Live data from Hacker News

Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

wsj.com

261–270 of 440 posts

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#261
post #38
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty clear that Waymo & maybe Cruise are the leaders in this space. If you take a look at the quota from Waymo "it will be “longer than you think” for self-driving vehicles to be everywhere." - the key part is "everywhere". Maybe it will take 15 years for it to be everywhere, but I'm still fully expecting a deployment in Phoenix this year or next. I'm not really clear what tax break you're complaining…

And regardless no tax break could be comparable or relevant compared to the cost of nation wide improvements to mass transit. Plus driverless car tech is global. The US infrastructure problems are irrelevant to me as a Canadian or the billions of people in Asia.

Asian cities have far worse infrastructure than the US for cars.

Toronto has horrible traffic too.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#262
post #71

Driverless cars are coming along just fine. Waymo is making steady progress. The sensors are getting better. The problem comes from all those "fake it til you make it" startups, Uber and Tesla being the worst. Both have killed people. This is mostly about sensors and geometry. Machine learning has a role, but only in target identification. That's how Waymo does it. The fake it til you make it crowd had the fantasy th…

Sir, you have nailed it. No serious robotics project deployed to date does anything more than Good Sensors + Good Geometry. And I do not think a revolution is required, just good old time.

At some point the right balance of sensor quality and manufacturing processes will converge to be an affordable solution to highway driving. (broad daylight, then dusk, then maybe rain, etc etc).

If history is any guide (airlines anyone?) This will come along piecemeal, and the CEOs being forced to make ridiculous promises to appease shareholder anxiety will be given nice scapegoat packages along the way.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"in most of America we need to get back to the point where cars are no longer a necessity" - ...because why? I am assuming in good faith you might say: because a world in which a greater proportion of people travel via multi-passenger vehicles like the buses and trains of public transport networks is a better world because these transportation solutions are 1) more efficient per passenger (does this help w/ reducing…

> are there other particular benefits to a world with significantly more (conventional) public transportation / less cars that I failed to articulate? - Substantially reduced traffic on surface streets (a bus or subway is MUCH more densely packed with humans than a road full of cars). - Encourage more walking and overall fitness - Improved safety for non-mechanized road and sidewalk users (reduced traffic will do mor…

Ok, fair enough - for urban centers. Although to your first point, lets go farther and say that 50% of core city streets could be closed to traffic and repurposed for walking/biking pedestrians.

--- So... this got really long. It was just supposed be a quick back-of-the-napkin sanity check estimate of the economics of some rural autonomous vehicle service scenarious and it got a little out of hand. If anyone else also finds this interesting, drop me a line or comment! ---

Lets also consider the merits of these two transportation scenarios when depoloyed to serve regional/rural populations too. I don't think any of these benefits are significant for the other much less dense half of the US population (but by 2033 or something this fraction will fall to like 1/3 I've heard).

I grew up in Northern Michigan, where 99% of all daily trips were between 5-40 miles and required a personal car because there was no availability of taxis (too expensive per ride) or buses (because population density was too low to marshal enough passengers per bus route). In cities, where density is high and distances are low, buses/trains that batch passengers into one vehicle that's part of an interchange network works pretty well. But in rural areas where the opposite is true, passengers can't be batched together as easily, so buses don't work and an interchange takes too long to transit because of the distances.

A personal car is a necessity for most people living in rural areas because there is no other practical way to get to a job, store, movie, friends house, hospital etc when these locations may be 10-40 miles away. The time spent traveling to these places may be about the same as the commute time for a city-dweller, but rural residents have to do the driving themselves. Aha, so the critical question is: what, if any, features of personal transportation via on-demand self-driving-cars-as-a-service in rural areas might make it competitive with or more desirable than owning a personal car?

If costs per year are roughly equal, then I would love a self-driving car that I could work in. Or self-driving land-yacht office RV for 4-8 people.

Say a personal car costs $3000-6000/year in gas, maintenence, payments, etc. If a person travels 200 days a year and takes 2 trips a day, that's 400 trips a year. This is hard to estimate. To be conservative lets say self-driving-cars-as-a-service would be competitive if it allowed a customer to take 400-800 trips a year for the price of owning a car. That works out to $3.75-$7.5 per trip for the ex-owner of a cheap car, and $7.5-$15 per trip for the ex-owner of a mid-range car. I guess if these are electric self-driving cars, the fuel cost might be $0.50-$2 per day. Hmmmm. If the vehicle cost ~$50,000 and the profit per ride was $4, then it would take ~12,500 rides to break even. If a vehicle can get 10 average fares per day, 350 days a year, thats 700 fares per year.

