Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco • Hacker News Board

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#511

Post by danachow » Tue, Jul 05, 2022, 10:41 PM UTC

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #494

olyjohn wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already possible today. You don't need driverless cars to do it. Uber can already do it, but it's not taking over. Unless you're suggesting we will have more cars just sitting around waiting for rides, because they're driverless. Then we get back to them being so convenient that nobody will want to ride with another person. In other words, why does making the car driverless suddenly make everybody want to use…

IIRC something like 70% of the cost of Ubers is driver compensation, meaning driverless Ubers have the potential to be ~3x cheaper.

So they if get rid of the drivers they contract who is buying and paying for the cars and maintenance? - are you suggesting Uber start carjacking their existing drivers?

Do you know what percentage of driver compensation effectively goes to car ownership and maintenance?

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#512

Post by gridspy » Sun, Jul 10, 2022, 8:09 PM UTC

makeitdouble wrote: post #147

gridspy wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The robo taxi can't steal FROM you very easily, but it can certainly steal YOU.

Good correction :) Then, the robot taxi is probably not stealing you on its own, there would need to be other humans involved...

The robot taxi could always stop next to a robotic arm, similar to the one from a car factory. But your point is well made.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#513

Post by ghusbands » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 8:47 AM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #449

brimwats wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you've never tried to use the Underground with a wheelchair, tho if you're questioning what accessible means in that context—because it's really bad. cars are very accessible for those with mobility disabilities & for many others.

Ah, my bad - literally "accessible". I don't use a wheelchair and I don't know about the London underground but I can tell you that public transport in the small town I lived for 15 years were eminently accessible, as evidenced by the continuous presense of passengers with obvious (and varied) mobility issues on them. In any case improving accessibility on public transport also does not require any new technology tha…

This is a common refrain, that things must be accessible because you see people with mobility issues using them. But it's not true - the people you see are the people who are coping with it, either all the time or on that day. You don't see all the people for whom it is not accessible. It's well-known in disabled circles that most public transport is hit and miss at best and exclusionary/ableist/injuring at worst.

Actually solving the problem does involve new technology, because the worst cases need door-to-door access and most cannot afford taxis (nor do welfare systems provide them).

What makes it all harder though is the continual fight to persuade every last person that it is a significant problem, because they're so sure it can't be.

Re: Driverless robotaxi fleet paralyzed for hours in San Francisco

#514

Post by ghusbands » Tue, Jul 12, 2022, 8:59 AM UTC

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.

I've used it plenty and still use it. It is getting better in places, but just look at the tube map - large parts of the system still lack step-free access, let alone the problems the system has in other ways (overcrowding and people not giving up their seats or making space appropriately); we should be trying for (in-city) transport systems that don't require such congregation.

The last time I travelled the tube with a wheelchair user with a pain condition, the (non-strike) closures hit in such a way that we couldn't reach our destination without going on a detour that was so long (more than an hour) that the system assumed we'd forgotten to swipe out and back in and charged a penalty fare. The people manning the help-intercoms were unable to assist in finding a route that didn't have closures. And it's normal to have to find alternative, slower routes than the ones everyone else can take.