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

Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

thelastdriverlicenseholder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 514 posts

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#481

Post by jrockway »

mellavora wrote: post #315
jrockway wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really seeing anything weird with GNSS. I have a continuously-operating receiver that writes its location into a database every second; I did a query over the last 30 days and there is no abnormal deviation in position. (My receiver is in a terrible location that can only see a tiny sliver of the sky, and is single-band, so I expect about a +/- 50cm deviation without RTK correction and that's what I'm seeing.…

> my non expert opinion Yes, clearly given the detail in your post, you are "not an expert". Thanks for being on HN and making this site great.

I think an actual expert would know if those "warnings" are interesting or not. I can find the raw data, but I don't really know what it means ;)

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#482

Post by ra7 »

sixQuarks wrote: post #480
ra7 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo blog talking about change detection and automated information sharing — https://blog.waymo.com/2020/09/the-waymo-driver-handbook-map... Waymo patent portfolio related to mapping — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uf-5cimWzA Cruise blog about detecting and rolling out map changes "in minutes" — https://medium.com/cruise/hd-maps-self-driving-cars-b6444720...

As I suspected, I was correct. In the first article you link to, it specially states that when a car encounters something it doesn’t recognize, it reroutes. Why would a car have to reroute if it can just update the map? What you’re referring to is that the car will send a notice and update the fleet to avoid that area. Actual changes to the maps including crosswalk changes and other permanent structures require revie…

Why did you not quote the next paragraph from the post?

> *We’ve automated most of that process to ensure it’s efficient and scalable*. Every time our cars detect changes on the road, they automatically upload the data, which gets shared with the rest of the fleet after, in some cases, being additionally checked by our mapping team.

They are literally saying they've automated most of that process and that was 2 years ago. That's completely opposite to what you are claiming. If you don't want to believe they can do it, suit yourself.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#483

Post by sixQuarks »

ra7 wrote: post #482
sixQuarks wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I suspected, I was correct. In the first article you link to, it specially states that when a car encounters something it doesn’t recognize, it reroutes. Why would a car have to reroute if it can just update the map? What you’re referring to is that the car will send a notice and update the fleet to avoid that area. Actual changes to the maps including crosswalk changes and other permanent structures require revie…

Why did you not quote the next paragraph from the post? > *We’ve automated most of that process to ensure it’s efficient and scalable*. Every time our cars detect changes on the road, they automatically upload the data, which gets shared with the rest of the fleet after, in some cases, being additionally checked by our mapping team. They are literally saying they've automated most of that process and that was 2 years…

Why does the car have to reroute?

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#484

Post by ra7 »

sixQuarks wrote: post #483
ra7 wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you not quote the next paragraph from the post? > *We’ve automated most of that process to ensure it’s efficient and scalable*. Every time our cars detect changes on the road, they automatically upload the data, which gets shared with the rest of the fleet after, in some cases, being additionally checked by our mapping team. They are literally saying they've automated most of that process and that was 2 years…

Why does the car have to reroute?

To minimize risk? Why would they go into perhaps an area with heavy construction/blockage when they can just reroute? Humans reroute all the time in those instances.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#485

Post by sixQuarks »

ra7 wrote: post #484
sixQuarks wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the car have to reroute?

To minimize risk? Why would they go into perhaps an area with heavy construction/blockage when they can just reroute? Humans reroute all the time in those instances.

And you’re the one claiming I’m the one grasping at straws lol.

Go ahead and get behind the companies that need training wheels and rail guards. I’m going with Tesla which will be the first true FSD solution

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#486

Post by WaffleIronMaker »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #470
ecshafer wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40k people are dying a year from cars, and the problem is that driverless electric cars are not the solution. They are the faster horse kind of innovation. If we were serious about reducing fatalities, improving health, and reducing pollution, the solution would be to drastically reduce the amount of miles driven per year and the number and the size of the cars. We need to encourage people to bike and walk and use pu…

> The zoning laws and car centric development of cities is the issue. Well, the main issue is that most of the cars on the road during the busiest hours have just 1 person in them. I think when the dust finally settles, the main form of passenger transit in urban-ish areas will basically be something that looks like autonomous vans. Unlike public transit today, they won't have predefined timetables, nor predefined st…

How is this an improvement over trains, trams, and light rail?