So actually, the economics are not toally insane. At $4 profit per ride, it would take ~2 years to break even on a $50,000 vehicle assuming 10 rides a day that that take 1 hour, have a rider only one of those two ways, and only have 1 rider at a time. These vehicles might be operating at 20 hours a day though. Not sure they would last 2 years. So... what startups are working on self-driving Land Yacht Office co-working-commuting vehicles?

Now I see a significant portion of the fleet should be something that could pick up at least a few passengers along a route, otherwise there would need to be basically as many vehicles in the fleet as there are riders to support solo rides during commuting hours. $200,000 land yacht, 5 riders, $5/ride: 8000 trips to break even, 10 rides a day = ~2 years. But for a region of 40,000 riders, that might require 5000-8000 land yachts that cost $200,000; so $1-1.6 billion in vehicle costs. Aw man. What's ubers valuation? 70bn? And goog is 820bn? hmm.

Ah so here's the problem. Because of the distances involved in rural trips, it might take 15-60 minutes after requesting a ride for an automated fleet vehicle to travel to the pickup location. That might be ok for occasional travel, especially if trip times are 3+ hours, but it wouldn't be convenient for daily travel. So rural passengers would probably prefer owning their own car, or sharing an automated land-yacht with a couple local other folks, because they need it to be physically nearby most of the time to minimize the time-to-pickup.

In conclusion, InitialLastName's comment leads me to imagine a future in which the dense core of urban areas is served by high-capacity public transit, a significant portion of the central surface streets are closed and used for other purposes, with small-vehicle parking and pick-up/drop-off hubs are sprinkled throughout and around the city that link transport throughtout the wider region and state via privately owned vehicles (for daily commuters) and automated on-demand vehicle fleets (rolling offices) for the ocassional traveler.

Personally, I find it hard to do productive work on public transit, largely because transfers interrupt continuous work and the passenger compartments prioritize density over work surfaces. I think I would be ok paying 2x the fare of public transit for a trip that took 1.5x as long if the vehicle was outfitted with normal office furniture (desks) ~6 passengers. A relatively low-density vehicle for its size, scheduled a couple of hours in advance, providing a hub-to-door trip with no transfers. Ha. Yeah. Self-driving-land-yacht-office-as-a-service company?*

* we could validate it right now... SF Palo Alto, 6 round trips per day per vehicle, 6 passengers per trip, $19 fare, $200,000 vehicle cost, $19/hr for driver, and lets ignore fuel costs. So say revenue of $600/day, that leads the vehicle break-even within a year. hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#264
post #226
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today, 3000 people die in the US every single day because of car accidents Whoa... that's over 1 million people annually... you probably mean globally? Depending on the year, it's somewhere between 30,000 - 40,000 annually[1][2][3], or in the worst-case, about 109 people daily in the US. When you examine those numbers further, you'll see about 10,000-18,000 (depending on the year) are sadly still alcohol related[4]…

Hey, you know what would fix the drunk driving problem? Autonomous cars.

Autonomous cars is a solution that is flashy and sexy, and has its appeal with some audience.

However, being pragmatic, to avoiding drunk driving, I'd rather go with non-autonomous sober drivers that are already available today.

You know, traditional Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#265
post #9
post #2

"Our love affair with self-driving cars is a form of 'techno-chauvinism,' Prof. Broussard says. 'It's the idea that technology is always the highest and best solution, and is superior to the people-based solution.'"

We like the idea of technological solutions that don't require us to change our lifestyle or make hard choices. Driverless cars are appealing because they would allow us to largely maintain the status quo (as opposed to, say, reorienting toward public transportation). It's like an obese person who says, "I don't want to eat healthy and exercise. Why can't scientists just invent low-calorie versions of the food I like…

And as a society we reject a lot of possible technology out of hand.

For example, we could have a device on cars that transmit basic information. Such as licence ID number, speed, location, pedal position etc. It would be ridiculously useful data for a whole host of different things. You could use it to bill parking, catch speeders, sequence traffic lights, and warn of hazards ahead. And maybe even help self driving cars make sense of the world.

