[HN Gopher] Waymo One doubles service area in Phoenix, continues...
___________________________________________________________________
Waymo One doubles service area in Phoenix, continues growing in SF
Author : ra7
Score : 147 points
Date : 2023-05-04 13:10 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.waymo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.waymo.com)
| jeffbee wrote:
| The Waymo approach has proven itself. Targeted testing, running
| the driver in hard mode as much as possible, is better than the
| Tesla approach. Tesla's plan was essentially "machine learning
| underpants gnomes". Collect ten billion miles of data from guys
| driving down 280 -> ??? -> profit. Didn't work and now Tesla is
| recognized as being dead last in the game, behind dozens of no-
| name Chinese players.
|
| Now what I wonder is whether Waymo has a durable lead over
| Cruise, or if Cruise succeeds alongside them.
| sidibe wrote:
| > Collect ten billion miles of data from guys driving down 280
| -> ??? -> profit.
|
| It's actually
|
| Profit -> Collect ten billion miles of data from guys driving
| down 280 -> ???
| jeremyjh wrote:
| Yes why build a technology when you can sell just the promise
| of that technology to your stans.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I have always been a huge proponent of Waymo and obviously
| Tesla doesn't have something comparable to them now.
|
| But if you look at videos of recorded Tesla autopilot drives on
| Youtube you will see a huge amount of success in terms of
| getting people to their destination without crashing or killing
| anyone. And there is constant gradual improvement.
|
| If Tesla can get another 2-3% improvement, they may actually be
| able to launch a robotaxi service. The trick will probably be
| that you need to have a driver's license and sit in the front
| seat at first. But after X months they will probably allow
| sitting in the back, especially for certain vetted trip
| regions.
| danans wrote:
| > If Tesla can get another 2-3% improvement, they may
| actually be able to launch a robotaxi service.
|
| 2-3% improvement in what metric exactly? Disengagement rate?
| Tesla has a long way to go there in anything but highway
| driving.[1]
|
| YouTube videos are not proof of the safety of an autonomous
| vehicle. Tesla autopilot is currently very optimistically at
| level 2.5. 2-3%, even across all metrics won't get them to
| level 3, much less level 5.
|
| I don't blame the people working in their self-driving
| program. The expectations that have been placed upon them are
| unreasonable given the constraints on equipment cost and
| aesthetic design.
|
| 1. https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/status/1458169941128097800
| ok_dad wrote:
| > The trick will probably be that you need to have a driver's
| license and sit in the front seat at first
|
| Rental cars? Lame.
| xnx wrote:
| Not only that. Tesla thought they could do it (better!) with an
| inferior sensor suite.
| hnburnsy wrote:
| The baby steps makes sense, but you gotta admit Phoenix has to
| be thr easiest metro area to test with: Little inclement
| weather, little terrain change, newer infrastructure, streets
| mostly laid out in an east-west, north-south grid with
| consistent naming and numbering.
| paxys wrote:
| Waymo and Cruise have also been operating in San Francisco
| for a while, which is quite the opposite.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Most of Waymo's hours are in simulation anyway, and that
| can be as hard as they want it to be. Waymo's meatspace
| test track is also nothing but edge cases.
|
| I understand that Tesla also learns in simulation.
| austinkhale wrote:
| I live inside the original area in Phoenix where they did their
| training. I have to give kudos where it's due. I originally
| _hated_ their cars constantly driving around our neighborhood,
| but I was persuaded to try one a few weeks back. It completely
| changed my mind. They are now my favorite way to get around. I am
| a very happy, frequent customer and hope they keep adding
| coverage and more cars. This is absolutely the future I want to
| live in.
| icey wrote:
| Same here (downtown Phoenix area) -- the driverless Waymos have
| been awesome. Occasionally they get confused but it seems
| pretty rare. They're better than a lot of the other drivers on
| the road out here.
|
| I'm mostly excited that they upped the allowed passenger count
| from 3 to 4. Usually we take a car if we're going out to dinner
| with friends but the 3 passenger limit made taking one of these
| a pain in the ass or impossible.
| drusepth wrote:
| Does the fourth passenger sit in the "driver's" seat, or is
| it a three-packed-in-the-back kind of situation?
|
| Never seen a self-driving-car in person, but I assume it's
| the standard 4-seater sedan layout, right?
| ilaksh wrote:
| They are vans.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _They are vans_
|
| I was in a Jaguar. The one they show on their site [1].
|
| [1] https://waymo.com/phx/
| eep_social wrote:
| They were vans:
| https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/13559409?hl=en
| icey wrote:
| I haven't taken one since they announced the change (I'm in
| a part of Phoenix that's pretty walkable), but I think it
| will be 3 in the rear bench and one in the passenger seat.
| They've been pretty clear that they don't want people
| sitting in the driver's seat, and I'm guessing that will
| continue to be the case with this change.
| dangus wrote:
| It blows my mind that someone living downtown in a city the
| size of Phoenix (relatively large) needs to use a car at all.
| It's really a shameful failure of urban planning.
| icey wrote:
| I drive a couple of times a month... It's not the most
| walkable city but the downtown area is fairly walkable
| sib wrote:
| Phoenix is like LA without the positives
| abecedarius wrote:
| Is a 20th-century mass transit system actually preferable
| to robocars once the technology is mature? My guess is it's
| the cities like Austin, planning new transit systems
| without designing for synergies with robocars, who are
| failing at urban planning.
| dymk wrote:
| Good public mass transit is absolutely superior. Waymo
| cars don't solve traffic, it only partly solves parking
| and paying a human.
|
| Having (on average) a single person take up 40 square
| feet of space on the road for travel is horribly
| inefficient. You do a few orders of magnitude better with
| a full train car or bus.
| wolfram74 wrote:
| From an energetics perspective it's incredibly hard to
| beat walking, biking or rails. If your occupancy on the
| car is reliably greater than 1, that is an improvement
| over single occupancy cars, but those boxes are just huge
| compared to a bicycle.
| umanwizard wrote:
| You're right, but it's a bit of a cherry-picked example.
| Phoenix is probably the most car-required major city in the
| world.
| 0zemp2c wrote:
| [flagged]
| dopamean wrote:
| Why did you hate them at first? What about the experience of
| using the service changed your opinion?
| austinkhale wrote:
| > Why did you hate them at first?
|
| I walk my dogs twice a day and the cars are constantly
| driving by with their array of sensors. Made me feel like I
| was being constantly filmed and recorded... which as I
| understand them to work I certainly was/am. Outside of that,
| I resented being involuntarily part of a science experiment
| that is objectively pretty dangerous all things considered.
| For example, I would never cross the street when one was
| coming down the road. I didn't trust them.
|
| > What about the experience of using the service changed your
| opinion?
|
| The UX is really incredible. The car handled driving very,
| very well. Much better/safer than most Uber/Lyft's I've been
| in. Made me realize how freeing this technology will be for
| those that don't have the ability to drive. If you don't have
| a car / don't have the ability to drive in Phoenix, you're
| going to have a bad time. Walkability here is typically very
| poor.
