proceed, the car moved forward, but did not detect the bicyclist that was following the truck, which was obscured. The Waymo vehicle braked heavily, but it was not able to avoid a collision, according to the company.

Advertisement

Police were called to the scene and the Department of Motor Vehicles was notified about the incident.

In another incident, an autonomous vehicle operated by GM struck a motorcyclist in San Francisco. The motorcyclist received some minor injuries as a result of the collision, according to court records in a lawsuit that followed.

In subsequent legal papers referencing the incident, legal experts spoke about the vehicle as if it were a person, using language like “the vehicle was driving unreasonably” and the “vehicle was negligent” as though it were the one that was being sued, Smith said.

How are autonomous vehicles being received by local jurisdictions?

There is a healthy dose of skepticism because state regulators have final say over where driverless vehicles can roam.

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass asked regulators in November to increase their scrutiny of autonomous vehicles and said the city should have a say in how they are regulated.

Advertisement

At the time, she pointed to one of the Waymo driverless cars operating in Los Angeles that had failed to initially stop for a traffic officer at Beaudry Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard on Aug. 3, 2023. The officer had been signaling east- and westbound traffic to come to a stop.

Before the California PUC’s approval, San Mateo County Atty. John D. Nibbelin protested, saying the county didn’t have enough information on the expansion plans or enough engagement with Waymo.

“The ‘quick and simplified’ advice letter review process … is insufficient to develop the evidence necessary to fully understand the potential impacts and issues Waymo’s expansion into San Mateo County will create, including accounting for the differing needs and hurdles Waymo will face operating in San Mateo County,” Nibbelin’s letter to the commission stated.

There is a lot of excitement surrounding the rollout of driverless vehicles, Keating with USC said, and it raises a lot of questions about how existing laws will hold a company responsible for a driverless vehicle. But so far Waymo’s track record is above par.

An autonomous vehicle can perform the same type of maneuvers a driver can without any hesitation.

Advertisement

“But there could be that one situation that makes people go, ‘Oh, that’s kind of spooky that the vehicle did that,’” Keating said. “All it takes is one incident to scare people.”

Business

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Published

on

Read Nick Bilton’s Letter to Scott Pelley

Dear Mr. Pelley:

I meant what I said in my letter last week to the 60 Minutes team: joining 60 Minutes is the honor of my career and I am grateful to be working alongside the people who have contributed to the most important television journalism brand this country has ever produced. While I’m new to 60 Minutes, I’ve devoted my career to investigative journalism and storytelling. I started this job excited to collaborate and to benefit from the wisdom and experience of the 60 Minutes veterans, with you among them. For that reason, one of the first things I did in my new role was call you to talk and invite you to dinner. It is a profound disappointment that you rejected that overture and chose ambush instead. Yesterday, you hijacked my first meeting with staff to disparage me, my qualifications, and my intentions with remarkable incivility and contempt. I welcome a diversity of viewpoints and respectful debate among the team, but this was nothing of the sort. Yesterday’s performative display of hostility enacted in front of the staff instead of in a civil, private conversation-demonstrated that you have no interest in contributing to the future success of the show, or approaching my new tenure with a mind open to collaboration and progress. I am here to deliver first-in-class news programming, not to make headlines about newsroom drama. I am eager to work alongside those who share this goal.

Despite yesterday’s misconduct, I had hoped that in sitting down with you today we could find a path forward together. You made clear that you are not interested in such a path.

Your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear. And I have heard you. I therefore write on behalf of CBS News, Inc. (“CBS”) to inform you that your employment with CBS is terminated for cause effective immediately. Enclosed is your formal termination letter.

Sincerely,

Nick Bilton

Executive Producer, 60 Minutes

Continue Reading

Business

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

Published

on

Aspiration co-founder sentenced to 14 years for fraud

The co-founder of Aspiration, Joseph Sanberg, was sentenced to 14 years in prison on Monday after defrauding investors and lenders of over $248 million.

The startup, an eco-friendly digital banking company boasting fossil fuel-free investments, carbon offsets for gas purchases, and a debit card with cash-back benefits for shopping at clean companies, was founded by Sanberg and Andrei Cherny. Cherny left the company in 2022 and has not been charged.

Sanberg, an Orange County native, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in October after being arrested in March last year. Aspiration subsequently filed for bankruptcy and liquidated all of its assets by July.

Sanberg and venture capitalist Ibrahim AlHusseini, who also faces charges, together forged a series of bank statements in order to obtain loans. From 2020 to 2021, the pair forged AlHusseini’s bank statements to show millions of dollars in assets in order to obtain millions of dollars from lenders.

Advertisement

Additionally, they forged a letter from their audit committee stating that $250 million in funds were available, when in reality Aspiration had less than $1 million. The amount of loans defrauded exceeded $248 million.

In 2021, Sanberg artificially inflated Aspiration’s 2021 revenue by $44 million by recruiting 27 fake customers to sign letters of intent pledging tens of thousands of dollars per month for tree planting services. Sanberg himself funded the contracts and used the inflated revenue numbers to obtain more loans.

