British Columbia has banned self-driving vehicles that exceed Level 2 | Hacker News Reader

British Columbia has banned self-driving vehicles that exceed Level 2

thedrive.com

What you have to understand about B.C. is that the winning political party has to appease the voters in a few concentrated ridings where a large number of people earn a living in the personal transportation business, driving taxis and Ubers. This block of voters kept ride sharing services out for 10 years; I am not surprised at all that driverless cars have been banned - purportedly for safety reasons - because driverless cars will eventually eliminate the jobs of thousands of drivers.

It’s also an election year here, so we all expect some crazy announcements to appease various groups before Election Day. After that, anything goes, depending on who wins.

> because driverless cars will eventually eliminate the jobs of thousands of drivers.

This isn’t really plausible in a time frame usually relevant to electoral politics.

Safety issues are real today. You can argue the risks aren’t too elevated, but you can also do the political calculus …

It’s plausible in the minds of the taxi drivers, and that’s all that matters for getting reelected in the fall.

Is it though? I've asked a few uber/taxi drivers and they all have sort of laughed at the idea.

Not a scientific sample of course. And there are clearly politics being played on all sides of the issue.

> because driverless cars will eventually eliminate the jobs of thousands of drivers

can you really blame ppl then? especially when the best answer given by tech advocates is just “you’ll eventually find another job as industries shift but only after we’ve made a fortune automating you’re livelihood”

Canada is all about low wage service jobs. That's what the high immigration numbers are for.

Well, that’s quite a political angle! I’d hazard to guess it has more to do with the fact that automotive insurance in BC is government run insurance and they want to limit their liabilities. But, it could be the limo mafia too as you say

Seems plausible to me. The taxi drivers kept Uber and Lyft out for longer than any other city in North America.

Just as Waymo opened up an office in Vancouver? Great timing.

Did they? Can you share the source of this information?

Turns out I can't. Must have conflated some information. Sorry.

I'd delete/edit that message but don't know how... Can't see such option next to it. Would it be because I wrote it 2 hours ago and forgot about it?

Toronto expressly bans robots on it's sidewalks (granted, pending further review): https://cities-today.com/toronto-city-council-votes-to-ban-p...

Canada can be a hostile place for technology companies. I was involved in the robot delivery company in Toronto, the founder was so angry at Toronto he said F you Canada, picked up and moved the company to the states. Le sigh.

> Toronto expressly bans robots on it's sidewalks

That's a good thing, they are just in the way (especially for people with disabilities). Sidewalks are for pedestrians, not robots.

Yeah this won't be popular with the "tech above all, progress at all costs" crowd, but I don't see how having unlicenced, unregulated, and unpredictable robots navigating sidewalks is a good thing

Banning is an overreaction though

Canada can also be a very friendly place for technology companies - see all the games dev studios that popped up in Montreal

For example these tax credits :

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/scientific-...

are amazing.

I’m not familiar with Canadian regulations but isn’t there a debate right now about capital gains tax and its effects on venture capital and startups?

The thing I linked to is corporate tax credits, fwiw.

Not all tech companies are the same. Perhaps Canada is hostile to tech bros looking to socialize harms and risks and privatize profits.

That’s no bad thing in my book

It's worth noting that the ban is intended to be temporary. They want some more time to consider what the effects are [1] I get the idea, but I think it ends up being a bit ham-fisted. There's a compromise path that works for everyone.

The company I work for has hired a number of Canadians. There is a fair population of robotics companies and roboticists right around Toronto.

[1] https://www.therobotreport.com/toronto-city-council-votes-to...

Does anyone really think bills to ban something, even if temporary, are motivated by an honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something? Who is sitting around and doing this pondering? Does anyone's mind ever change?

It seems to me people have made a decision, and then if they can't gather the majority for a permanent ban they compromise on a temporary one.

I can't speak to the general case, but in this specific case, the city has decided to basically punt and wait for the province's plan. Is the province being slow? Maybe.

https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=390...