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| Yeah I hope Waymo expands soon out to Mesa/Gilbert area
| where I am. My wife has never driven in the 20 years we've
| been together. Fortunately we live within a 5-10 minute
| walk of an intersection with multiple grocery stores, lots
| of restaurants and medical offices but it would be nice for
| her to be able to go beyond that bubble without my help.
| She feels bad about using Uber for 2 mile drives (even
| though she tips well) but wouldn't feel bad about using a
| self driving for those purposes.
| dilap wrote:
| Yeah, as a skateboarder in SF a few years ago, the
| driverless cars for testing were already way more
| predictable and generally chill than the human Uber
| drivers, who would do all kinds of crazy, erratic things.
|
| In an ideal world, we'd have physical separation for
| peds/bikes/skateboards/etc and motorized vehicles, but if
| we have to share, I'd much rather share with AI than
| humans.
|
| (That's my pedestrian perspective. As a driver, I love
| driving and would hate to lose the right. But honestly I
| think the writing is on the wall, especially in dense urban
| environments.)
| sgtnoodle wrote:
| Regarding the risk of stepping out in front of a Waymo
| vehicle, I personally wouldn't be too concerned about it as
| long as there's adequate stopping distance to begin with.
| You're most definitely being picked up by at least a few
| different sensors, even from hundreds of ft away. If the
| car is able to correctly categorize you as a pedestrian,
| it's constantly re-assessing the probability of you
| stepping into its path based on multiple visual cues,
| adjusting its behavior accordingly. If the car isn't able
| to categorize you, it's still seeing you as a large blob
| that isn't in its static world map, so it's going to
| aggressively stop out of caution rather than try driving
| through you.
|
| The reliance on a static world map is a very big safety
| feature in my opinion. I wouldn't be as confident stepping
| into the path of a Tesla.
| kccqzy wrote:
| For those of us not located in areas where Waymo is available,
| do you mind elaborating on why this is your favorite way to get
| around? As compared to Uber, Lyft, etc.
| stingrae wrote:
| For me in SF using cruise, I find them to be much safer and
| smoother drivers than Uber/Lyfts. I don't get car sick and I
| don't have to worry for my safety.
| ra7 wrote:
| I've only taken a couple of Waymo rides when I went to
| Phoenix. I would take them over Uber/Lyft any day, if Waymo
| offered rides in my city because:
|
| * They are very safe and you're not at the mercy of the
| Uber/Lyft driver's driving skills.
|
| * Their cars are pretty good (Jaguar I-Pace fleet) and
| generally very clean. You know what you're getting every
| time.
|
| * You don't have to interact with a driver.
|
| * No tipping.
| austinkhale wrote:
| - The cars are very safe, very conservative drivers
|
| - The interiors are nice, well air conditioned and don't
| smell
|
| - You don't have to talk to a person, which I don't always
| hate but have had some bad experiences. This just removes the
| roll of the dice from the equation entirely.
|
| - They are currently at par or cheaper with Uber/Lyft prices
| and typically it's faster for the car to arrive
|
| - You get to play your own music
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Adding:
|
| - they're cheap. $5/ride.
|
| - they're fun. It's a self-driving car! That's cool! I
| genuinely had fun every time I was taken around in one.
| threeseed wrote:
| > You don't have to talk to a person
|
| My partner has been propositioned and harassed over a dozen
| times by Uber drivers.
|
| I think for many this is going to be a killer feature.
| NewMountain wrote:
| I had an Uber driver in upstate New York who was trying
| to get me to agree or at least not disagree with the
| superiority of the white "race". I had another driver in
| Oakland California who would not relent until I
| acknowledged God is real and I should be thankful for his
| love. I felt massive cognitive dissonance afterwards
| feeling both the requirement to report these drivers but
| also massive guilt at the non-zero chance I was depriving
| them of one if not the last potential for work available
| to them. I decided not to report either but still reflect
| on whether that was a good choice or not.
|
| Edit: to be totally clear: I did not agree in either
| situation, but tried to gracefully divert or redirect
| without escalating the situation. I didn't confront as,
| frankly, I wasn't sure if the person would have responded
| violently.
|
| Uber is valuable, but I have kind of accepted the premise
| that an Uber drive is just a public transit experience
| with a customized destination. I should expect some
| potentially weird and possibly unpleasant interactions as
| part of the process.
|
| I would 100% convert to Waymo only away from Uber just
| based on those two experiences and dozens if not hundreds
| of generally positive Uber experiences.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I feel like once they start rolling out to more and more
| locales, we will be hit with a spate of news stories like
| "creepy guy wouldn't let my car drive away by standing in
| front of it and leering at me"
| xnx wrote:
| Another benefit to Waymo vehicles: Full video recording
| of all road interactions
| drusepth wrote:
| I think a lot of Lyft's early "we're like Uber, but
| better for women!" marketing hints that this is a killer
| feature that will absolutely drive growth. Especially now
| that Lyft, too, is saturated to the point of equally-
| risky drivers as Uber was/is.
| trgn wrote:
| > - The cars are very safe, very conservative drivers
|
| So great to hear. Seeing videos of self-driving Tesla made
| me fear for the worst.
| icey wrote:
| Here's one concrete example -- these cars almost never
| take left hand turns. They'll route multiple right hand
| turns to get somewhere, which makes it feel much less
| risky when pulling onto a busy street from a
| neighborhood, for example.
| adrr wrote:
| I wish my navigation supported that feature.
| sebmellen wrote:
| UPS style!
|
| https://theconversation.com/why-ups-drivers-dont-turn-
| left-a...
| xnx wrote:
| It's understandable, but very unfortunate that people
| group Waymo, Cruise, and Tesla together. Waymo is at
| least 5-10 years more advanced.
| what_ever wrote:
| Tbh, you shouldn't compare Tesla "AutoPilot" with these
| full self driving options.
| arecurrence wrote:
| Does it prompt for a tip?
| xnx wrote:
| No
| kpw94 wrote:
| > The interiors are nice, well air conditioned and don't
| smell
|
| If they scale, that will become a problem:
|
| - people puking in car
|
| - people having sex in car
|
| - people eating greasy fries in car
|
| These happen in public transportation too (the sex one not
| as often, but puking, eating smelly/gross food definitely),
| but the big difference here is that users won't be
| anonymous. The next waymo rider (or waymo staff if the car
| stops by some inspection checkpoint between rides, or some
| extra in-car sensors) will be able to report the incident,
| which would flag repeating bad riders over time.
|
| Overall the experience would be as good as a Uber today, as
| like you said, no roll of the dice on the driver.
