News

Waymo, the autonomous car company that has been testing vehicles on their own and as rideshare providers in a few major cities around the United States, has been a hot topic in San Francisco for quite some time. They have had a presence in the city since the summer of 2021, when they first began to test vehicles there with their “trusted tester” phase of testing. They eventually moved to their rideshare testing phase around the spring of 2022 and have continued to slowly expand that fleet of vehicles since. This week, they announced a new rollout of their vehicles alongside the mayor of the city in which they will begin to operate their vehicles on Market Street.

Mayor Daniel Lurie made the announcement on Thursday, April 10.

Market Street is the hub of public transportation in the city. This decision to bring Waymo’s self-driving vehicles to this major thoroughfare is a significant move for the city and auto company. If the choice to bring Waymo vehicles to Market Street proves to be successful, then they company will likely expand their national operations.

Many have been outspoken about their concerns of how this will affect Market Street.

Opposition groups have not been shy to speak up about the way Waymo has been operating in San Francisco for some time now. They have expressed that they often disrupt the flow of traffic and have caused several major backups around the city. Now that they will soon operate on Market Street, some believe the Waymo presence has gone way too far.

Prior to this, private vehicles have been banned from driving on a 2.2 mile section of Market Street. This has been in effect since 2020. Public transportation, taxis, bicycles, commercial vehicles, and emergency vehicles have been the only vehicles on the street. These efforts were done by the Better Market Street initiative.

The SF Bicycle Coalition is one group that is particularly upset by Waymo on Market Street.

The Executive Director of the organization, Christopher White, gave a statement after the announcement was released. “That [the Better Market Street initiative] was a decades-long public process that the mayor is upending overnight.” He expressed his worry on behalf of the bicyclists who rely on the car free area. White argued that Waymo’s self-driving technology has caused too many issues around the city. He claims they cannot be trusted in an area that was previously deemed safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.

White is not alone in believing Waymo vehicles are too accident prone to be trusted on the street.

However, Mayor Lurie and some local business owners feel differently. They believe introducing Waymo vehicles on Market Street will help grow the downtown area. One store owner, Shaun Kaiser, said the rideshare option will aide in reducing parking issues. He claims lack of parking is the biggest deterrent from people shopping in that area.

Amidst the mixture of backlash and praise for the action, Mayor Lurie seems undeterred in his decision. Waymo is set to drive their vehicles on Market Street as soon as this summer.

Driverless cars are becoming increasingly more common around the country’s large cities, particularly in cities in the Bay Area of California, as they primarily started their testing there. Waymo is one such company that has vehicles prominently seen in the city. While they are in their testing phases, their vehicles are often used like taxi cabs, allowing customers to order a car and have a ride in a car with no driver. However, this weekend a Waymo vehicle was involved in a fatal multi-car crash involving seven other vehicles, all of which were regularly driven vehicles.

The accident happened around 6^th and Harrison Street.

The crash occurred after a 66 year old man driving his Tesla ran his vehicle into the other vehicles on the road. The accident occurred around 6 p.m. on Sunday night. Recent reports say that one person and a dog were killed in the accident and at least seven others were injured. The driver of the Tesla has been arrested for suspicion of vehicular manslaughter, vandalism, and speeding.

People who were nearby gave statements to local news affiliates about what they witnessed. One man, Darius Davis, described the crash as sounding like a sonic boom. With the loud sound, he also explained that he could see car pieces going everywhere as a result of the accident. One woman who lives nearby stated she was listening on an EMT scanner and heard several repeated calls for medical backup. At this time, there have been no reports whether the driver behind the original collision had any alcohol or drugs in his system.

Though the Waymo was not responsible for the accident, its involvement did raise concerns for many.

This accident marks the first time a Waymo vehicle has been apart of an accident in which there were fatalities. In general, it actually marks the first time any sort of driverless car has been apart of a fatal crash. However, an incident occurred back in 2018 where a self-driving vehicle that was in early testing stages with a driver present in the vehicle was involved in a fatal crash. This vehicle was from Uber.

A spokesperson from Waymo has released a statement on behalf of the organization in which they explained the car was rear-ended by another vehicle while sitting in stand-still traffic. At the time of the incident, the car did not have a passenger. Reports show that the Tesla first hit one car after speeding and the car hit by the Tesla hit the Waymo and the domino effect continued, creating the pileup.

Waymo’s autonomous cars have driven over 33 million miles and offered over five million rides around four major U.S. cities. San Francisco continues to be home to around 300 Waymo cars and does not plan to pull out of the roads after this accident.