From a technological point of view this is a no-brainer. But this is incompatible with the way that we think about cars and roads. Every car has to pretend to be isolated from every other car.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America could build up municipal rail and bus infrastructure to .... I don’t think the killer market for driverless cars in America in the first place. Places like China that have all that (commuter rail, subway) but lack places for new roads and parking would benefit greatly from optimizing their limited road infrastructure. They already have people who are used to taking taxies everywhere, now make the ring roads…

Most North American cities also lack the space for new roads and parking, at least in the places people actually want to go to.

Not on similar scales. I found traffic in NYC to be a dream compared to Beijing.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#267
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Driverless cars are coming along just fine. I am curious why you believe this to be the case? Driverless cars have yet to even come close to being workable in adverse conditions, to my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong. > This is mostly about sensors and geometry. And mostly about the limitations of sensors, and the limitation of available algorithms to overcome geometry. A algorithm a driverless car uses…

I think interesting edge cases include: 'empty cardboard box or log?' 'Deer just crossed road, is there another one close behind?' 'Driving temporarily on the wrong side of the street due to construction or a downed tree limb' 'Police directing traffic' 'Driving on wrong side of road to avoid collision' 'One lane bridges' 'Busy parking garage with blind corners' 'City Bus driver forces themselves recklessly into your…

"There's a ball in the middle of the road, is a kid going to pop up from behind a parked car and run towards it?"

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#268
post #265
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We like the idea of technological solutions that don't require us to change our lifestyle or make hard choices. Driverless cars are appealing because they would allow us to largely maintain the status quo (as opposed to, say, reorienting toward public transportation). It's like an obese person who says, "I don't want to eat healthy and exercise. Why can't scientists just invent low-calorie versions of the food I like…

And as a society we reject a lot of possible technology out of hand. For example, we could have a device on cars that transmit basic information. Such as licence ID number, speed, location, pedal position etc. It would be ridiculously useful data for a whole host of different things. You could use it to bill parking, catch speeders, sequence traffic lights, and warn of hazards ahead. And maybe even help self driving…

> From a technological point of view this is a no-brainer.

Yeah, it becomes a brainer, though, when you ask “how do you deal with malicious transmitters”, since the answer to that tends to involve developing the systems to monitor the same variables externally without trusting the transmitted values, and once you do that, what is he transmitted data for?

Using transmitted data for less safety-critical things like route intent for efficient holisitc route optimization, with a penalty system for misrepresentation might be useful, though.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#269
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redesigning cities to be less reliant on cars is pretty much a solved problem. It just needs a few decades of focused policies. Check out for example how the Netherlands became bike friendly by relentless improvement since the seventies.

And being completely flat and never getting very hot/cold. Bikes aren't really workable in most cities as a primary form of transit.

Ebikes make most cities flat, and the Netherlands only relies on bikes for last mile transport. Medium and long-haul routes in the Netherlands have great transit options.

Re: Driverless Hype Collides with Merciless Reality

#270

I think a lot of people in this field did see this coming. I knew a few people in this space about a year ago and I pretty much hear: "realistically, 15 years out at the earliest." I really really hate the concept of a driverless car. It's an incredibly difficult problem space; and for the same cost, America could build up municipal rail and bus infrastructure to where they were in the 1940s/1950s. We need more citie…

municipal rail is a money sink. currently across the nation there is over a hundred billion dollars of deferred maintenance on municipal rail; light and heavy. worse bus service tends to suffer because they try to force people to use rail by making bus service less attractive which in effect is just damages the concept of public transport. no the real solution is get over this mythological idea that America is too ca…

It seems that way because the costs are centralized, but cars are as well, and it's disingenuous to compare this way.

If you look at how many people go in debt to own cars or the amount of credit on cars, you would see poor numbers there as well. Cars are incredible money sinks. There is a reason why Uber doesn't operate its own fleet.

If public transit billed by value it would easily be kept afloat. But the value proposition in most cities in America just isn't there, because they simply aren't dense enough. It's not a mythological idea. It's simple math.

> funny you mention Seattle, a city that blew over their recent rail budget by half a billion dollars [1]. plus is it also a city deferring maintenance to hide the costs of their folly.

Funny you mention things going over budget because nearly all infrastructure projects in this country do - yes, including roads. This is a problem with our government, not mass-transit solely.

In your very own article, the reasons stated for the price increase have nothing to do with mass transit inherently. They would be true of any infrastructure project.

Post reply on HN