|
| Another new problem specific to self driving and not seen
| for public transportation: muggers driving a high speed
| bike targeting isolated rides (they'll know how easy it is
| to make the car stop, smash a window, and get the rider's
| valuables). Basically the modern version of stagecoach
| robberies.
|
| One could argue these already happens in Europe on highways
| with traffic jams, but I can see the muggers being more
| active at night, since in addition to knowing the rider
| can't try to escape, there's also less crowds around. It'll
| be very dependants on regions : In Phoenix, I'd assume less
| often as muggers won't know if the rider is carrying.
| elbigbad wrote:
| Geez this is some Grade-A FUD. Wow, I'm shocked.
| petters wrote:
| Can't believe you post on HN haven't tried them. I've been
| thinking of a vacation to Phoenix just to try them and I live
| in Europe :)
| ajcp wrote:
| I live downtown PHX (Roosevelt Row) and beyond riding in them I
| MUCH prefer them driving around on the streets than actual
| human drivers. There isn't a day goes by that I don't see
| drivers make up 4-way stops, disregard the 4-way stops, flip a
| youey in the middle of an intersection, etc. Contrast that to
| the ever predictable Weymo, just quietly going about their
| little self-driving existence.
|
| Only problem I've seen with them is people don't realize that
| just because you wave them through doesn't mean they will
| proceed. If a Waymo sees a human on the corner that looks like
| they will cross it will stop and wait until the heat-death of
| the universe for them to cross.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| >they will cross it will stop and wait until the heat-death
| of the universe for them to cross.
|
| There's something adorable and HHGTG about that whole thing!
| Reminds me of the robotic Star Liner that refused to take off
| because of the peanuts hadn't been delivered thus its
| checklist was incomplete. It had waited eons as its
| passengers withered to corpses securely locked into the cabin
| only stating that it was 'statistically likely a new
| civilisation with peanut packages will arise on this planet'.
| dekhn wrote:
| Lemon-scented handwipes, IIRC. Also Marvin spent ~millions
| of years in the car park for the Restaurant at the End of
| the Universe: ""The first ten-million years were the worst.
| And the second ten-million - they were the worst too... The
| third ten-million, I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went
| into a bit of a decline. "
| jamiek88 wrote:
| I deleted the Marvin bit as I was worried I was rambling!
| And yes it was the wipes, thanks for the correction!
| ajcp wrote:
| It's funny because for some reason they definitely do
| _feel_ adorable and polite. I know we shouldn 't actively
| anthropomorphize them, but it's just the feeling you get
| when you see them go about their polite little way,
| adorably plotting our downfall.
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| I have never tried to spell the phrase "flip a youey" before.
|
| It might be the only word I use that I have never considered
| spelling, so I am grateful that you included it your comment.
|
| That said, I think you are wrong and it should be "uey",
| "uie," "u-ie," or any other spelling that emphasizes the "u"
| after which the term is named.
|
| Also "I do not know the answer but I am sure you are wrong"
| is the most internetish comment I've ever made, so that's two
| striking experiences for me today.
| dangus wrote:
| A hopefully not-too-annoying reminder that this _isn't_ a
| future that is sustainable or desirable to live in compared
| with alternatives. It's really just better than the automotive
| hellscape you are used to.
|
| Phoenix is one of the most car-centric places to live in the
| country. The only reason anyone needs a service like this is
| because of the area's complete failure in urban planning.
|
| Car-focused infrastructure is incredibly expensive per capita
| compared to alternatives that prioritizing walking, cycling,
| and public transit. It maximizes the amount of public utilities
| (roads, sewers, etc) needed to serve one family.
|
| One pair of train tracks can serve more human commuters than a
| 12-lane highway. One bus can replace 30-40 cars, and neither
| option needs fancy automation to be more cost and carbon
| efficient than a robotaxi.
|
| Waymo might band-aid the transit situation where you live but
| it's doing nothing to address the fundamental problems with
| large urban areas that require the use of personal vehicles.
| elbigbad wrote:
| What you're saying is probably true, but are you proposing
| razing Phoenix and rebuilding it as a less car-focused place?
| My sense is that that proposal wouldn't be too popular with
| the people whose homes you're tearing down, nor would
| necessarily the change in lifestyle they would be forced to
| undergo (after I'm sure what would be decades of
| rebuilding...).
| conorh wrote:
| I've gone over to Chandler to check them out - was also really
| impressed, very smooth ride! I'm on the wrong side of I-10
| unfortunately for getting regular rides from my house :/
| stouset wrote:
| I'll contrast this with Cruise, which are driving autonomously
| in San Francisco.
|
| I _hate_ them.
|
| At least in the area I'm in (the Inner Sunset), they often
| cruise around with no passengers while waiting for a request.
| While doing so, they circle around idling at 10-15mph, pausing
| for 30 seconds or more at stop signs. It's long enough where
| just when you decide they've completely stopped and start to go
| around, they "wake up" and start moving again. I have
| personally been held up by _four separate Cruise vehicles_
| acting this way within a ten block section of a single trip. It
| is maddening, and there 's no safe or reasonable way to pass
| them. I am generally quite patient and not particularly
| affected by road rage, but I'll confess that I have spent
| significant amounts of time fantasizing about an Office Space
| printer scene styled destruction of these vehicles.
|
| They need to either find places to pull over (ideal) or drive
| like normal participants in traffic. Their current behavior
| feels disruptively slow (cars end up backed up behind them) and
| simultaneously unpredictable and confusing.
|
| Worse, in other areas like Fell St., they drive exclusively in
| the left hand lane while driving 15mph below the flow of
| traffic. This actually causes _significantly_ extra traffic
| during busier times as that street is often at or near
| capacity. It also disrupts the design of that road, which has a
| "green wave" of lights paced at about 30mph. Dramatically fewer
| cars make it through any section of road when you have one car
| driving 20mph that prompts everyone behind it to merge over to
| the right, further impacting the throughput of other lanes.
|
| I've also seen acute instances where they completely fail in
| situations where humans would cooperate to solve an issue. In
| one instance, a left-turning Muni bus was unable to complete
| the turn due to a Cruise vehicle coming from that direction.
| The Cruise vehicle had entered too far into the intersection
| before stopping. There's paint on the intersection to indicate
| that cars need to stop further back, and the Cruise had failed
| to obey this. The bus was unable to back up due to traffic
| behind it as well as visibility concerns, and the only real
| solution was for the Cruise vehicle to move out of the way.
| There was, however, _no way_ to instruct, plead with, or
| otherwise convince the Cruise to move. It had no place in
| particular to be, so it had no reason to decide to do anything
| other than sit in place with infinite patience and wait for
| everyone else to resolve the situation on its behalf. I watched
| as this completely gridlocked a busy intersection for at least
| five cycles of traffic lights before I got bored and left. I
| have no idea how they finally unwedged the situation, but I
| have to imagine it involved the bus driver getting out and
| having the cars behind clear a space for it to back up and
| allow the Cruise to complete its prime directive and pass.
