[HN Gopher] Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in S...
___________________________________________________________________
Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco
Author : d-jones
Score : 226 points
Date : 2022-02-01 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.getcruise.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.getcruise.com)
| serverlessmom wrote:
| When I was in Vegas last I called for a "driverless car" via Lyft
| but instead of an empty car a male driver with a second man
| riding shotgun showed up to pick me up. The entire scenario made
| me feel sketched out so I refused to take the ride because I've
| seen so many news reports of people getting assaulted by drivers.
| I and many of my friends would feel more comfortable with the
| option of a driverless ride so I definitely understand the
| appeal. I'm excited to hear how this goes.
| gjs278 wrote:
| joakleaf wrote:
| The Cruise tech presentation from last fall seems very relevant:
|
| https://youtu.be/uJWN0K26NxQ
|
| (Highly recommended for anyone interested in self-driving cars!)
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| I got hired for my dream job at Cruise, and then was offered
| near-as-makes-no-difference 3x the TC to work with a friend a
| week later. I basically completed the new-hire onboarding and
| then quit. It fucking _hurt_ to do that. What I saw there made me
| a believer. Cruise is doing amazing shit.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I need friends like yours. Damn.
| RIMR wrote:
| "Today we are opening up our driverless cars in San Francisco to
| the public - I'm still surprised I can even write those words"
|
| I, uh, don't know if I like a CEO who is surprised that he's
| being allowed to do the thing he is doing.
| atarian wrote:
| I'll believe it when it actually happens. I signed up for Waymo
| in SF last year and still haven't gotten any updates for that.
| Rygian wrote:
| Do Cruise driverless cars roll their stops when safe to do so?
| justicz wrote:
| Amazing job to everyone working at Cruise who is making this
| happen... absolutely incredible!
| georgeburdell wrote:
| I'm concerned about the timing of this. Former CEO Dan Ammann,
| fired in December, was a big champion of the robotaxi business
| model. It is speculated he was fired because GM CEO Mary Barra
| disagrees with this strategy and wants them to focus more on
| integration with existing GM vehicles.
|
| I am afraid that the robotaxi timeline was pulled in so that the
| rest of the believers inside Cruise can get supporting data to
| prove it's a viable model and to make it harder for Mary to
| change its course. This may come at the expense of safety.
| belter wrote:
| "Cruise CEO to step down as GM accelerates self-driving car
| plans"
|
| https://www.engadget.com/cruise-ceo-to-step-down-as-gm-accel...
|
| "GM's Barra Dismissed Cruise CEO Ammann Over Mission, IPO
| Timing"
| https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/rk0v7h/gms_...
| ironmagma wrote:
| I wouldn't read too much into firings at Cruise. Working there
| was like a company-sized game of "The Weakest Link". Anyone
| worth their salt gets fired eventually, it's just the way they
| operate.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| > Anyone worth their salt gets fired eventually,
|
| Isn't The Weakest Link about firing the worst performers?
| ironmagma wrote:
| Based on just a few mistakes and a poll and where a firing
| happens approximately every 5 minutes.
| nichochar wrote:
| [Disclaimer] I work for cruise.
|
| Safety is the most critical value that our company has, and we
| live it every day in all of our processes / culture. I won't
| comment on the executive changes, but I can guarantee that this
| company (unlike some rivals...) would never compromise safety
| in any decision.
| more_corn wrote:
| I once threw myself in front of a cruise vehicle to test it
| for safety. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, I saw it
| coming, sped up and jumped into an open parking spot on a
| trajectory that would take me in front of I didn't stop) It
| performed admirably. The safety driver didn't see me coming
| but the computer did. The car decelerated to the point it
| would be able to stop if I kept coming. The safety driver
| couldn't figure out what was happening at first. He was
| PISSED when he figured it out. Having done that and having
| never seen one commit an error or safety infraction, I now
| have a high degree of trust in the safety of cruise vehicles.
| more_corn wrote:
| Contrast this to the catastrophic self driving test Uber
| did on the streets of San Francisco before their cars got
| thrown out of California.
| kfarr wrote:
| Can confirm from personal experience in crosswalks with
| self driving cars: cruise is the most timid (read safest!)
| of the self driving cars being tested in SF IMHO. Cruise
| will proactively alter trajectory (such as deceleration)
| for pedestrians and cyclists at a noticeably earlier
| threshold than Waymo. This is much more pleasant for
| everyone surrounding the vehicle as it clearly expresses
| that you have been recognized as a being needing space.
| dont__panic wrote:
| Urban bicyclist here. I don't life in SF, but I'm really
| curious how current autonomous vehicles behave around
| cars. If you're biking down a one-way street with little
| room, do most autonomous vehicles just wait behind you?
| Do they try to pass? What kind of follow distance would
| they give a bicyclist who "dominates" the lane because
| it's too narrow to let a car pass safely?
| BA4gDY-cqjsEPWn wrote:
| Fun fact: If you try to submit the form with ad-blockers enabled,
| it errors out saying "Blocked request. Please disable any add
| blockers" (typo included) :-)
| d-jones wrote:
| Good eye
| mlindner wrote:
| I'm not interested in cars I can't own. This idea that we'll turn
| cars into some kind of service and convert roads into places
| filled with company-owned vehicles is completely foreign. At that
| point it'd be cheaper to have self-driving buses and subways. I
| can only think this viewpoint comes from people who have only
| ever lived in cities where car ownership is inconvenient given
| the lack of personal garages. At the moment the only company
| working towards this idea is Tesla, which is unfortunate. I'd
| like to see more companies working towards selling self-driving
| vehicles to customers.
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| City dweller, raised in a village in the east of England. I got
| my license 3 months after my 17th and already had a car - I've
| had a car ever since.
|
| I'd give it up in a heartbeat if hiring a car was easier and
| more economical, but the reality is that for visiting family
| over weekends, renting would cost about the same as owning the
| car full time. The convenience of then having the car ready to
| go whenever you want it wins out.
|
| I sincerely hope that self driving cars bring in the
| possibility of renting it for a couple of hours as it drives us
| to Kent to visit the in laws then drives itself back to London,
| or simply re-clusters itself into the local network ready to
| take us back on Sunday evening.
| more_corn wrote:
| Signed up. Hopefully they get back to me faster than Waymo's
| response time (not hard to get better than never)
| buttsecks wrote:
| punnerud wrote:
| The next thing is a driverless car and a driverless bus "docking"
| at speed, so you can change vehicle without affecting your trip
| time.
|
| Economics will outcompete 50 self-driving cars going in the same
| direction for 30min when you could have one driverless-bus doing
| the same.