Not sure I understand. You’re raising a case in ON, distinct from the OP article discussing BC, right? Regardless, there are surely cases where one governing body delays a decision until action is taken by another governing body, or until a study is finished, or whatever. I’m talking about the claim that the delay is to give time for the issue to be “considered”.

Sorry, sircastor's message that you replied to was about Toronto/ON.

Oh gotcha, my mistake.

Sometimes, definitely. Other times it’s obstructionist.

> Does anyone really think [there is an] honest desire for more time to "consider the effects" of something?

Sometimes it might translate to: "We don't want to be the experimental guinea-pig, let someone else try first..."

"... So we honestly desire more time to consider the effects that will have happened to them."

Then they should say so :)

If it was really intended to be temporary, it would have included a sunset clause.

I can absolutely understand it being frustrating when you work in the industry but I can see a ton of very valid concerns when it comes to robots on sidewalks. There are already a lot of accessibility concerns with these scooter companies that let people leave scooters wherever (blocking access for wheelchair or otherwise disabled folks), seems valid to me that you’d want to make sure those robots do not hinder other kinds of sidewalk transit.

I would trust a robot to be less obstructionist than randomly placed scooters by inconsiderate humans

Measure the width from one building, across the street, to the other. The vast majority of the space is taken up by land reserved for cars. Scooters are not the problem. The fact that cars are allowed sole domain of the vast majority of public spaces is.

You’ll hear no disagreement from me on that but I don’t see us anywhere near reimagining how we allocate road space. So absent some unexpected and dramatic shift, scooters/robots/whatever are still able to cause obstructions.

The answer is 100% not to allow more 4 wheeled vehicles to take over the small amount of space the two/four legged individuals have left. I have 80% a mind to push every food carrying robot into the street where they belong when I see them coming by on a sidewalk making everyone leap out of the way to avoid their drunken careening.

Yes but the cars’ use is sanctioned and by design, while scooters are taking up space meant for pedestrians and bikes. That can be reallocated but when it happens without any discussion or update to laws, it can upset people. But the difficulty is that a small startup can’t afford to fight political or legal battles, so it’s easier for them to just break some rules. Is that a good thing? Maybe.

"sanctioned and by design"

So is "qualified immunity". Yet it's still unjust.

Are you suggesting that a scooter user who is inconsiderate enough to not be willing to move the scooter two feet to avoid blocking a handicapped ramp would be willing to move it several feet to leave it in the street if the street were available?

Do you think scooter riders would even be on the sidewalk dodging trees and pedestrians if they could using the road safely?

This is about where they leave the scooters. Do you think they are going to leave them in the road? I think the ones that currently leave them as close as they can to the entrance to whatever building they are going to without regard to whether that blocks a handicapped ramp will, if they arrive by road, ride right up that handicapped ramp and leave the scooter the same place they leave it now.

I understand and respect the cities decision. I was frustrated that there was zero interest in compromise. There are many areas of the city that are "condo ville" 1000s of people in 4 cities blocks, and the width of the sidewalks in those particular areas are MASSIVE. You would have to deliberately impede someone, so that end: the robots are driven by humans, humans who are trained to absolutely under all circumstances make sure they are not impeding anyone or causing a problem as their primary focus, secondary focus is the delivery. We just needed somewhere to test, and the city wouldn't even have the conversation, and we asked and asked. That in particular is why I say "hostile".

sure that's one way of putting it. but the robots definitely get in the way of people, there's turmoil in SF because of robotaxis, and robotaxis have caused severe injuries. so - with that being the risk i would be ok with being a bit slow to the market to ensure that tech is in a better state.

like, you getting access to gmail beta as soon as it came out is a much different risk surface than a 4 ton metal thing going fast on the roads

lol, sounds like a good thing to me

Thank you. Humans over machines. Safety over hype.

Aren’t these vehicles statistically safer than human driven cars?

As the article states, there are very very few Level 3 or above vehicles out there, so the jury is still out on them.

You’d think the Canadian political establishment would embrace self-driving vehicles given their history of conflict with truck drivers.

Well, I must post this (stronger than me):

https://www.marriedtothesea.com/122607/pulled-over-in-canada...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com