|
| Will these things get better? Sure. But right now, they are
| _inexcusably_ bad drivers.
| CPLX wrote:
| Visualizing this situation happening in New York City, where
| I live, is causing me to chuckle out loud.
|
| It's hard not to envision the nearest construction vehicle
| casually lifting the thing into the east river while a couple
| NYPD guys laugh and take pics for their friends.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| In one instance, a left-turning Muni bus was unable to
| complete the turn due to a Cruise vehicle coming from
| that direction. The Cruise vehicle had entered too far
| into the intersection before stopping. There's paint on the
| intersection to indicate that cars need to stop further
| back, and the Cruise had failed to obey this.
|
| Yeah that tracks. My last run in with Cruise was towards the
| end of April when their vehicle (Gnome) decided to just wait
| for the light to turn green... in the fucking crosswalk. This
| was on Market, so it's not like it's a small, easy to miss
| crosswalk.
| stouset wrote:
| In their defense, this is how human-operated vehicles act
| on Market too. :)
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Well, at least in this instance, the traditional vehicles
| were all stopped in the appropriate place.
| bombcar wrote:
| Human vehicles also eventually fix problems by bending or
| breaking the law if necessary.
| lotsoweiners wrote:
| I wonder what happens when a police officer tries to pull
| one over.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Sure, to that end my favorite Cruise anecdote stems from
| one of the Cruise humans forcing the car to make an
| illegal left turn off of Mission a few years ago. Granted
| Cruise's software still struggles with _legal_ left
| turns, but still.
| bombcar wrote:
| A formative experience when I was learning to drive was
| being pulled over to the right and watching a firetruck
| pull behind a car stopped at a red light, siren blaring
| and lights flashing, and eventually having to get on the
| PA and tell the person to run the red light so they could
| get through.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| That's a mistake by the fire truck. You aren't supposed
| to preemptively run a red light to help them, they're
| supposed to order you to do it right away if that's what
| they want.
| [deleted]
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Isn't this because driving in a chaotic dense urban
| environment like San Francisco is much harder than driving in
| a giant suburb like Phoenix, which is among some of the most
| car-optimized, easiest places to drive in the world.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| It seems to have recently gotten worse too. I'd never had a
| bad experience driving near them until recently, and all of a
| sudden every time I'm near one it's doing something
| annoying/worrying.
| stouset wrote:
| As far as I can tell, what changed is they got rid of the
| humans who were backing up the AI.
| sgarrity wrote:
| 10,000 trips / week is impressive. How many vehicles is this?
| bushbaba wrote:
| It's not really when you consider their burn rate. Say each of
| those trips gross 10$. That's just 100k/week or $5.2
| million/year. They'd need to likely 10,000x the ride volume to
| even be close to profitability.
|
| Uber does 7.64 billion rides per year. And they are not
| profitable. The waymo cars sure ain't cheap, and scale of
| operations will take a ton of cash. I wonder if waymo would
| ever be profitable.
| pizzalife wrote:
| 1. It's impossible!
|
| 2. It's possible but it's going to take forever
|
| 3. It's real and happening now but it's dangerous
|
| 4. It's not dangerous but it's annoying and blocking an
| intersection sometimes
|
| 5. It's not annoying but maybe they won't make money
|
| we are here.
|
| 6. It makes money but what about drivers
|
| 7. It works in cities but what about suburbs
|
| 8. It works in suburbs but what about rural areas
|
| 9. This city in Turkmenistan is the last place on earth
| without any autonomous vehicles and visiting is like getting
| into a time machine
| dekhn wrote:
| hopefully we get to 8 before waymo.com posts "An Update on
| Waymo self-driving cars" and kills the project. That said,
| this is one project that google really seems to have
| invested for the long-term.
| ketzo wrote:
| Are we really evaluating a fleet of self-driving taxis on
| profitability today, though?
|
| If they're reliably doing 10,000 trips a week, I _promise
| you_ they don 't need to worry about finding additional
| investors.
|
| "It's not really impressive to be doing 10,000 self-driving
| taxi trips every week, because it's currently costing them
| money" is a really, really wild take.
| mtmickush wrote:
| $5.2 million/year * 10,000 = $52 Billion / year if I'm
| understanding you correctly. That seems on the high side to
| me?
| ijustlovemath wrote:
| The difference is that the variable costs are much lower -
| just recharging the EV + any other incidentals, as opposed to
| having to pay a driver for every ride. That's why Uber never
| became profitable, because they had to share the fare. Waymo
| has higher up front costs, but if the cars are there, they
| have much more profitable fares.
| mechagodzilla wrote:
| Maybe - Waymo has to recharge, clean and maintain a fleet
| of cars that they own (and which are depreciating and
| likely have no resale value, at least at the moment) -
| Uber's drivers effectively use their wages to cover all of
| those costs. I'm curious how Waymo is handling all of the
| fleet maintenance, recharging, cleaning, etc, and how they
| plan to scale that infrastructure.
|
| I also wonder how Waymo plans to handle 'surges' - they
| either have enough cars to handle peak demand, in which
| case many are idle much of the time (and thus not making
| money), or they build a fleet for the minimum/average, and
| let more elastic competitors cover surges (or it's just
| impossible to get one at rush hour anywhere). It really
| seems like Uber/Lyft/etc ought to have a better business
| model than this very centralized, capital-intensive
| approach, and they're seemingly incapable of earning a
| profit.
| cyberax wrote:
| EVs need very little complicated maintenance. At this
| point, batteries and electric motors are a rock-solid
| technology.
|
| So you're left with occasional minor maintenance for
| mechanical issues like broken door handles or jammed
| windows, and also with interior cleaning.
|
| Even this can in future be minimized by building a taxi-
| only car model. You can get rid of the steering wheel,
| instrument cluster, central console, and all the
| complicated plastic parts that go with all of this. You
| can just replace everything with durable and easily
| washable hard plastic, like seats on public transit.
|
| Then make seats easily removable, and the interior
| becomes straightforward to clean (heck, you can even
| automate it).
| minwcnt5 wrote:
| I would bet on technology being able to handle peak
| demand better than a non-tech solution. They could pre-
| position vehicles better, incentivize pooling and transit
| connections, etc. And just like Ubers they could
| repurpose vehicles for other tasks (delivery, getting
| cleaned) in low demand times. But I'm sure there will
| still be surge pricing as you can't avoid demand spikes
| completely.
| kaibee wrote:
| > Uber's drivers effectively use their wages to cover all
| of those costs. I'm curious how Waymo is handling all of
| the fleet maintenance, recharging, cleaning, etc, and how
| they plan to scale that infrastructure.
