Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lyft Self-Driving

lyft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#141

Post by Someone »

sytelus wrote: post #138
xandar11 wrote: post #29

I'm skeptical about all this. Hubert Horan [1] has done a great job exposing Uber's failed business model in 11 part series on NakedCapitalism ("Can Uber Ever Deliver?"). Same goes for Lyft. When it comes to self driving cars, why should Uber or Lyft have any massive advantage over other players and what makes us think it won't turn into something like an airline industry which has been unprofitable for most of their…

The most important part: Detailed cost data from studies of traditional operators in Chicago, San Francisco and Denver showed that 58 cents of every gross passenger dollar (fares plus tips) went to driver take home pay and benefits, 9 cents went to fuel and direct fees, 18 cents went to vehicle costs and the remaining 15 cents covered corporate overhead and profit. This in essence states that taxi business has upper…

”So Uber/Lyft are perfectly viable and profitable businesses, at least in theory.”

AFAICT, Horan doesn’t dispute that there is business there; he disputes that it is worth their valuation. If, say, they can make a hundred million dollars of profit a year, long term, that is a viable and profitable business, but not one that’s worth tens of billions of dollars.

And vehicle ownership? I think it is extremely hard to predict what will happen. Many people currently see their car as an extension of their home. If (possibly a big if) self-driving cars aren’t a lot more expensive, they may not want to give that up. Where else would people keep their sweets to eat during their commute, spare jacket, running shoes, tennis rackets, golf clubs, kids toys (let alone kids seats)?

There also may be extra stuff people may want to keep in _their_ self-driving car, for example a computer gaming system, a yoga mat or fitness machine (once self driving cars are safe enough, compulsory seat belts laws can go away)

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#142

Post by AlphaSite »

sandworm101 wrote: post #88
smt88 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Walking and mass transit suck for people who are: traveling with kids, obese, disabled, short on time, carrying groceries, elderly, and/or in a place with bad weather. That's not even mentioning people who can't afford to live in dense, central urban environments. Self-driving, solar cars solve all problems of mass transit and are far cheaper, since they use existing roads.

And anyone with more than a handbag to carry. Many workers travel with tools. Im going to training next month and have to bring about 80lbs of various stuff with me. Hauling that in and out of busses, not to mention finding places to secure it while i sleep/eat, wouldnt be much fun. But it all fits in my car nicely. And no, i cannot send it by courier.

Sure, but office workers for example would not have your issue.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#143

Post by cdancette »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #72

I recently read a couple (long) articles basically arguing that the simple answer to transportation woes is not about self-driving cars and hyperloops, but basic simple steps to make cities more pedestrian friendly and improvements to mass transit: http://www.kevinklinkenberg.com/blog/autonomous-vehicles-a-v... https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/12/what-elon-mus... So I tend to not get excited about Lyft/Ube…

While it seems obvious that autonomous driving is not a solution to urban transportation (cities are already crowded with cars), it can be a great one for long distance transportation. Roads are simple / cheaper to build than vacuumed tubes or railroads.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#144

Post by kelnos »

Someone wrote: post #123
shiftpgdn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open app, report problem with the vehicle and request something different. Problem vehicle will be taken out of service for review.

I would also put multiple cameras in each car, and train a network on “car is clean” and the related “car is empty” (you could, for example, ask the customer that just left “did you leave your bag in the car?”) To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride, give the cameras nice red LEDs when in operation, and be open about what you do.

> To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride

I doubt this would even be a concern. Many Uber/Lyft drivers already record interior and exterior views for the duration of every ride. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Hell, think about:

"The rider after you reported damage to the car that you didn't report. Therefore you did it and are responsible for paying for it."

"Where's your proof? Maybe I just didn't notice the damage and it was the rider before me -- it's not my job to inspect your cars. Or maybe the rider after me damaged the car -- possibly even on purpose -- and then blamed me."

They'd be foolish not to record every single ride, from multiple angles if possible.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#145

Post by mcny »

Someone wrote: post #123
shiftpgdn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open app, report problem with the vehicle and request something different. Problem vehicle will be taken out of service for review.