|
| If this transition is smooth and fast, think what this will do to
| traveling time, car prices and property prices. How far can you
| travel without stops and no traffic jam?
| kaycebasques wrote:
| This is a bit surprising to me. I haven't seen many Cruise cars
| on SF roads in the last few months. I've seen a hell of a lot of
| Waymo, on the other hand.
|
| Separate thought:
|
| > I'm still surprised I can even write those words -- this moment
| really snuck up on me.
|
| This seems to be poorly worded PR considering how much general
| worry there is over the safety of self-driving cars. If I were
| writing it, I would have phrased it along the lines of "I've been
| waiting months and months for this. We've been ready for months
| but we understandably had to triple-check all our compliance
| etc."
| psanford wrote:
| I still see a lot of Cruise cars training in the mission.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| They have a nearby garage next to the Costco in SoMa. Zoox
| also has a small garage across the street next to the SPCA
| building.
| opportune wrote:
| I see Cruise a _ton_ around downtown, but Waymo and Zoox seem
| to be test driving through a larger part of the city.
|
| Some times I will see a fleet of Waymo cars in quick
| succession, going through seemingly the same route
| sairahul82 wrote:
| The tech behind it is explained very well here.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWN0K26NxQ It actually gave me
| confidence on overall self driving car approach
| truthwhisperer wrote:
| zerotosixty wrote:
| So is this just SF? How many people can actually sign up and use
| it?
|
| Wow thats a nice amount of funding? Is this going to be their
| last funding round before they IPO? Is there a VC who give more
| funding? Are employees gonna be rich or is this gonna be a wework
| scenario?
| [deleted]
| pbharrin wrote:
| Cruise was aquired by GM in 2016, unless they are spun off
| there won't be an IPO.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_(autonomous_vehicle)
| a_t48 wrote:
| They were spun off when Softbank invested. There's SEC
| filings on it.
| Nelkins wrote:
| I would love to see these in more rural areas without great
| transit options. I would love to be able to take a driverless car
| to and from a bar when there isn't population density to support
| many taxis.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Is there any solution yet that doesn't require the driver to be
| sober in order to intervene at any given moment?
| almost_usual wrote:
| Any information on boundaries within city limits?
| buttsecks wrote:
| walrus01 wrote:
| Based on this image:
|
| https://images.ctfassets.net/95kuvdv8zn1v/6h1C7lPC79OLOlddEE...
|
| They and their VC backers are clearly betting on the concept that
| radars + lidar + imaging will be the ultimate successful solution
| in full self driving cars, as a completely opposite design and
| engineering philosophy from Tesla attempting to do "full self
| driving" with camera sensors and categorical rejection of lidar.
|
| It is interesting to me that right now this is sitting on the HN
| homepage directly adjacent to: "Tesla to recall vehicles that may
| disobey stop signs (reuters.com)"
| gitfan86 wrote:
| What is success?
|
| Does 50 miles of geofenced and daily mapped streets mean Cruise
| won self driving?
|
| What if Waymo gets to 20k miles of geofenced roads and monthly
| mapped?
|
| What if Tesla gets to the point of one intervention/crash every
| 100k miles? 10M Miles?
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah, they're not trying to solve the same thing?
|
| I think Tesla is right that to solve it for real you need to
| solve the general case which can't rely on high resolution
| maps.
|
| The city cab case is smaller and can, so the cruise approach
| makes sense for that use case. It's just narrower.
| ghaff wrote:
| Or you solve for a subset of highways in a subset of
| weather conditions. That would be more useful to a lot of
| people than city cabs which exist today (with human
| drivers).
| jowday wrote:
| The truth of it is that it's just not possible (with
| currently existing technology/ML architectures) to create a
| truly autonomous taxi without HD maps. Everyone in the
| robotaxi industry knows this - even Tesla builds HD maps,
| they just don't call them that.
| stevofolife wrote:
| Success? Go from point A to point B with minimal incidents.
| It's not that complicated as most people make out of it.
| danielrhodes wrote:
| Cruise is interesting insofar as they are not simply looking
| to sell their technology, but they also want to monetize it
| as a service. Not only will they not need a driver, they will
| also be able to buy the hardware (the car) at cost. If it's
| successful, their margins will be much higher than Uber and
| Lyft by a long shot.
| vkou wrote:
| As a taxpayer who pays for roads, and suffers from traffic
| congestion caused by one-occupant and zero-occupant
| vehicles, I'm eagerly looking forward to reducing the taxes
| I pay, by taxing those margins, instead.
|
| Ideally, the taxes could be high enough that driverless
| taxis will operate at barely above break-even. The
| financial comfort of me and my neighbours are more
| important to me than the profit margins of a firm that
| barely employs anyone in my town.
|
| Unlike a factory or a corporate office (that can threaten
| to move offshore, eliminating jobs and impoverishing a
| town), the firm in question is a hostage of local politics
| - not the other way around.
| jurassic wrote:
| Do you think your experience of congestion would be
| improved by everyone driving private vehicles instead?
| Not sure I follow the logic here.
| ghaff wrote:
| Of course. If one assumes relatively inexpensive rob-
| taxis people living outside cities will definitely come
| in more often. I certainly would.
| babyshake wrote:
| On the other hand, Uber and Lyft externalize many costs
| including liability.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Is this not what effectively everyone who is doing this
| (outside of Tesla) is looking at?
| comex wrote:
| The human accident rate is about one per 500K miles, so if
| they were able to get in that range, then yes, they would
| have succeeded; drivers would be able to stop paying
| attention to the road without putting themselves and others
| in danger.
|
| But the current FSD beta's intervention rate is more like one
| per 10 miles, judging from some quick googling. I see no
| particular reason to assume that incremental improvement can
| take us from 10 to 500K.
| judge2020 wrote:
| The real averages of FSD intervention are unknown since
| some 2,000 Tesla employees also have NDA'd Beta access, and
| it would surely differ between rural, suburban, and urban
| roads.
| waffle_maniac wrote:
| > current FSD beta's intervention rate is more like one per
| 10 miles
|
| Maybe in rural areas? The videos on YouTube are far more
| than one per 10 miles.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTybjJj0ptw
| whimsicalism wrote:
| A helpful link for your perusal:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
| gitfan86 wrote:
| But are you using confirmation bias to find a cognitive
| bias that fits here.
|
| But, In all seriousness we don't have access to the data
| across all 60k FSD users to know what the intervention
| rate is and how it has been changing over time.
| V__ wrote:
| On quick watch the driver intervenes at 4min 45sec and
| 5min 47sec.
| dabeeeenster wrote:
| Not accident rate; crash rate.
| kabes wrote:
| It also depends on what kind of miles. Are they running at
| the same speed? Only easy highways or complex urban
| intersections?