|
| Probably large regional hubs that cars will drive
| themselves to for periodic maintenance (or get towed to
| if the vehicle becomes disabled). Much more potential to
| bring down total cost than the 'each driver does it
| themselves' model.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Uber does 7.64 billion rides per year. And they are not
| profitable_
|
| Uber is profitable in many cities before Uber Eats. An urban-
| only strategy should be profitable for Waymo.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Ha, they're finally expanding to the ASU Tempe campus. This
| should be fun.
| parshimers wrote:
| I know they started testing a while back in LA, has anyone been
| in one there? I haven't seen them around town like I have in SF.
| sib wrote:
| Oddly, I've seen a _lot_ of them in the past three days in LA,
| sometimes multiple in an hour. Wonder how close they are
| getting to launch?
| boulos wrote:
| LA is employee only for now (https://twitter.com/Waymo/status/1
| 630326911648841730?cxt=HHw...). We often do smaller
| announcements / updates only via Twitter, rather than a blog
| post on blog.waymo.com.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| Please consider adding Mastodon!
| RobinL wrote:
| With all the hype about AI this year, does anyone know whether
| it's translating in any meaningful sense into self driving? Can
| they use transformers? If so, is there a step change in
| performance? Has this already happened?
| [deleted]
| hansoolo wrote:
| As we Europeans are very far away from seeing any of those, I
| have a question: how is the refuel / recharge handled? These are
| EVs, right? Do they some how do that independently, too?
| [deleted]
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| I can't for the life of me figure out how to sign up for the
| waitlist in SF. The app just says "you'll receive updates about
| San Francisco." Anyone been successful with this?
| paxys wrote:
| I believe that's what the app shows if you have already signed
| up.
| boulos wrote:
| Sorry if that's unclear, if you set up the app, logged in, and
| are located in San Francisco when doing so, I _think_ that 's
| equivalent.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| I see the same message on the app.
|
| It's super unclear.
|
| I think I signed up twice, a few months apart, because the
| message in the app didn't give me confidence that I'd signed
| up the first time.
|
| Separately, the other day I turned right and there was a
| Waymo car blocking the lane, about to pick up some
| passengers. My car and the car behind me couldn't continue
| along the road until the passengers had reached the car had
| gotten in. They didn't seem like they were in a hurry.
|
| Stopping a couple of extra car lengths away from the junction
| (or, better still, not blocking in the lane at all) wouldn't
| have paused other people's journeys.
| boulos wrote:
| For folks that are interested, the discussion at
| /r/selfdrivingcars [1] picked out some of the salient numbers.
| Brad Templeton also did his own write up at [2].
|
| I mainly hope that people take away that this service exists now.
| You can download the app and just use it in Phoenix. As mentioned
| in the post, we're doing thousands of trips per week of _non-
| employee_ rides. There are some great (and not so great!)
| examples posted to /r/selfdrivingcars from time to time if you
| want to see them.
|
| [1]
| https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/137hr3l/wa...
|
| [2]
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2023/05/04/waymo-...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Does each city have an independent wait list? Or once you're
| in, you're in?
| ra7 wrote:
| Seems to be waitlist per city. But they only have a waitlist
| in SF currently. Phoenix is fully open to the public and LA
| is employee-only so far, so no waitlist open there yet.
| boulos wrote:
| We currently only operate the public service in Phoenix and
| San Francisco. There isn't a wait list in Phoenix, anyone can
| ride, but there is in San Francisco. So... technically
| they're currently independent.
|
| But our goal in any new area would be to focus on the people
| that live there, because they would use the service
| regularly. Of course, the broader goal is no waitlist
| anywhere :).
| AndrewDucker wrote:
| How well does this scale? At some point do you just turn on the
| tap, buy a million cars and cover the whole country, or are you
| reliant on ongoing large amounts of support for the cars which
| means that the costs for expansion make it currently non
| viable?
| isubkhankulov wrote:
| Thanks for those links.
|
| This claim in the Forbes article doesn't make sense to me: "
| _It doesn't need the money_ but it does want to learn from how
| riders interact with a service they are paying for. "
|
| Alphabet has been pressured to show more tangible financial
| results by activist shareholders[1]. Waymo has 2,500 employees.
| Waymo's annual budget for headcount alone include stock based
| compensation is over $1B by my estimate.
|
| [1]
| https://www.ft.com/content/6daa5d29-8595-4630-a633-eb1f8b138...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Imagine believing that anyone at Alphabet gives a fuck what a
| 5% shareholder wants.
| rcme wrote:
| Apparently someone does. Activist investors are the reason
| for Google's layoffs.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| I really hope that I can get access in San Francisco soon. The
| closest grocery store to me in Bayview is a 30 minute walk
| across one of SF's riskiest pedestrian intersections and my
| neighborhood's only bus service is a corporate shuttle. Cruise
| just announced coverage for the "entire city" but it won't
| actually include my neighborhood. I've been well aware of Waymo
| for a long time, and been on the waiting list for over a year
| now! I've actually seen people getting in and out of Waymos
| near my apartment, and my limited experiencing riding the
| Cruise beta has me really excited to someday traverse SF in
| self driving vehicles. Can't wait.
| sprout20 wrote:
| I've had access in SF for the past few months and have been
| really impressed! The Waymo rides I've taken have been confident
| + a bit conservative (e.g. driving at the speed limit when
| traffic is flowing more quickly), but overall the team's done a
| great job with the experience. It's free for now so I've been
| using it regularly during commuting/rush hour and casual drives.
| Some quick thoughts:
|
| Advantages over Uber/Lyft: - Privacy - having the
| car to yourself is nice! - Safety - My friends who are
| women have almost universally said they feel uncomfortable taking
| Ubers/Lyfts at night and would prefer the Waymo - Ride
| matching happens almost instantly - Estimated pickup times
| are consistently accurate - Trunk is open for use and the
| car will prompt you to grab your items and open the trunk at the
| end of a ride - Extra legroom in backseat because there's
| no driver - No driver/car confusion - you can set your
| initials to be displayed on top of the car at pickup
|
| Parity with Uber/Lyft: - Drives surprisingly
| confidently/well - can handle complex urban traffic, pedestrians,
| cyclists without doing anything obviously "dumb" - First-
| class native app experience - Rides are priced upfront
| - Rides can be multi-stop
|
| Disadvantages (today) vs Uber/Lyft: - Driving is
| conservative - nothing above the speed limit - Driving is
| sometimes a little bit jerky (e.g. at stop signs, while inching
| on a right turn at a red light) - Routes can sometimes be
| odd / longer (usually within 25% of the most direct route)
| - Rarely (<5% rides), car will stop for pickup somewhere odd
| (middle of lane when there's an available curb, right turn lane)
| - No driver if you leave something behind (there's a support form
| online, but I left my phone once and a good samaritan happened to
| call using the emergency number) - Pickup times can be
| longer today than Uber/Lyft as they roll out more cars
|
| Honestly, if they fix the occasional indirect routing and
| eventually are able to let the cars flow at the same speed as
| traffic, I'd pick the Waymo almost every time.