I think reusing car-based infrastructure with busses is an important step in transitioning away from car dependency, but roads are not permanent. In many parts of America, trams and railways were torn down to be replaced by roads. The roads can be replaced too, if it is clear that alternatives are better.

Plus, roads are destroyed incredibly quickly by cars and busses, so they will need replacing eventually, whereas rail is much more resilient.

It seems to me that rail-based transport is much more effective in dense urban environments.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#487

Post by ra7 »

sixQuarks wrote: post #485
ra7 wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To minimize risk? Why would they go into perhaps an area with heavy construction/blockage when they can just reroute? Humans reroute all the time in those instances.

And you’re the one claiming I’m the one grasping at straws lol. Go ahead and get behind the companies that need training wheels and rail guards. I’m going with Tesla which will be the first true FSD solution

"True FSD" with humans behind the wheel. That's so much better!

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#488

Post by runarberg »

moffkalast wrote: post #375
bjoli wrote: post #316

The promises of self driving cars have always seemed weird to me. Sure, I would love to have a world where all cars are self driving. The security benefits seem large. But decreasing congestion? We already know how to do that, and in many ways it seems like a safer bet than some kind of technogy with large problems and even larger unknowns; public transport. Cheap, well developed, reliable public transport will beat…

> cheap > well developed > reliable Speaking as a guy in Europe where we generally have "good" public transport, I think you can only ever have ONE of those at the same time, with some exceptions. Cheap fares? You get decrepit busses from the 80s and the timetable's just a suggestion (what my city used to have) Well developed? Development isn't cheap so fares get expensive, busses are Mercs that run on CNG and the ti…

> Cheap fares? You get decrepit busses from the 80s and the timetable's just a suggestion (what my city used to have)

I don’t think this is generally true... If it is true, then the I suspect government subsidize are a bigger factor in explaining the variance of public transit quality then fare price.

Take Reykjavík as an example. It has the most expensive public transit fare price in Europe (86% above the European average) and all you get are some buses every 30-60 min (with only a handful of lines running more frequently during rush hour), timetables from the 80s and a ticketing system that never actually works. It is safe to say that Reykjavík has an expensive, poorly developed and unreliable transit system.

I think a well funded transit system can actually accomplish all three pretty easily, as long as they are willing to sacrifice some convenience for private vehicles.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#489

Post by runarberg »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #428
cycomanic wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As with many of things related to self-driving cars, the target doesn't have to be "perfection" so much as "better than people on average". I have an issue with that argument, because it's typically being used together with highly disingenuous statistics (like Teslas our FSD has less accidents per mile than normal drivers) to give the impression that autonomous driving is anywhere close to being "better than people…

Autonomous driving is stil in development.But it is getting better. in 5-10 years it is likely to be better than an average human driver.

I feel like people have been saying that for the last 5-10 years. What makes you believe the next 5-10 years will be any different?

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#490

Post by tim333 »

zinekeller wrote: post #429
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> None or few of those options are particularly accessible. At the moment, neither are self-driving cars sufficiently capable to replace human drivers. We're chasing a future tech dream when we already have technology that can solve the problems we are facing right now. Edit: What do you mean by "accessible"? The London underground and generally public transport in the UK works very well. Speaking after having lived…

> the London Underground Just going with the parent comment and I'm asking when did you last use the Underground and what station do you think has accessibility issues? I found that the London system is pretty much accessible with aggressive retrofitting on older stations, but I'll acknowledge that if you have used it say more than 10 years ago then I understand.

Oxford Circus you still have to be able to walk up/down stairs.
Post reply on HN