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I always wondered why the rejection of lidar by Tesla. My guess
| is that it is more about profitability/availability than
| anything else. Just because humans use eyeballs doesn't mean
| that it is the best bet for a computer. This sort of
| naturalistic fallacy led people to believe (~130 years ago and
| beyond) that the ideal flying machines would have flapping
| wings because, well, birds have wings and that is how they fly.
|
| Maybe I'm just salty my 2021 Model Y had lidar stripped out of
| it, and to me the more tech toys the better. Not that it
| matters because Tesla FSD is a scam and I wouldn't use it even
| if it came for free with the car.
| ra7 wrote:
| Lidar was expensive back then and would've added huge costs
| to the vehicles. Not to mention, it looked ugly on consumer
| cars. Elon conveniently used "humans use only vision" as an
| excuse and promised every Tesla has "sufficient" hardware for
| full autonomy. It's that premature promise that doesn't let
| them add sensors even now (and perhaps Elon's ego) without
| breaking trust and/or eating big costs for retrofitting.
|
| In short, Elon made a high risk bet that vision-only would be
| enough and so far has been proven horribly wrong. But I've
| got to say, it was brilliantly executed because it gave Tesla
| mindshare as a tech company, drove sales and contributed
| massively to their insane valuation.
| kvogt wrote:
| Cruise CEO here.
|
| Our strategy has been to solve the challenges needed to operate
| driverless robotaxis on a well-equipped vehicle, then
| aggressively drive the cost down. Many OEMs are doing this in
| reverse order. They're trying to squeeze orders of magnitude of
| performance gains out of really low-cost hardware. Today it's
| unclear what strategy will win.
|
| In a few years our next generation of low-cost compute and
| sensing lands in these vehicles and our service area will be
| large enough that you forget there is even a geofence. If OEMs
| have still not managed to get the necessary performance gains
| to go fully driverless, we'll know what move was the right one.
|
| We shared several details on how our system works and our
| future plans here:
| https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkK2JX1iHuzz7W8z3roCZ...
| self_driving wrote:
| petilon wrote:
| Congrats on your incredible accomplishment! Thanks for doing
| this the responsible way. Tesla's approach does not inspire
| confidence. Starting at the high end, with expensive,
| reliable tech and slowly bringing the costs (and bulkiness of
| the equipment) down is the right approach!
| mocmoc wrote:
| Amazing I've been following cruise long time z, those videos
| were so funny. Keep on going and conquer the world!
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| It's good to hear a CEO say "we don't know the answer, but
| we're making a bet" rather than the typical Elizabeth Holmes
| style "We are absolutely correct and first they ignore you,
| then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you get
| convicted of three counts of wire fraud and go to prison".
| chx wrote:
| pulse7 wrote:
| Thank you for sharing! Sharing details on how your system
| works brings confidence to customers...
| belter wrote:
| Did you watch the videos?
|
| Based on the reply to the question: What sets Cruise
| technology apart from others like Waymo, Tesla...In other
| words, how was this difficult technical problem, solved in
| a way others, were unable to so far...whose reply you can
| hear ( video at the correct time) here:
|
| https://youtu.be/ABto5nqWgc0?list=PLkK2JX1iHuzz7W8z3roCZEqM
| L...
|
| thank you, but wont be volunteering to ride one of these.
| thomastu wrote:
| Will Cruise eventually be available on existing TNCs and
| other MaaS platforms? Or is the play here to create a new
| vertically integrated taxi service?
|
| If you've read Dan Sperling's Three Revolutions, any thoughts
| on what kind of [transportation
| future](https://www.planningreport.com/2018/03/21/dan-
| sperling-three...) you foresee Cruise contributing to
| building ?
| user3939382 wrote:
| My conclusion from years of self-driving, LIDAR, etc.
| research is that managing medium to heavy precipitation
| reliably might be impossible.
|
| Visual algorithms run into the same problem as human brains,
| and the size of e.g. rain drops interferes with the
| frequencies employed by radio techniques.
|
| Is anyone aware of any strategies that give us hope in
| solving this problem?
| walrus01 wrote:
| I know next to nothing about lidar engineering but 60GHz
| band radars can still function out to several hundred
| meters in rain. It is significantly attenuated as the rain
| rate (in mm/hour) increases, but it takes a lot of rain to
| make it completely useless.
| rabuse wrote:
| Summers in South Florida will put that to the challenge.
| abeppu wrote:
| Though ... how good a job are humans actually doing in
| heavy precipitation? I know that under normal circumstances
| our brains constantly do a bunch of work to create the
| illusion of a comprehensive high res visual field even
| though we really only have detail at the fovea. When it's
| raining heavily, and we think we can see "enough" to drive
| ... are we right? Or are we just lucky and pedestrians and
| cyclists are more likely to be off the road at those
| moments and so accidents increase but not to the point of
| disaster?
| schrep wrote:
| Congrats on this huge milestone!
|
| So refreshing to see a leader in this field say "we are not
| sure which one will work out" rather than just hyping their
| stuff.
|
| Can I get a test ride soon!
| bheights321 wrote:
| I see a few neighborhoods missing on the signup sheet. Are
| the crazy Bernal Heights streets a bit too much for this
| stage? :)
|
| Looking forward to ride from my home there!
| pmorici wrote:
| They are wholly owned by GM are they not? Starting this way
| doesn't preclude them taking Tesla's vision only approach in
| the future. Even Tesla initially had a radar vision combination
| approach before moving to pure vision. The real question with
| whatever technique being used is can they drive the hardware
| cost low enough that it can be widely deployed.
| jowday wrote:
| They moved to pure vision because they were constrained by
| radar suppliers because of supply chain issues and the chip
| shortage, not because of any ML progress - they were actually
| investigating using a higher resolution imaging radar before
| the pandemic.
| judge2020 wrote:
| They also have Lidar cars in Fremont that drive around
| every so often, that doesn't mean they plan to go into
| every car anytime soon. It'd be short-sighted to not
| continuously evaluate solutions that previously had
| constraints (despite what Elon says, they'd add Lidar if it
| made economic sense and it showed an improvement over
| camera-only, as their camera detection is pretty accurate
| these days in FSD).
| jowday wrote:
| I've seen their LIDAR cars in SF too - if I had to guess
| they're gathering ground truth data to train monocular
| depth models on.