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

situs slot gacor

situs toto

cabe4d

slot 4d

situs toto

situs togel

rtp slot

slot resmi

rtp slot hari ini

toto togel

rtp slot

Lawmakers have been trying to create ways to reduce speeding on the road for decades at this point. California in particular has made multiple attempts to resolve the issues of speeding through various laws; however, none have stuck thus far. The most recent attempt came originally as a proposal by the state senator, Scott Wiener. He introduced a bill earlier in 2024 that immediately became very divisive. The proposed bill in question would require an update to vehicle technology that would issue a warning to a driver that they are speeding, much like a car would notify you that you have a low fuel level or service required.

Not long after the San Francisco native Senator proposed the bill did he begin to receive a mix of opposition and support.

Senator Wiener said in a recent interview that after the proposal went public, his best friend sent him a message to say the bill was one of the worst ideas he had ever seen. Shortly after that, he received a message from his best friend’s boyfriend, thanking Wiener for slowing his boyfriend down on the road. The mixture of reviews from his close friends represents the dichotomy of how Californians overall feel. Safety advocacy groups have vocalized their support for the bill while driver advocacy groups have expressed that California drivers and roadways are too far beyond a bill like this.

Part of the divisiveness of the bill comes from the original plan from the bill.

Originally, the bill proposed an “active” warning. An “active” warning is a type of speed assistance technology that would physically stop drivers from going above a speed limit. Oppositely, a “passive” warning would simply be a popup message warning on the dashboard to notify drivers that they are going above the speed limit. Because the original proposal received so much attention, much negative at the time, Wiener reworked the bill to instead propose a passive warning, which brought more positive attention to the bill. But nonetheless, it continues to be a controversial one.

Wiener and his team stated that they looked into studies and found that passive warnings are still highly effective, so they felt they were the most agreeable options. His team proved correct as the bill passed the legislature which, if signed into action, would require all new vehicle models starting with 2030 to add in these warnings to the vehicle technology.

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

situs slot gacor

situs toto

cabe4d

slot 4d

situs toto

situs togel

rtp slot

slot resmi

rtp slot hari ini

toto togel

rtp slot

San Bernardino County supervisors are urging state officials to declare a statewide state of emergency due to the ongoing reduction of insurance services in California.

On June 25, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to pass a resolution requesting California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, Governor Gavin Newsom, and the State Legislature to declare a state of emergency. This measure aims to reinforce and stabilize the state’s insurance market.

If declared, the state of emergency would prevent insurance companies from canceling existing homeowners’ policies.

This resolution follows the decisions of major insurers like State Farm and Allstate to scale back their operations in California.

Last year, State Farm announced it would cease accepting new insurance applications for both business and personal property in the state.

Recently, State Farm’s California subsidiary, State Farm General, submitted a proposal to the California Department of Insurance to increase insurance rates for homeowners, condo owners, and renters.

Other insurers, including Allstate and Farmers Insurance, have also declared intentions to reduce their business activities in California.

The swift decline in the number of insurance providers serving California residents has forced many new and existing homeowners to rely on California’s FAIR plan for coverage. While this plan covers basic hazards, it is considered a “temporary safety net” and was never intended to replace the comprehensive coverage that insurance companies typically offer.

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

situs slot gacor

situs toto

cabe4d

slot 4d

situs toto

situs togel

rtp slot

slot resmi

rtp slot hari ini

toto togel

rtp slot

The city of San Francsico falls under the area many refer to as Silicon Valley. This means many leading tech companies work in and around the San Franciso area. Many companies tend to conduct research in the city, often doing test runs of products in San Francsico, before sending out a product to more major cities, before sending it out nationwide. For example, many apps that are now staples around the world, such as Uber and Airbnb got their starts in San Francisco. Now, one of the biggest products being tested in the city are driverless vehicles. These self-driving cars, also known as autonomous vehicles, are drawing a crowd for themselves in San Francisco. At this point, these vehicles are not only in San Francisco, but it continues to be their main hub drawing much attention.

The leading autonomous vehicle maker right now is Waymo.

Self-driving cars have actually been tested on San Francisco streets since as far back as 2009. However, in the last year they have been commercial driving and have occupied more road space than ever before. Because of their larger presence in the city, many are visiting the city in hopes of catching a ride in one. When the vehicles act in this way, people are referring to them as robotaxis. Tourists from all over hope to experience a robotaxi in San Francisco for a possible once in a lifetime experience.

Other companies on the road, including Cruise and Zoox, are now providing commercial rides.

Waymo, formerly working under Google but now simply under Google’s parent company, Alphabet, is the only autonomous car manufacturer giving rides to the public in San Francisco and anywhere else. You can also catch a ride with them in Phoenix, though many are preferring San Francisco for authenticity.