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| "Driving is sometimes a little bit jerky (e.g. at stop signs,
| while inching on a right turn at a red light)"
|
| Imagine if all (or even most!) SF drivers decided they would
| come to a complete stop at each stop sign and at each red
| light!
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Did you get access from the public beta sign-up list, or some
| other channel? I've been on the waitlist for over a year and
| have seen people utilizing Waymo near my apartment, but
| nothing's budged for me. I did get into the Cruise beta, and
| that just made me positive Waymo will almost completely replace
| other forms of car transit for me once it's available, but
| Cruise is very limited.
| tbruckner wrote:
| How is pricing?
| jamiek88 wrote:
| It's free for now.
| dmix wrote:
| > including improved hand gesture detection
|
| What does this mean? It can recognize pedestrians making hand
| gestures?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It can recognize pedestrians making hand gestures?_
|
| Someone said you could _hail_ them to a specific spot after
| calling them, _e.g._ if you're in a crowd. (Never confirmed.)
| Recognising a pedestrian waving it to go would also be helpful.
| xnx wrote:
| Gestures from flaggers routing traffic around construction, or
| police around an accident for example.
| alphabetting wrote:
| > "we are now serving over 10 thousand trips per week to public
| riders, not including employees. With this latest expansion, we
| intend for those numbers to accelerate rapidly to 10 times that
| scale by next summer"
|
| they've been pretty cautious on predictions after the AV hype
| boom and bust a couple years ago. 10x in a year is an ambitious
| goal.
| melling wrote:
| 10,000 trips in electric vehicles.
|
| Self-driving EV's in all major cities would be a big win for
| the climate and the air quality.
| xnx wrote:
| And noise! I will rejoice when idiots are no longer allowed
| to speed and operate clearly illegal (in terms of emissions
| and noise) vehicles on public roads.
| abawany wrote:
| that and rolling coal - I see at least one per month in
| texas.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Don't worry, the gov't is here to make sure you don't miss
| out. Newer EVs and hybrids are required to make _noise_ at
| <20mph. Never mind that a properly muffled ICEV is only
| audible when completely stopped. My neighborhood is getting
| louder as we all switch to EVs.
| r00fus wrote:
| I was worried about that back in 2018 when it was
| announced but having heard hundreds of backup sounds
| (luckily mine is silent as it's from before 2019), they
| are all chill and mostly imperceptible.
| majormajor wrote:
| It's probably more of a mixed bag.
|
| Self-driving car fleets probably increase suburbization in
| the same way that trains created suburbs long ago.
|
| Depending on how it breaks out, "more space per person at
| similar total environmental impact" is a quality of life win
| but not a climate-change-fighting one.
|
| Pedestrian safety and other externalities are probably a big
| win, still.
| jccooper wrote:
| I feel like the increase in suburbanization due to self-
| driving cars is probably pretty small over person-driven
| cars. Given the low building density that human-driven cars
| create (read: parking lots) there's some hope that a large
| change in car parking behavior would lead to lots of infill
| development.
| majormajor wrote:
| If your commute is "sitting in an office doing email or
| taking calls" instead of "having to babysit your car
| through traffic" you're gonna see some significant
| behavioral changes.
|
| The parking lot point is interesting, I hadn't thought
| about that.
|
| But it's not obviously better to me: commuting behavior
| is very time-of-day determined, and the cars are gonna
| have to be somewhere in between rush hours. You don't
| want them on the road, and you can probably shift around
| to catch other sorts of predictable demand, but
| environmentally you're gonna want to minimize the total
| nubmer of miles driven without passengers.
|
| EDIT: so in areas with less development and commmuters
| are parking their cars in surface lots all day, yeah, you
| don't need those surface lots for commuters + all the
| other lots at retail, residential, etc all at once if the
| cars are moving around to other uses during the day. But
| in denser recent-development areas where office parks
| predominantly have underground or garage parking it may
| be harder to realize infill there.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't know. I live in the exurbs anyway and just don't
| go into the city much. But, if I had effectively a
| personal driver and I could work in the car, the bar to a
| 30-60 minute drive in for the evening would be a lot
| lower for me.
| iinnPP wrote:
| I agree but also worry about the job loss and the inevitable
| loss of freedoms that will inevitably be 'justifiable' when
| automatic driving is the norm.
|
| Basically, if the cost can be comparable to car ownership,
| reducing resource use by making car buying of any kind far
| more difficult. Which is admittedly entirely a thought
| experiment. Though it is a thought experiment many authors
| seem to arrive at.
|
| Edit: I wish I could say I was surprised at the downvotes for
| a comment that is pro-worker.
| aidos wrote:
| Which jobs are you thinking? Bus drivers? Taxis? Car
| production? Which loss of freedom are you referring to?
|
| I can't help thinking that the potential upside will far
| out-way the cost.
|
| London streets are littered with dormant vehicles. Most
| just sit there taking up room and dominating the city. It
| would be a whole other city if we could change that
| dynamic.
| genghisjahn wrote:
| Truck drivers mainly. There are LOTS of truck drivers.
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/m
| ap-...
| tyingq wrote:
| If they get over-the-road trucking automated, that also
| trickles down to many roadside workers...gas stations,
| restaurants, motels, and so on. Then, some back office
| functions associated with routing, driver compliance,
| hiring drivers, etc. I'm sure there's more. It would be a
| big adjustment.
| iinnPP wrote:
| Not just financial either. When more people are
| perpetually online in an internet populated by an even
| larger population of bots designed for engagement, what
| happens?
|
| Many of the jobs you are referring to are socially
| fulfilling to some people. It's an escape from a poor
| home situation or from an addiction.
| iinnPP wrote:
| I grew up in foster care. One of my guardians made a
| living driving a taxi. The guy was an absolute wreck of a
| human and I probably wouldn't break if he was crossing.
|
| It was what he used to survive though, and surely not all
| cab drivers would be the same.
|
| My brother in law drove Uber when he was illegally canned
| from his factory work and is the reason he got to eat.
|
| There are options to solve problems that don't require a
| change in the outcome you desire. Mainly something along
| the lines of forcing the companies profiting from this to
| pay a person a reasonable wage to act as the social
| aspect that will be missing. So the job market can be
| unaffected.
|
| It's not just a cab job problem either. It's also not
| about who I like or dislike or whether or not it impacts
| me or not. I have never used a cab in my life and I
| cannot drive and thus have no car taking up your street.
|
| I do however see a worsening homeless crisis in my small-
| ish Canadian city. I would rather see empty cars than
| tortured souls.
| theLiminator wrote:
| > There are options to solve problems that don't require
| a change in the outcome you desire. Mainly something
| along the lines of forcing the companies profiting from
| this to pay a person a reasonable wage to act as the
| social aspect that will be missing. So the job market can
| be unaffected.