|
| And even really naive integrations of LIDAR will show big
| improvements over camera only. You can do something as
| simple as overlay the returns from the most recent LIDAR
| spin over a camera image as a fourth channel and feed it
| into your models and most of your depth
| prediction/spatial predictions will improve dramatically.
| more_corn wrote:
| The reason camera only won't happen is because it won't work.
| Elon has been fighting reality for years.
| judge2020 wrote:
| How does a human identify obstacles, VRUs [0], and other
| cars?
|
| 0: vulnerable road users, eg pedestrians and bicyclists
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| How does a bird fly?
|
| For human flight, we borrowed the wings, but made them
| fixed and added propellers, to cheat the mechanical
| incompetence.
|
| I wouldn't be shocked that radar/lidar/sonar/whatever
| sensors are what it takes to cover the incompetence in
| matching human brain+vision.
|
| Heck, use multiple "brains" and give each veto power on
| moving the vehicle. Supposing that stopping doesn't kill
| you, that would at most frequently annoy the driver, and
| sometimes save his life or someone else's.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > How does a human identify
|
| With the most complex, context-aware, intuitive computer
| in existence. In addition to eyeballs that are
| _dramatically_ more capable than any camera Tesla is
| using.
| lern_too_spel wrote:
| The human visual system works more like a high resolution
| event camera than a frame-based camera. Event cameras can
| deal well with glare and other problems that would
| otherwise require high dynamic range per frame.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| This is true but there's a bit more to it. Going vision-only
| is a big move that requires innovation in a lot of areas and
| changes huge parts of the stack.
|
| Tesla was already _heavily_ relying on vision before going
| vision-only.
| ChrisClark wrote:
| Yeah, but that's not a tech issue. The few thousand that have
| the full self driving beta just have the opt-in option to turn
| on rolling stops. That just has to be removed in their next
| update.
| borski wrote:
| As you'll note in the comments on that thread though, FSD has
| a _lot_ more issues than just that; particularly with
| stationary objects and at night.
| ddlutz wrote:
| I don't have FSD enabled on my Model 3, but I have the FSD
| visualization preview. I'd be terrified of FSD at night.
| During the day I don't see it have any issues registering
| cars and other obstacles, but during night it barely
| detects anything.
| sremani wrote:
| The question is do the economics of self-driving cars work when
| you have to add and integrate all these additional equipment.
| Correct me, if I am wrong but aren't LIDAR cars supposed to
| cost you $200K+ ?
|
| Tesla is imitating humans in a way that removing LIDAR and
| relying on the compute to make up for them and build more
| accurate picture.
|
| Also, isn't Cruise owned by GM - who are the VCs here?
| jowday wrote:
| What makes you say Tesla is imitating humans? Their motion
| planning is all traditional robotics logic, not anything
| learned.
| robotresearcher wrote:
| Vision-based driving. Humans don't have lidar sensors.
| jowday wrote:
| Humans don't regress per-pixel depth or use convolutions
| and region proposals to draw bounding boxes around
| objects. They don't function on models with fixed weights
| trained by backprop either. The idea that "vision only"
| somehow more closely resembles how humans drive quickly
| falls apart if you inspect the internals of these
| systems.
| ra7 wrote:
| Lidar costs have dropped massively and continues to drop.
| Waymo, for example, claimed 4 years ago they were able to
| reduce cost of their Lidar by 90% from $75,000 to around
| $7500 [1]. In the meantime, range and resolution of these
| sensors have increased. Anyone not making use of Lidar in
| this day is just hamstringing themselves.
|
| [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/googles-waymo-reduces-
| lidar-...
| maxerickson wrote:
| If you search for "bosch lidar" there's a bunch of 2 year old
| news about them selling one designed for autonomous vehicles
| for $10,000, with statements that they could likely drive the
| price towards $200 with mass production.
|
| So $200,000 is probably not correct.
| more_corn wrote:
| It is correct for current pricing. Advances may drive those
| prices down. Right now the sensor packages exceed the price
| of all the other components.
| threeseed wrote:
| > Tesla is imitating humans in a way that removing LIDAR
|
| They are trying to imitate a fraction of what humans can do.
| And the state of the art ML research still does not account
| for issues like whether a photo of a person on a truck is
| real or not.
|
| You really need LiDAR for accurate bounding box detection.
| thebean11 wrote:
| 200k isn't that much for certain use cases, like shared cars.
| NYC taxi medallions were significantly more expensive yet the
| revenue from taxi rides was high enough that people kept
| buying medallions.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Tesla will release L4 or L5 self driving this year. Musk said
| it himself.
|
| Please ignore the fact that this is the 7th (or more?) year in
| a row he has said this.
| adrr wrote:
| I still want a functional autopilot that doesn't phantom
| brake on the freeway which has gotten worse since they
| stopped relying on radar. Or have the self park feature not
| curb the wheels. I won't even get started on the summon
| feature.
| enjoylife wrote:
| They are betting that hardware combination is the fastest to
| market, given the constraints of today software.
|
| When the ml stack is capable of leveraging purely camera
| sensors, Cruise and others like them, own the fleet and can
| swap out the hardware. Tesla does not "own" the fleet per se.
| So perhaps its different bets on which cars will still be on
| the road when the ML threshold is crossed.
| waffle_maniac wrote:
| Tesla has really fallen behind. I think Karpathy will be
| fired this year if his team can't achieve at least L4.
| yupper32 wrote:
| > I think Karpathy will be fired this year if his team
| can't achieve at least L4.
|
| Ah so Karpathy will be fired this year. Because they're not
| reaching L4. FSD isn't even L3 yet.
| ghaff wrote:
| I do expect at least some companies will hit L4 within
| the decade(?) but it's going to be under limited
| conditions that won't include urban driving. Which could
| actually be a very useful capability but isn't the "don't
| own a car" future that some really are focused on.
|
| ------
|
| Level 4 _ High Automation
|
| System capability: The car can operate without human
| input or oversight but only under select conditions
| defined by factors such as road type or geographic area.
| * Driver involvement: In a shared car restricted to a
| defined area, there may not be any. But in a privately
| owned Level 4 car, the driver might manage all driving
| duties on surface streets then become a passenger as the
| car enters a highway.
|
| Example: Google's now-defunct Firefly pod-car prototype,
| which had neither pedals nor a steering wheel and was
| restricted to a top speed of 25 mph.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Oh sure, L4 within the decade for companies other than
| Tesla, totally doable. You could argue Waymo and Cruise
| are already there with geo limitations.
|
| But Tesla within a year with no lidar? Yeah, no. Not
| happening.
| waffle_maniac wrote:
| "I would be shocked if we do not achieve Full Self-
| Driving safer than human this year. I would be shocked."
|
| -- Elon Musk
|
| He set the milestone.
| detaro wrote:
| He told investors the same thing last year. Elon
| milestones mean nothing.
| yupper32 wrote:
| He's said that every year since 2014:
| https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self-
| driving-...
| threeseed wrote:
| > when the ML threshold is crossed
|
| If, not when.
|
| Even the most cutting edge research today still pales in
| comparison to LiDAR.
| sanjoy_das wrote:
| > It is interesting to me that right now this is sitting on the
| HN homepage directly adjacent to: "Tesla to recall vehicles
| that may disobey stop signs (reuters.com)"
|
| Based on
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/01/13/a-robo...
| Tesla's FSD has other issues as well.
| drawkbox wrote:
| In the end I think self-driving regulations will require depth
| checking beyond computer vision as it can be tricked on any new
| situation. Depth checks using LiDAR are extremely efficient up
| to a football field away down to the direction someone is
| facing. RADAR is not as good but better than video/flat 2D
| depth detection though it limited by range, however it does
| work in weather where LiDAR doesn't and computer vision
| struggles.
|
| Autopilot and now FSD on Teslas doesn't have depth checking
| beyond visual/cameras. They removed the RADAR/sonar and have
| zero depth checking currently. Tesla recently instead of adding
| LiDAR, they [just removed RADAR to rely on computer vision
| alone even more](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/tesla-
| ditching-radar-for-aut...).
|
| Self-driving cars need cameras and LiDAR, or at least, RADAR,
| Telsa has only cameras and some sensors but not for depth
| anymore. That is insane.
|
| Humans have essentially LiDAR like quick depth testing. Humans
| have hearing for RADAR like input. For autonomous units, depth
| may be actually MORE important than vision in many scenarios.
| Humans have inherent depth checking with 3D space, sound,
| lighting, feel, atmosphere, air, pressure, situational
| awareness, etcetc etc that computer vision converted to 2D flat
| will never be able to replicate.
|
| A human can glance at a scene and know how far things are not
| just by vision but by how that vision changes with these
| distance inputs. LiDAR is faster than humans at depth checking
| in the actual physical world not just from an image flattened.
|
| With just cameras, no LiDAR OR RADAR, depth can be fooled.
|
| Like this: [TESLA KEEPS "SLAMMING ON THE BRAKES" WHEN IT SEES
| STOP SIGN ON BILLBOARD](https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-
| slamming-brakes-sees-sto...)
|
| Or like this: There is the [yellow light, Tesla thinking a Moon
| is a yellow light because Telsas have zero depth checking
| equipment now that they removed RADAR and refuse to integrate
| LiDAR](https://interestingengineering.com/moon-tricks-teslas-
| full-s...).
|
| LIDAR or humans have instant depth processing, it can easily
| tell the sign is far away, cameras alone cannot.
|
| LiDAR and humans can sense changes in motion, cameras cannot.
|
| [LiDAR vs.
| RADAR](https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/lidar-vs-
| radar)
|
| > _Most autonomous vehicle manufacturers including Google,
| Uber, and Toyota rely heavily on the LiDAR systems to navigate
| the vehicle. The LiDAR sensors are often used to generate
| detailed maps of the immediate surroundings such as
| pedestrians, speed breakers, dividers, and other vehicles. Its
| ability to create a three-dimensional image is one of the
| reasons why most automakers are keenly interested in developing
| this technology with the sole exception of the famous automaker
| Tesla. Tesla 's self-driving cars rely on RADAR technology as
| the primary sensor._
|
| > _High-end LiDAR sensors can identify the details of a few
| centimeters at more than 100 meters. For example, Waymo 's
| LiDAR system not only detects pedestrians but it can also tell
| which direction they're facing. Thus, the autonomous vehicle
| can accurately predict where the pedestrian will walk. The
| high-level of accuracy also allows it to see details such as a
| cyclist waving to let you pass, two football fields away while
| driving at full speed with incredible accuracy. Waymo has also
| managed to cut the price of LiDAR sensors by almost 90% in the
| recent years. A single unit with a price tag of 75,000 a few
| years ago will now cost just $7,500, making this technology
| affordable._
|
| > _However, this technology also comes with a few distinct
| disadvantages. The LiDAR system can readily detect objects
| located in the range of 30 meters to 200 meters. But, when it
| comes to identifying objects in the vicinity, the system is a
| big letdown. It works well in all light conditions, but the
| performance starts to dwindle in the snow, fog, rain, and dusty
| weather conditions. It also provides a poor optical
| recognition. That's why, self-driving car manufacturers such as
| Google often use LIDAR along with secondary sensors such as
| cameras and ultrasonic sensors._
|
| > _The RADAR system, on the other hand, is relatively less
| expensive. Cost is one of the reasons why Tesla has chosen this
| technology over LiDAR. It also works equally well in all
| weather conditions such as fog, rain, and snow, and dust.
| However, it is less angularly accurate than LiDAR as it loses
| the sight of the target vehicle on curves. It may get confused
| if multiple objects are placed very close to each other. For
| example, it may consider two small cars in the vicinity as one
| large vehicle and send wrong proximity signal. Unlike the LiDAR
| system, RADAR can determine relative traffic speed or the
| velocity of a moving object accurately using the Doppler
| frequency shift._
|
| > _Though Tesla has been heavily criticized for using RADAR as
| the primary sensor, it has managed to improve the processing
| capabilities of its primary sensor allowing it to see through
| heavy rain, fog, dust, and even a car in front of it. However,
| besides the primary RADAR sensor, the new Tesla vehicles will
| also have 8 cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and the new onboard
| computing system. In other words, both technologies work best
| when used in combination with cameras and ultrasonic sensors._
|
| LiDAR and depth detection will be needed, no matter how good
| the pure computer vision solutions get.
|
| The accidents with Teslas were the Autopilot running into large
| trucks with white trailers that blended with the sky so it just
| rammed into it thinking it was all sky. LiDAR would have been
| able to tell distance and dimension which would have solved
| those issues.
|
| [Even the most recent crash where the Tesla hit an overturned
| truck would have been not a problem with LiDAR](https://www.lat
| imes.com/california/story/2021-05-16/tesla-dr...). If you ask
| me sonar, radar and cameras are not enough, just cameras is
| dangerous.
|
| Eventually I think either Tesla will have to have all these or
| regulations will require LiDAR in addition to other tools like
| sonar/radar if desired and cameras/sensors of all current types
| and more. LiDAR when it is cheaper will get more points almost
| like Kinect and each iteration of that will be safer and more
| like how humans see. The point cloud tools on iPhone Pro/Max
| are a good example of how nice it is.