If you want to pick up a ride from Waymo, you must have the Waymo app. From there, you call a car similar to the way you order an Uber. The car will arrive and then you can be driven by technology to your new location! If you want to ride in a car for your trip to San Francisco, join the waitlist now to be approved as a passenger!

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

situs slot gacor

situs toto

cabe4d

slot 4d

situs toto

situs togel

rtp slot

slot resmi

rtp slot

Google has temporarily removed links to certain California news websites to prove a point in response to a proposed California law known as the California Journalism Preservation Act. This proposed bill would require big tech companies, such as Google (who is a subsidiary of Alphabet, a.k.a. GOOGL), to pay news outlets for their content under certain circumstances. Google is not happy about this proposed bill and has announced this move of not showing the links to prove a point of requiring payment to be too much. The company released a formal statement on the matter, confirming that this will only serve as a test, affecting only a small group of California users. They stated that right now, they hope to show, “the impact of the legislation on our product experience.”

The bill first started making waves in California in March of 2023.

Nothing from the bill has been finalized into California law. The bill is still awaiting a hearing with California’s state Senate Judiciary Committee before any action, in terms of requiring payment for news content, would go into effect. If the bill were to pass, there would be a “journalism usage fee” for certain news sites that companies like Google and Meta would have to pay. So far, Google is the only company that would be affected that has spoken out and/or taken action.

The reason for the bill is that people are not consuming news in the same way as before and many traditional news outlets are becoming a thing of the past. The bill is seeking to prevent news from disappearing and entirely shifting to social media only. After Google and other tech companies have shifted in ways that would further harm the news outlets, using tools like A.I. to drive people to certain websites, the California state government wrote up the bill to prevent this.

The Senate President Pro-Tempore of the CA state senate’s office, Mike McGuire, called Google’s actions an act of bullying.

McGuire also called the action an “abuse of power,” arguing that Google is simply proving their point that they are able to control the news and what users see and that they are choosing the wrong techniques to do that. The push for this law stems from the fact that Google can control the news and then profit from the way in which they advertise it, but the originators of the work, a.k.a. the journalists and news publications, suffer without proper compensation. Now, many worry about the future of news consumption amidst this battle between the government and big tech companies.

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

situs slot gacor

situs toto

cabe4d

slot 4d

situs toto

situs togel

rtp slot

slot resmi

rtp slot

Last week, as Black History Month was coming to an end, the city of San Francisco Supervisor Board issued a formal apology to Black residents in which they apologized for the city’s perpetuation of racism. They furthered the statement saying they intend to continue to make reparations of some kind to the Black residents of the city but have not yet stated what those reparations will be. The vote to issue the apology was unanimous, having all 11 board members agree to issue the apology.

San Francisco is the second major city to formally issue an apology, as Boston did previously as well.

These two cities joined the list of nine states that issued apologies. The states that have thus far issued apologies include Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Virginia. Some of these apologies specifically mentioned being for slavery, while others were more general towards any racism and discrimination that the state participated in.

Over 100 proposals regarding reparations for the Black community have previously been given to the Supervisor Board of San Francisco. This was the first proposal to ever actually be approved by the city board. One such proposal that previously failed was proposed by the African American Reparations Advisory Committee. This proposal stated a plan that every eligible Black adult be given a $5 million lump-sum cash payment and a guaranteed annual income of $100,000.

In the same meeting in which the apology was issued, the Board spoke on some of the bills on the upcoming ballot.

One Supervisor, Dean Preston, spoke very candidly on his thoughts on some of the measures. One measure would further take away affording housing, allowing the predominantly Black neighborhood of Fillmore that he represents to become further gentrified. Additionally, he spoke poorly of two bills backed by Mayor London Breed in which one would require drug addiction screenings for welfare recipients and the other would put more power back into the police department. He expressed his beliefs that these would disproportionately affect Black residents of the city.

At this point, some have expressed that now that there is an apology for the past, they are wiped clean of responsibility for the present. Others have spoken out that the apology is not even sufficient for the past. We shall see in the upcoming months if any further action is taken.

rtp slot

rtp slot

bento4d

rtp slot

slot resmi

A peaceful protest against the issues taken with the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion has been held in the Bay Area. The rally began at the Civic Center and would keep going down Market Street and head through to Embarcadero, which would cause the bus reroute and street closures.

Such an event is held once a year, near the anniversary of the Supreme Court. The Constitution had kept the rights to abortion safe, though the court was striking the ruling in June 2022, with an opportunity for the other states to decide.

The turnout is very encouraging for the pro-abortion reps that are hoping that someday, the tens of thousands of people marching can actually influence many folks up in the food chain.