|
| Essentially removing most economic incentive to deploy
| self-driving cars at all?
| iinnPP wrote:
| Market dominance would still allow for it to be
| profitable.
|
| Is money to goal or is it a better society? Less
| pollution, less waste, more social interaction, and
| increased safety. Less colored paper.
|
| Surely the government has an interest in financially
| incentivising this development. Especially given a
| decrease in road wear and tear, lower climate impact and
| surely any number of other benefits.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _money to goal or is it a better society_
|
| More people taking cheaper trips in cleaner vehicles is a
| better society in my book.
| iinnPP wrote:
| Absolutely. That is the today impact.
|
| What about when it's Waymo One or Uber Zero. Support is
| GPT7 Two.
|
| No call center jobs, no driving jobs, less supporting
| jobs, less money flow, more homelessness, more violence.
| Decreasing compensation for the jobs remaining due to
| increased competition.
|
| Short term profits go brrr?
| UncleEntity wrote:
| > Mainly something along the lines of forcing the
| companies profiting from this to pay a person a
| reasonable wage to act as the social aspect that will be
| missing.
|
| Force them to hire someone to sit in a car all day and do
| absolutely nothing?
| iinnPP wrote:
| act as the social aspect that will be missing.
|
| To act as a local for a traveler.
|
| To recommend locations
|
| To do nothing but sit there and look at their device or
| read
|
| Or perhaps the answer is a tax on automation and everyone
| can sit at home perpetually online.
|
| Im not claiming to have answers to this rapidly
| approaching problem. It's definitely a problem though.
| Even if it doesn't impact myself whatsoever at this time.
|
| What is your job? If it is gone tomorrow and your
| education is useless, what will you do?
|
| What about your family and friends?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _act as the social aspect that will be missing_
|
| Nobody I know wants this. I've had great Uber, Lyft and
| taxi drivers. But they're far from the norm. I'd much
| prefer to be able to play my own music, or take back-to-
| back phone calls, or snore loudly.
|
| If this is genuinely the service, there is booming
| business in tour guiding.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| What is the power source for charging these EVs? In Phoenix,
| I could imagine it might be solar but the cars probably want
| to charge at night during low-demand times?
|
| If it's utility electric, from what fuel source is it
| generated?
| theobromus wrote:
| Waymo buys renewable energy for charging
| https://blog.waymo.com/2023/03/paving-way-toward-fully-
| elect...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Arizona is a nuclear and natural-gas state [1], with most
| of the coal (No. 3) being retired in the coming years [2].
|
| [1] https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_
| in_Ar...
| tedivm wrote:
| Climate yes, but air quality not by as much as you'd think.
| Multiple studies have come out showing that the weight of EVs
| puts more pressure on tires and breaks, which in turn
| increases the particles they dump in the air.
|
| > As a result, total PM10 emissions from EVs were found to be
| equal to those of modern ICEVs. PM2.5 emissions were only
| 1-3% lower for EVs compared to modern ICEVs. Therefore, it
| could be concluded that the increased popularity of electric
| vehicles will likely not have a great effect on PM levels.
| Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10
| and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic. These proportions
| will continue to increase as exhaust standards improve and
| average vehicle weight increases. Future policy should
| consequently focus on setting standards for non-exhaust
| emissions and encouraging weight reduction of all vehicles to
| significantly reduce PM emissions from traffic.
|
| As the quote mentioned, this can be improved. Lighter
| batteries, better regenerative breaking, and improvements in
| tire material would all help.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522.
| ..
| zizee wrote:
| This is interesting/surprising and I would like to learn
| more, but the linked study is truncated behind a Paywall.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I wonder if it would make sense to program robotaxis to use
| only regenerative braking, maybe with a more powerful
| regenerative braking system, and using real brakes only for
| emergencies.
| magnuspaaske wrote:
| That's how most electric cars are set up already
| cyberax wrote:
| > Climate yes, but air quality not by as much as you'd
| think. Multiple studies have come out showing that the
| weight of EVs puts more pressure on tires and breaks, which
| in turn increases the particles they dump in the air.
|
| This is total bullshit. EVs barely use frictional brakes at
| all. My Tesla Model S from 2014 is still on the original
| set of brakepads after nearly 200000 miles. Several EV car
| models even have a problem with disks _rusting_ because the
| frictional brakes are not used except when the car is
| parked.
|
| If anything, EVs will absolutely cut down on brake dust.
|
| With tires, it's a bit more nuanced. Regular tires can
| indeed wear a bit faster on an EV, especially if you are
| addicted to high acceleration. But tire vendors are now
| producing EV-optimized tires that are a bit more durable,
| and it seems like the difference is pretty negligible.
|
| Also, keep in mind that your bullshit study only looked at
| weight. So it follows that buses and trucks (that have MUCH
| more weight) will leave genocide and devastation in their
| wake.
| shiftpgdn wrote:
| I feel like this is a nonsense study. They used a 2013
| study that measured gas cars and then just extrapolated
| that out based on weight for EVs and did nothing to account
| for regenerative breaking, specialty EV tires, etc. Also
| the numbers are from the Simons 2013 study seem to be
| dubious as well.
|
| Anyone who has been to Oslo understands EVs are a huge
| benefit for urban air quality.
| xnx wrote:
| On top of that, the Waymo vehicles are much more
| efficient drivers: no rapid acceleration, no hard
| braking, lower top speed, etc.
| r00fus wrote:
| One thing that caught my eye is the study is simply
| modeling the increased PM10 and PM2.5 based on hypothesised
| influence of weight difference using gas and diesel cars
| (from 2013) as a basis.
|
| Obv. I haven't read anything but the summary but the core
| assumption means it's an extrapolation and not measuring
| actuals.
|
| For example, while EVs accelerate faster, regen braking
| massively reduces brake wear - the lack of mention of regen
| in this extrapolative study seems a huge miss. Also EVs
| typically don't have the same tire material - they use low
| rolling resistance tires which do better on particulates.
| chroma wrote:
| I'm suspicious of that paper. The largest source of non-
| exhaust emissions comes from brake pad wear[1] and EVs use
| brakes far less than combustion vehicles. Also the amount
| of particulate matter put into the air is highly dependent
| on vehicle speed. Densely populated areas have more
| traffic, which means cars drive slower and create less non-
| exhaust pollution.
|
| And it's no longer true that EVs are heavier than
| comparable combustion vehicles. The Tesla Model 3 weighs
| 3,550-4,070lbs. The BMW 3 Series weighs 3,200-4,330lbs,
| though the lightest model is a two door convertible. While
| combustion vehicles don't carry heavy batteries, they do
| need exhaust systems, more complicated drivetrains, and
| bigger cooling systems. Also, more and more combustion
| vehicles are becoming hybrids to meet stricter emissions
| standards. That means adding weight for batteries, an
| electric motor, and a transmission that can handle both
| propulsion sources.