|
| Human distance detection is closer to LiDAR than RADAR. We can
| easily tell when something is far in the distance and to worry
| or not about it. We can easily detect the sky from a diesel
| trailer even when they are the same colors. That is the problem
| with RADAR only, it can be confused by those things due to
| detail and dimension especially on turns like the stop sign one
| is. We don't shoot out RADAR or lasers to check distance but we
| innately understand distance with just a glance not just from
| vision alone though.
|
| Humans can be tricked by distance but as we move the dimension
| and distance becomes more clear, that is exactly LiDARs best
| feature and RADARs/CV trouble spot, it isn't as good on turning
| or moving distance detection. LiDAR was built for that, that is
| why point clouds are easy to make with it as you move around.
| LiDAR and humans learn more as they move around or look around.
| RADAR can actually be a bit confused by that. LiDAR also has
| more resolution far away, it can see more detail far beyond
| human vision.
|
| I think in the end on self-driving cars we'll see BOTH LiDAR
| and RADAR but at least LiDAR in addition to computer vision,
| they both have pros and cons but LiDAR is by far better at
| quick distance checks for items further out. This stop sign
| would be no issue for LiDAR. It really just became economical
| in terms of using it so it will come down in price and I
| predict eventually Tesla will also have to use LiDAR in
| addition.
|
| [Here's an example of where RADAR/cameras were jumpy and caused
| an accident around the
| Tesla](https://youtu.be/BnbJvUwbewc?t=262), it safely avoids it
| but causes traffic around to react and results in an accident.
| The Tesla changed lanes and then hit the brakes, the car behind
| was expecting it to keep going, then crash.... dangerous. With
| LiDAR this would not have been as blocky detection, it would be
| more precise and not such a dramatic slow down.
|
| Until Tesla has LiDAR it will continue to be confused with
| things like this: [TESLA AUTOPILOT MISTAKES MOON FOR YELLOW
| TRAFFIC LIGHT](https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-autopilot-
| mistakes-moon-...) and this: [WATCH TESLA'S FULL SELF-DRIVING
| MODE STEER TOWARD ONCOMING HIGHWAY
| TRAFFIC](https://futurism.com/the-byte/watch-tesla-self-
| driving-steer...). [They are gonna want to fix FSD wanting to
| drive toward moving trains](https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/stat
| us/1487080178010542085).
|
| In the end I bet future self-driving, when it is level 6, will
| have computer vision, LiDAR, RADAR and potentially more
| (data/maps/etc) to help navigate. [Tesla FSD has been adding
| more of data/maps in which is basically what they said they
| didn't need to do](https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/148
| 8428565347528707), so LiDAR will have to come along eventually.
| Proof of them [using maps data](https://twitter.com/IdiocracySp
| ace/status/148843350997893939...) and possibly previous driver
| data.
|
| To think a Tesla can drive you without intervention or watching
| it closely, there will eventually be a distance confusion and
| it won't go well. The name Autopilot was better as it inferred
| like a plane where you still have to watch it, though planes
| are much further apart. The name Full Self Driving should be
| changed immediately even in beta, it is going to be ripe for
| lawsuits and problems.
|
| Tesla is trying to brute force self-driving and it will have
| some scary edge cases, always.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Why do we have to discuss Tesla whenever self-driving comes up?
| Cruise has this technology. Waymo has it. There are a
| smattering of niche players out there with various levels of
| self-driving. Tesla emphatically does not have it. They are not
| in the race.
| walrus01 wrote:
| I agree, but they sure claim to be. Literally marketed as
| "full self driving".
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| Actually, I just noticed earlier that todays' wording is
| ""full self driving capability".
|
| Sells for 12k USD here, for instance:
| https://www.tesla.com/modely/design#overview
| amelius wrote:
| Musk is a true car salesman.
| ultrablack wrote:
| Where can I buy one?
| desertraven wrote:
| The Cruise CEO is here, along with many grand stories of how
| good/safe their vehicles are.
|
| I can't help but think this thread may be a marketing ploy. If
| this were the case, is it allowed on HN?
|
| Edit: In addition, any negative/challenging/sceptical comment is
| quickly downvoted.
| jefftk wrote:
| As someone unaffiliated, I really like that their CEO is here
| answering questions.
| desertraven wrote:
| I do like that too! As long as the CEO isn't being shielded
| by an army of supporters.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Agreed. It is one of the things I find most attractive about
| HN, that Important People will actually show up in the
| discussion and participate.
| dang wrote:
| HN's criterion is whether a post is intellectually interesting,
| or more precisely whether it can support an intellectually
| interesting discussion. What's nice about that is you can
| decide it by looking at the article itself, and the thread--you
| don't need to know nebulous things like the intentions behind
| the post. I'd say the current post clears the bar fairly
| easily. Here are a couple of past explanations about this, in
| case they're of interest:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186280
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22871601
|
| As for negative/challenging/sceptical: that depends on the
| quality of the comment. Thoughtful critique is always welcome.
| Shallow dismissals and snark are not welcome--not that the
| target of the criticism always deserves better, but the
| community deserves better.
| polkadotmatrix wrote:
| Amazing considering that he said he wasn't comfortable putting
| his own kid in them just a few months ago.
| kelnos wrote:
| Got a source for that? I searched around and couldn't find
| anything with him saying that.
| polkadotmatrix wrote:
| https://youtu.be/dmvZBiWYkFQ?t=242
|
| "I want to bring my little son along on this ride, but
| obviously that's not where we're at today."
|
| edit: Fixed link
| mygoodaccount wrote:
| Either you posted the wrong link, or your link was taken
| down within the last 20 minutes...
|
| Lots of Cruise employees in this thread.
| polkadotmatrix wrote:
| https://youtu.be/dmvZBiWYkFQ?t=242
|
| I had an extra slash in the link, I corrected it in the
| original and above.
| e4e78a06 wrote:
| Yep, it was definitely taken down. I watched it only half
| an hour ago.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| 18+ is reasonable since it's still a dangerous experiment.
|
| I actually would love an automated version of this that goes at
| 200 or 300 miles an hour, the ultimate thrill ride. Have it run
| on something like the Autobahn. While it's impossible for a
| human being to drive at that speed, computers definitely could
| .
|
| It would be like sky diving but on land
| woah wrote:
| Why not go on a train?
| csdvrx wrote:
| Can't sit on the front seat :)
| asdff wrote:
| I love it when the self driving threads always circle back
| to reinventing the concept of public transportation as if
| it doesn't already exist. Want to know what the best
| hyperloop system in the world is called? The subway,
| invented 200 years ago.
| zaptrem wrote:
| The fastest passenger cars today can only make it to 200mph.
| Even a computer with perfect vision and 0ms reaction time
| would not be able to stop in time for a blocked road at that
| speed unless visibility/road were perfect.
|
| Maybe on roads in the Mojave Desert/South Dakota I90/etc?
| 37ef_ced3 wrote:
| What is the benefit of a taxi being driverless, for the
| passenger? Is it cheaper?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Cheaper, you don't have to tip (in the USA where that is
| required), availability (driver doesn't need to sleep), and
| safety (you don't have to worry about your driver trying to
| cheat or rob you).
|
| People aren't getting cheaper. Indeed, this pandemic is showing
| us just how fragile the labor market is and automation that was
| too expensive to consider before (like fry robots at
| caliburger) are now very reasonable upgrades. Uber was great
| when they cost $40 from the airport, but not $200 given the
| driver is now considered a full time employee with full
| benefits.
| NationalPark wrote:
| Where are Uber drivers considered full time employees?
| soperj wrote:
| Likely be able to get a taxi anywhere. No discrimination. No
| 20/25/30% tip suggested. No taking advantage of passengers, no
| weird routes to tack on extra fees.
| asdff wrote:
| Maybe you haven't ridden a cab in the last 10 years, but like
| any other major industry these days, they do have an app you
| can use. You can call one up immediately like an uber or
| schedule it in advance like a traditional cab, it gives you a
| fixed price up front and a set route, tip can be included in
| the app how you like. In my experience taking a cab like this
| is better than ubering to the airport since its the same
| price any time of day rather than in flux between
| $50-infinity.
| soperj wrote:
| You clearly haven't taken a cab lately in a place without
| Uber or the like.
| Drdrdrq wrote:
| > ...no weird routes to tack on extra fees.
|
| At first. They will optimize that later.
| e4e78a06 wrote:
| There's no need for that. Rideshare drivers' pay
| overwhelmingly goes to cost of labor rather than fuel or
| maintenance, especially in big cities. Uber/Lyft take
| another 25-40% from the gross fare the passenger pays.
| Cruise will be capturing all of that and only needs to pass
| a fraction on to the consumer to get an unassailable price
| advantage.
| itisit wrote:
| The benefit, one day, is if you're a criminal whose face is
| detected, the car doors will lock, and you'll be driven
| directly to law enforcement who will be ready and waiting to
| apprehend you.
| namrog84 wrote:
| Although possible.
|
| I suspect and hope there will be some push back. Imagine a
| counterpoint in either a bug or malicious attack where
| innocent person is locked in and then driven into a lake or
| something.
|
| I dont think autonomous cars should be able to lock people
| in. The car can report to police silently, that's fine.
| asdff wrote:
| Seems like it would be a lot less dramatic to just trigger
| a head on collison on the highway which you could do today
| if you broke into the tesla fsd system.
| 988747 wrote:
| >> The car can report to police silently, that's fine.
|
| No, it should not do even that. You are making an
| assumption here that police/government always have good
| intentions.
|
| What society needs is kind of power balance: law
| enforcement being able to catch 98% of criminals is a noble
| goal, but pushing that number up to 100% is not possible in
| democratic society, it requires totalitarian control.
| That's why we need to make a choice here and oppose
| surveillance, event if it seems well intentioned.
| itisit wrote:
| This is basically the point I was trying to provoke. We
| forfeit a good bit of our privacy and autonomy with these
| technologies. Rather disgusting how convenience always
| wins.
| mattlondon wrote:
| At least in the UK, one of the most prolific serial rapists was
| a licensed taxi driver (not even an Uber driver (who get a lot
| of stick about not being as safe as "real" taxis) - but a
| licensed and supposedly-vetted London black taxi driver).
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
|
| So I guess safety is a major plus based on that.
| olivermarks wrote:
| Totally illogical supposition. I'll bet a lot more taxi
| drivers have rescued people in trouble than assaulted them, a
| young female relative of mine was rescued by a passing taxi
| driver from a dicey situation outside Sheperds Bush tube
| station. The chances of thugs standing in front of future
| driverless vehicles like highway robbers to stop them is very
| high, especially if the predators can see their prey has
| something of value to them
| e4e78a06 wrote:
| The scenario you described already happens in San Francisco
| and the Bay Area on a regular basis to regular human
| drivers. There are plenty of videos of peoples' back window
| being smashed while they're sitting in traffic and their
| expensive goods are taken. The solution to this is not
| having human drivers, it's cracking down on property crime
| and treating it as equally as important to violent crime.
| ketzo wrote:
| We can do anecdotes back and forth, but many people would
| absolutely love "Uber but there's not a stranger in the
| front seat."
| noah_buddy wrote:
| Perhaps people would "love" that but I have a feeling
| that the continued retreat from all forms of
| socialization due to technology is not a good thing by
| and large for society. I would guess that most people who
| think they desire this wouldn't even think they desire it
| in terms of safety but instead in terms of avoiding
| distraction or awkwardness.
| dymk wrote:
| Technology lets me socialize an order of magnitude more
| than I'd otherwise. We as a species have never been more
| connected. If it also gives me respite from having to
| engage with someone I'd rather not in a car, all the
| better.
|
| Honestly, we could all use a bit more of a break from
| each other, in my opinion.
| noah_buddy wrote:
| Point well taken, I meant physical / proximal
| socialization. I would contend that most forms of
| socialization over the internet are lower quality than a
| candid conversation with a stranger in a car ride.
| asdff wrote:
| They will love it until they are leaving from the bar and
| the last bar attendee left them a big wet bile-smelling
| present all over the seat. At least when this sort of
| thing happens on a bus there are other seats you could
| use.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Reject the ride due to cleanliness and request another
| one.
| asdff wrote:
| And who knows how long that will take? In some places it
| takes long enough just to request a single uber trip much
| less two in a row. Imagine how livid you'd get when a
| half hour after you first intended to leave the bar, the
| second self driving car arrives, and it to is soiled.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Hey, with a huge fleet of self driving cars that aren't
| taking Saturday night off and only have mostly bar
| traffic to consider, I think you'll manage.
|
| And the robot won't take offense.
| andrewxdiamond wrote:
| I've always heard the opposite, that real taxis are
| significantly more dangerous.
|
| Ubers are sent directly to you, and everyone's identity has
| been verified.
|
| Compare that to flagging down a random taxi, where you have
| no idea who the person is before you get in the car.
| asdff wrote:
| How is the taxi driver's identity also not verified? Are
| you assuming there could be a random person who isn't
| employed by a taxi company masquerading as a valid cab?
| Since you would need a genuine looking physical cab to pull
| this one off, that seems a lot less realistic than simply
| pulling up to a bar in any car, telling a drunk girl you
| are her uber, and driving off before she thinks to check
| the picture on the app, which is something that does
| actually happen.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| Eventually I think it will reach a point where it's safer too.
| The car doesn't get tired, meanwhile I've had plenty of
| taxi/uber rides where the driver has been driving long, long
| hours.
| pcwalton wrote:
| The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is the most infectious disease
| known to mankind. In mid-December, with caseloads similar to
| now, the asymptomatic positivity rate was around 15%, so you
| can roughly put the chances of your driver being infected with
| COVID-19 at around 15%. So, right now, I'd feel safer in a
| driverless cab. (Of course, that calculus changes as the number
| of cases changes, which is right now happening rapidly.)
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is the most infectious
| disease known to mankind.
|
| Based on what? Certainly not RO
| pcwalton wrote:
| R0 for Omicron is 8-10, but the generation time is 5 days
| instead of 16 days for measles.
| Vecr wrote:
| Rt multiplied by serial interval it is, so "fastest and
| most widely spreading contagious pathogen in modern
| history" is probably correct.
| orangepurple wrote:
| Omicron is the "live vaccine" variant of COVID-19. I've had
| it and it was no problem.
| mbesto wrote:
| Yes. Instead of the variable cost of a human, it's just the
| variable cost of maintenance + gas.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What is the benefit of a taxi being driverless, for the
| passenger?
|
| Not risking kidnapping, sexual assault, etc.--or even just
| "this person won't shut up"--from the driver.
|
| > Is it cheaper?
|
| Eventually, though perhaps not initially.
| mertd wrote:
| If you can reduce the cost of a car trip to fuel + maintenance
| + depreciation, you are providing a very compelling alternative
| to private car ownership. It will change everything.
| modzu wrote:
| nobody owns a car because its cheaper than other forms of
| transit. and if you want to be cheauferred around by an ai
| instead of taking a bus, you will pay for it.
| more_corn wrote:
| People own cars for convenience. In the US public transit
| is impossible. A self driving service can be as convenient
| or even more convenient compared to owning a car. (No
| registration, oil change, insurance, fueling, parking,
| maintenance chores) I'm a car guy and I see the appeal.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| Indeed. Exactly how this all will play out is unclear,
| but if it works the impact on land use will be
| substantial.
| spiderice wrote:
| You will pay more than the bus, yes.. but perhaps less than
| the cost of owning and maintaining your own car.
| modzu wrote:
| no. a billion dollars wasnt invested to socialize
| transportation. ultimately it may be more, if there is value in
| not having to interact with the smell of a fleshbag
| adrr wrote:
| Labor is the most expensive part of a taxi.
| nichochar wrote:
| 1) cost (majority of the uber ride cost is paying the human)
|
| 2) social anxiety / norms
|
| 3) experience tuning / consistency
| AuthError wrote:
| yea, you take the biggest cost of taxi out of equation.
| boredumb wrote:
| The $250,000 SF taxi medallions?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Assuming it is $250k one time purchase, it seems cheaper
| than annual pay for a person to drive around SF, and the
| overhead to manage the person.
| asdff wrote:
| You still have overhead to manage your fleet of self
| driving cars. They aren't self repairing, self fueling,
| and self cleaning yet.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Cheaper than having individuals manage their own cars.
| adrr wrote:
| Let's assume you get a loan for 30 years on it for 6%. That
| is $18k a year. What is labor? $50k a year?
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| It will likely be cheaper (maybe not initially), but more
| restrictive in pickup/drop-off and availability (ETA).
| toolz wrote:
| Don't you mean less restrictive? A human might have
| preferences against areas that a computer might not. Further
| if it's cheaper and less complex to operate (not dealing with
| employees is a significant decrease in complexity) I would
| expect more car owners to enter the market and provide
| services.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| More restrictive because without a human driver it has to
| have absolute certainty it will stop in a safe place
| (unlike a human driver who may make the right or wrong call
| to just double park and let you hop out).
|
| Think of self-driving cars as likely to use their own
| version of "bus stops" but the route and flexibility would
| be greater than that of a standard bus
| kelnos wrote:
| The restrictions on pickup/dropoff locations (if any) might
| have more to do with road conditions. Cruise might not be
| comfortable with their cars stopping in certain places.
| avrionov wrote:
| It will more restrictive because they haven't mapped all
| streets.
| lancesells wrote:
| I would much rather prefer my own private car than one being
| driven by someone else. It'll be interesting to see if the
| level of cleanliness though as most drivers tend to take care
| of their car because it's their car. If someone throws up in
| one of these cars does it know or does it just show up to the
| next pickup?
| kelnos wrote:
| That raises another question for me: I thought Uber and
| Lyft[0] had COVID-related cleaning protocols that require
| their drivers to disinfect some surfaces of the car after
| each ride. How can a driverless car do that?
|
| [0] https://www.lyft.com/driver/clean
| akavi wrote:
| Sounds like getting rid of some hygiene theater is another
| benefit of self-driving cars then.
|
| Covid transmission via surfaces is basically non-existent,
| as far as we can tell.
| dag11 wrote:
| Do they? I've ridden plenty of ubers in the past year and
| haven't noticed any such disinfecting.
| kelnos wrote:
| Why would you? Presumably they don't do it while you're
| there.
| thebean11 wrote:
| You would smell the alcohol
| mandarax8 wrote:
| And you still think they do it?
| stevage wrote:
| Easy to add cameras and have someone remotely decide to send
| the car to get cleaned.
| DavidAdams wrote:
| I'm sure that any of these services are going to depend on
| customers reporting when a car shows up in an unacceptable
| condition.
| asdff wrote:
| That sounds like a great way to burn reputation among your
| customers. "Why would I take a self driving car from the
| bar, the last one was full of puke?"
| richardw wrote:
| No forced chitchat, no chance I'll be rated badly, (eventually)
| safer than many of the drivers I've had.
|
| I'd use it daily if it were an appliance rather than an
| interaction. Right now I have a car.
| asdff wrote:
| This is why I like cabs. Customers should not have a rating.
| paxys wrote:
| For the passenger - unless the cars drive significantly better
| there's really no difference. Rides may get cheaper but the
| overall market will decide that.
|
| The benefits to the company who runs the service is, of course,
| huge.
| dbbk wrote:
| Cheaper and greater availability at all hours I'd imagine, as
| the driver doesn't need to take shifts.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-01 23:00 UTC)