I would also put multiple cameras in each car, and train a network on “car is clean” and the related “car is empty” (you could, for example, ask the customer that just left “did you leave your bag in the car?”) To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride, give the cameras nice red LEDs when in operation, and be open about what you do.

> Problem vehicle will be taken out of service for review.

I am thinking like a public transit subway in New York. We cannot have anything you can't pressure wash.

However, that also brings up the problem of traffic congestion and automation (as well as comfort and ergonomics?). Can we automate the process of sanitizing a car? Will passengers accept (cold) plastic and aluminum surfaces everywhere?

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#146

Post by kelnos »

Jedd wrote: post #100
QAPereo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?

Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-driven cars in terms of fatalities? I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous…

Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable.

People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average".

It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#147

Post by kelnos »

golfer wrote: post #93
QAPereo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?

This is currently being tested in court. Tesla's autopilot has resulted in fatalities.

That's different, though. Autopilot doesn't absolve the driver of the car from responsibility to be alert and take control when necessary, so the argument can be made that the responsibility is shared, or even rests on the human driver, depending on the circumstances. But a level 5 system will theoretically not even have a driver, and might not allow passengers to control the vehicle at all aside from giving it a destination.

I think that becomes easier, though: in the case where no human in the car has control over what the car does, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault when something goes awry. Though if doing something like rapidly and repeatedly changing the car's destination and intentionally "confusing" it leads to a crash, that might shift blame to one of the passengers, which would be unusual.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#148

Post by kelnos »

mherdeg wrote: post #140
lanna wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you truly suggesting we allow young, healthy individuals to die in car accidents to harvest their organs? You should be asking yourself what will happen to the average lifespan of those who won't die prematurely in a car accident.

Heavens no -- I don't think society should allow anyone die in car accidents, young and healthy or otherwise. It's abundantly clear that driving is too dangerous by far. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to know what the US will look like in a future with self-driving cars. Will we, for example, find such a severe shortage of donor hearts that certain unlucky people live less long? Will we prioritize research tha…

I would expect more research into organ cloning/regrowth and artificial replacements. It's an interesting question, to be sure.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#149

Post by kelnos »

ProAm wrote: post #37
notliketherest wrote: post #18

I will never join the "shared ownership" communist utopia. And neither will most Americans that live outside of the cities. I appreciate innovation but spare me the feel good crap.

> And neither will most Americans that live outside of the cities. To be fair most money to be earned in this space is within the cities, so it's still going to happen. Most well off households will be dual-ownership. A personal car for longer, weekend, social trips and share owned for the daily commuter nonsense.

I already live like this, though without the commute (I walk). I use Lyft for shorter, in-city trips, and drive my car when I want to leave the city.

It's honestly not a great use of money: my maintenance cycles are longer (though don't quite scale down linearly with decreasing use), but I still have to pay for parking and (slightly discounted) insurance. But I grew up in the suburbs and can't kick the habit of owning a car.

I feel like it'd be cheaper to ditch my car and rent one from something like Getaround or Turo (or even from a legacy car rental service) when I need one for longer trips, but having a car that's mine is too embedded in my lifestyle.

Re: Lyft Self-Driving

#150

Post by sandworm101 »

kelnos wrote: post #133
sandworm101 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And anyone with more than a handbag to carry. Many workers travel with tools. Im going to training next month and have to bring about 80lbs of various stuff with me. Hauling that in and out of busses, not to mention finding places to secure it while i sleep/eat, wouldnt be much fun. But it all fits in my car nicely. And no, i cannot send it by courier.

No one is suggesting that there aren't special cases where using a car is the right move. But the vast majority of cases where people take cars, replacing that experience with better public transit is entirely reasonable. Hell, improving public transit would improve your use-case as well; you'd have less traffic to compete with while driving.

Unless the goal is to pay for public transit by making car travel more expensive/painful. Then it is unfair to force all the carpenters to cover the costs for the office workers.
Post reply on HN