|
| 1. See figure 6 in this paper:
| https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/2/190
| jeffbee wrote:
| As I understand it a large component of the particulate
| emissions from cars is resuspended road dust, so it
| doesn't really matter than an EV or hybrid has little of
| its own brake dust. The brake dust is already on the
| ground.
| magnuspaaske wrote:
| This is the wrong way to think about it since there's
| little that suggests AV-taxis also need to be larger than
| the cars already on the road. When I'm renting a car or
| taking a taxi I know exactly what my needs are and can
| decide to not pay for luggage space if I don't need that
| for instance. Further you can just put a smaller battery in
| AV-taxis since you can optimise the charging schedule. And
| lastly, when we've gotten rid of air pollution from
| tailpipe emissions air pollution from tires would be the
| next problem to fix and it intuitively seems that all
| electric, digital cars could have their pollution reduced
| via a software update.
|
| And obviously the technology making these cars possible
| also make self driving busses possible, which would allow
| new ways for urban mobility.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Self-driving EV's in all major cities would be a big win for
| the climate and the air quality.
|
| Counterpoint: no, they wouldn't. Moving towards self-driving
| automobiles merely props up an inefficient mode of
| transportation. Imagine sinking all that money that's being
| blown on self-driving cars into pedestrian and bicycle
| infrastructure. The problem with cars is cars, not drivers.
| cyberax wrote:
| Bike infrastructure is the ultimate boondoggle. It NEVER
| pays for itself in the US, it literally has nothing but
| negatives if you look at it objectively.
|
| Bike lanes don't appreciable increase the percentage of
| trips by bike, they dis-proportionally slow down car
| traffic, and the bike commutes themselves are probably the
| worst transit mode in the US.
|
| Heck, bike lanes almost never even _replace_ the amount of
| traffic that they displace.
|
| All bike lanes do, is cater to a bike lobby that tries to
| force their hobby on everybody else, at the expense of
| practicality.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Imagine sinking all that money that 's being blown on
| self-driving cars into pedestrian and bicycle
| infrastructure_
|
| This does jack squat for getting across San Francisco or
| from corner to corner of Phoenix.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| You can already bike from one part of SF to another,
| investment in bicycle infrastructure would make that
| easier and safer. Or, you know, public transit.
| Individual vehicles suffer from massive inefficiency
| compared to nearly any other form of transportation -
| look at Elon's fully autonomous tunnel.
| dekhn wrote:
| SF is not really a great bikeable city; almost any
| location to any location involves hills, some of them
| really significant. The streets are also not laid out in
| a reasonable pattern in many locations.
|
| Getting from outer sunset to market by bike daily isn't
| really practical, especially during Weather.,
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| The "EV" part seems to be carrying the weight there, not the
| self-driving. Self-driving might even make those problems
| worse by decreasing the cost of driving.
|
| It's like saying "self-driving cars and solving the nitrogen
| fixation problem would be a big win for preventing famine."
| tommoor wrote:
| And pedestrian/cyclist safety
| mertd wrote:
| To be fair, human drivers don't do terribly well on that
| front.
| peter422 wrote:
| The comment is saying these cars will improve
| pedestrian/cyclist safety.
|
| I can also attest to it. I've interacted as a pedestrian
| and cyclist to many cruise and waymo cars and they've
| been very, very cautious and careful.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Drivers do fine if the infrastructure is designed for
| humans rather then for cars.
|
| The reason so many people die in US cities is because of
| policy, not because people can't drive inherently.
| twoWhlsGud wrote:
| Not to mention everyone else who is not driving a 9000 lb
| Hummer - e.g. see how fear of being squished by a giant SUV
| dominates the discussion here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35827974
| danvoell wrote:
| Is there any sort of road map for how they plan to roll this out
| beyond the two cities?
| boulos wrote:
| We post updates on our blog or Twitter account from time to
| time. There isn't an explicit, public roadmap of "On this date,
| we will open in < CITY >", but we have announced LA [1] as our
| next city for Waymo One (the name of the ride hailing service):
|
| > Los Angeles will be Waymo's next ride-hailing city, joining
| Phoenix and San Francisco as we expand to more locations.
|
| Beyond the official _service_ , we also do testing in multiple
| locations. For example, we announced that returning to Austin
| for testing [2]. In that post, we mention other weather testing
| we've done in Miami, NYC, and Bellevue, WA.
|
| Beyond ride hailing, we have separate testing for Waymo Via
| with our Class 8 trucks, that you might see in Arizona or
| Texas.
|
| [1] https://blog.waymo.com/2022/10/next-stop-for-waymo-one-
| los-a...
|
| [2] https://blog.waymo.com/2023/03/expanding-waymos-testing-
| to-A...
| hcazz wrote:
| I understand it's interesting to announce accomplishments
| (such as increased areas for testing), but as someone who
| lives in West LA, it's slightly annoying to see multiple
| announcements saying "testing is expanded, be on the
| lookout!". I'm nearly at the point where I'm just ignoring
| announcements for Los Angeles because the last two haven't
| amounted to any changes for someone that lives here and wants
| to use the service.
| SanderNL wrote:
| It's all smoke and mirrors.
|
| There's surely someone driving it remotely or hidden under the
| hood.
|
| Self-driving is a hoax meant to distract us.
|
| AI is snake oil, Dreyfus, hype train. Stochastic parrot.
| Confabulations. Unredeemable and based on intellectual mistakes.
|
| Stochastic.
|
| Stochastic.. parr..
|
| ...
|
| _fizzles out_
| agnosticmantis wrote:
| Really love what waymo have been achieving with a relatively
| small team, but more importantly, they've had their heads down
| working and solving hard problems instead of opting for
| attention-seeking behavior, making ridiculously pompous claims
| and false promises (e.g. delivering robotaxies that make you
| $30k/yr by next year!), getting into ideological (sensor) wars,
| etc. (How many people know the name of their CEO? And yet they're
| slowly and steadily marching along, hitting one milestone after
| another.)
|
| Kudos to the hardworking waymonauts!
| xnx wrote:
| > How many people know the name of their CEO?
|
| CEOs (plural)
| agnosticmantis wrote:
| Well, my point exactly ;)
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup, I very much liked the broader approach of solving the
| general problem, but this actually seems to be doing better.
|
| The general problem has insane amounts of edge cases, and is
| basically trying to do a pole-vault-height high jump; if you
| succeed, you own the world (or at least can automatically drive
| anywhere on it), but until then, you and your customers have
| lots of problems.
|
| Meanwhile, the approach of map-everything-down-to-the-
| centimeter and keep it updating is making real practical
| progress. The question is whether it'll ever get out of cities?
| While storage is constantly getting cheaper, but is it feasible
| to map and update the maps sufficiently for a cross-country
| trip?
|
| Still, there's an awful lot of city territory that can be
| covered with genuinely useful service.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-05 23:01 UTC)