Many attendees that had been around came from the other side, specifically the church groups that had opposed the movement. In other words, anti-abortion folks. The Clergymen and Nuns would hold signs saying “pray to end abortion” and “love them both.”

A larger national antiabortion movement has been made the focus, as the March for Life would take place at the National Mall in Washington, where activists would say “I am the pro-life generation” and “Life is precious.”

Even the President, Joe Biden, preserved abortion rights to be a main focal point of the administration and Kamala Harris to highlight the White House’s very own commitment through a visit to Wisconsin, on the 51st anniversary of the Roe decision.

Saturday saw plenty of celebrities give their opinion on abortion rights. Kaya Jones, from the Pussycat Dolls, has mentioned how there’s always a way, and Lila Rose, the activist of the Live Action anti-aborition nonprofit, also showed up to speak on the matter. It continues to be a red-button topic to this day.

San Francisco, a once booming city, blossoming as a pinnacle for ideologies of the future, is now stuck in a doom loop. The term “doom loop” refers to a city that is stuck in a constant spiral of unaffordable housing, empty office spaces, and so much more. It is essentially an extended time in which a city is constantly in a state of dread, with countless bad traits inhabiting the city. The doom loop of San Francisco has been perpetuated by homelessness, which has also been furthered by the doom loop as they are in a toxic symbiotic relationship. This has also led to a steep rise in drug abuse and crime.

Many are hopeful for the cities regrowth, but pessimism is running rampant as well.

The city of San Francisco has always been a pioneer in modern ideas and innovations. They were one of the first cities to raise minimum wage, which led to California overall following suit. Countless other, now statewide, laws started in the city. However, now they are stuck in a seemingly never-ending crisis.

Of course, San Francisco is not isolated in their struggles; just about every other large metropolitan city is dealing with a housing crisis. Employment rates nationally are low. But, given the history of the city, it seems like a particularly worse condition for the city to be in. The city has an office vacancy rate of 30%. This equates to nearly 30 million square feet of unused space. This is happening while a large population of the city is living in the streets.

Some are trying to generate plans for repair, while others are simply trying to stay afloat.

A few believe that the key to repairing and rebuilding the city lies within going back to a fully in person lifestyle. Ever since the COVID-19 global pandemic, much of the city has gone remote. Many work from home, order contactless food delivery, etc. People theorize that this loss of connection has further spiraled individuals down dark paths which has further spiraled the city. Those with confidence in this theory operate under the assumption that the future will be restored with a return to greater human connection. In the very least they believe that this will rebuild morale of residents of the city, which will ideally generate more confidence in them for the city to be restored, which will trickle down into actual citywide restoration.

California’s Governor Gavin Newsom passed a new law this past weekend that will legalize speed cameras in six different large cities in the state. This marks the first time in California’s history in which speed cameras are legal. The six cities in which they are legal include three in northern California and three in southern California. The three northern cities are San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose. The three southern cities are Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale. The law will allow these cities to act as testing sites for something that could eventually become widespread, speed cameras automatically sending speed tickets to drivers going above the speed limit.

The bill, AB 645, was pushed for by state Assemblymember Laura Friedman, who has pushed for a bill of this nature since 2005.

The law will officially go into effect in January 2024. With it, the six cities will be given a limited number of speed cameras which they can install in heaving vetted, pre-approved locations. The cameras will then begin monitoring the speed of drivers and detect when someone goes above the speed limit. From there, there is a tiered ticket fine pricing list based on the driver’s speed and once that has been determined, a ticket will be mailed to the driver. This will be done by the fact that the cameras will record license plates and from that locate the driver’s information.

The tiered pricing has a ticket priced at $50, which is generated when a driver is going 11 miles per hour above the posted speed limit. It then increases to $100 for drivers going 16-25 miles per hour above the speed limit. The fine goes all the way up to $500, which would be the fine for a driver going 100+ miles per hour higher than the speed limit.

So where will the speed cameras go?

The speed cameras are intended to go in places in which speeding causes a deadly risk for pedestrians and other drivers. This would predominantly be high-accident corridors, street racing locations, and school zones. In order for the cameras to be installed anywhere, there are several steps they must take. They must vet the location through public neighborhood meetings and from there can determine if the street truly does deserve the camera.

People raise concerns about how this bill will likely disproportionately affect people of color and low-income folks. Newsom and Friedman assure that it will not since the cameras will only detect the license plate, not any driver details. They included as well that there is the possibility of a reduced ticket price, with the potential of an 80% reduction for low-income drivers. However, people expressed concerns with the expectation that most cameras will be installed in low-income neighborhoods that are predominantly people of color. This concern has not been addressed.