The charges sparked an NBA investigation into salary cap allegations due to Aspiration’s connections with Clippers owner Steve Ballmer.

Ballmer personally invested $60 million in Aspiration, all of which was lost. He is now the target of a civil lawsuit alleging his participation in the scheme. Ballmer denies the allegations.

The team announced a $300-million sponsorship deal with Aspiration, and Clippers player Kawhi Leonard signed a four-year, $28-million marketing contract with the company, which reportedly performed no duties. The issue has raised concerns about how players are circumventing the NBA’s salary cap.

Advertisement

The team lost the $300-million sponsorship deal and an additional $20 million paid for carbon offset purchases.

Continue Reading

Business

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Published

on

Monterey Park takes landmark vote on banning data centers

Residents in the city of Monterey Park will be the first in the nation to vote on a permanent ban on data centers Tuesday.

If approved, Measure NDC would prohibit data centers within the city limits and could only be overturned by another vote.

Yard signs saying “No Data Center” in English and Chinese with images of dragons line sidewalks in the San Gabriel Valley city.

As a wave of data center opposition sweeps the country, numerous towns and counties across the U.S. have instituted temporary moratoria and other restrictions on the facilities. But only a handful have instituted indefinite bans, and just four other towns have sent related matters to the ballot.

Advertisement

Supporters are hoping the vote will set a precedent for the rest of the region, where residents are fighting proposals in Vernon and City of Industry.

“This is about as permanent a ban as we can get,” said Steven Kung, co-founder of the group No Data Center Monterey Park. “Winning Measure NDC would send a huge message to the rest of the San Gabriel Valley about how residents don’t want data centers.”

The ballot measure emerged from the fight against a 247,000-square-foot center proposed in 2024 by the Australian-owned investment firm HMC StratCap for a residential area in Monterey Park.

The facility would have sat less than 500 feet away from the nearest home and used three times the electricity of the 60,000-person, predominantly Asian American city.

While the developer touted the potential for jobs and tax revenue, residents expressed concerns about noise and air pollution, rising electricity rates and a potential to lower property values.

Advertisement

The company pulled its plans in late March following public outcry and a March 4 city council vote to extend a temporary data center moratorium and place a ban on Tuesday’s ballot.

In a letter to the city council, HMC StratCap said it would pursue a different use for the land and would not engage in a ballot measure fight.

The city council later banned data centers indefinitely, the first in California to do so, said Mayor Elizabeth Yang. But she’s still been out campaigning for the measure with all four other council members.

“If a council puts in an ordinance, a future council can reverse it too,” said Yang. “With the ballot measure, unbanning it is a lot harder because you need the entire city to vote on it.”

The measure proposes the ban “to protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health” and “prevent impacts to electricity and water rates.”

Advertisement

While California places third in the country for existing data centers with about 300 facilities, it hasn’t been a hot spot in the recent AI-driven data center boom. High electricity rates, expensive land and regulatory hurdles mean that fewer, and smaller, facilities are currently planned than in Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Illinois or Arizona.

“Most of California’s data centers are small by today’s standards,” said Shaolei Ren, an engineering professor at UC Riverside who studies how to reduce the environmental impacts of data centers. “Ten years ago, they would be medium-sized, but the power demand for new AI data centers has increased a lot.”

The average operating data center demands 45 megawatts, according to the Washington Post, while the average planned one would draw 430 MW. The one proposed for Monterey Park would have required about 50 MW at peak demand.

As proposals crop up in SoCal, they’re met with fierce opposition. Montebello, El Monte and Baldwin Park have all enacted temporary moratoria, and Alhambra recently banned data centers as part of a zoning code update. City of Industry, Vernon, City of Commerce and Santa Fe Springs are moving in the other direction, trying to court developers and streamline data center approvals. Community groups are fighting that.

Outside the San Gabriel Valley, residents of Coachella and Imperial County are showing up in droves to protest local proposals.

Advertisement

Matthew Shaw, a volunteer with the Coalition for Responsible Data Center Development, who recently published a report on opposition to AI data centers, said a vote to ban them in Monterey Park “would lead to copycats, partially because so many groups are just opposed to any data center development at all.”

While there is no formal opposition to Measure NDC, some building trades like Ironworker Local 433 supported the Monterey Park data center when it was still live before city council. Those in the data center industry are lamenting the state of public opinion.

“These are multi-billion-dollar assets that are built by multi-trillion-dollar companies. These things will get done,” said Mehdi Paryavi, chairman of the International Data Center Authority. “My biggest problem is that our industry does not invest enough in community engagement.”

Paryavi said towns that seek to limit data centers are missing out on thousands of jobs generated by data center construction, operations and customers, as well as faster artificial intelligence speeds and better performance.

Kung said local community organizers are “looking at the empirical evidence” and seeing a ban as a win.

Advertisement

“We’ve never seen a city that embraces a data center and is like, ‘Look how our quality of life has increased, look how all the revenue has gone into citywide improvements,’” he said. “That just doesn’t exist.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending