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

California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

cpuc.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 424 posts

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#381

Post by amelius »

pavlov wrote: post #380
_acco wrote: post #117

I love Waymo and use it all the time. One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out: As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you. I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up be…

In the now defunct Apple Car, the windshield exterior was a giant OLED that rendered weird big eyes using the same code as on the Vision Pro. Apparently Johnny Ive insisted on this expensive external screen to make the car feel more human. (Not really. But you never know?)

Jobs already worked on this during his time at Pixar:

https://cdn.webshopapp.com/shops/70489/files/113563271/600x6...

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#382

Post by Sakos »

jessriedel wrote: post #287
_acco wrote: post #117

I love Waymo and use it all the time. One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out: As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you. I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up be…

They have tried many variations out, but so far they don't seem to think they work better than doing nothing. The only communication the Waymo's currently do it to signal that they are stopping for pedestrians, both to the pedestrians themselves and also to the cars behind. https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/13/23913251/waymo-roof-dome...

I don't know how aware Waymo cars are of their surroundings. Why don't they have a (or something like a) 360 degree string of LEDs (for example on the roof) that lights up a few in the direction of human obstacles if they're close enough? Bonus points if they're colored to indicate everything is ok or there's potential caution/danger.

They're still trying to do this weird universal signage when they need some way to replicate eye contact and 1-to-1 signaling. I feel safe biking or driving around other cars because I can directly communicate and negotiate with other traffic participants. I can't do that with an automated car as they're currently designed, and I feel like that's a huge flaw.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#383

Post by Geisterde »

_acco wrote: post #117

I love Waymo and use it all the time. One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out: As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you. I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up be…

I really like the idea, maybe eyes and gaze come across as a bit creepy though.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#384

Post by varelse »

krisoft wrote: post #379
wavefunction wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the cars had a "I'm currently deciding" indicator it would be a major improvement. My only issue with these sorts of anti-socialized services is not being able to promptly and easily sue for remedy. Maybe a blood price on a few mid-level managers (or possibly higher depending on the situation) if the service ends up killing people. That would put my heart at mind in the marketplace of the future.

> My only issue with these sorts of anti-socialized services is not being able to promptly and easily sue for remedy. What do you mean by that? Do you think if their cars hurt someone or cause damage to property you can't sue them? What is the basis of this belief?

[dead]

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#386

Post by zorowithenma »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #306
johnnyanmac wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). and how would waymo fix this? Waymo is still a private business and needs to weigh the costs of deploying to a smaller town vs. simply not supporting that range. It's the same issue as government.

Automated vehicles will enable smaller buses that drive themselves and make serving these places profitable to service. Automated taxi services like Waymo also ultimately be cheaper too.

Nah bro, they would instead send those cars where they would get much more profit. You just can't expect too many cab bookings in a small town of 1500. Idk bout EU but here in India we have public transport to even remote places and it is sure profitable and many people do use it everyday, even if the population is less many use public transit instead of own veichles in towns.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#387

Post by jeffrallen »

konschubert wrote: post #164
_acco wrote: post #117

I love Waymo and use it all the time. One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out: As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you. I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up be…

As a biker, I feel MICH safer around self driving cars because I know they are paying attention. I don’t need to check if they see me. They do.

> they do

Until you're being dragged under them.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#388

Post by popcalc »

Solvency wrote: post #317
maximus-decimus wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today my Uber driver wore so much cologne it made me wanna puke after a 5 minutes ride. The other day, one tried to convert me to his religious group.

I can't even buy fruit from a certain grocery store because some kid there must were cologne. The fruit absolutely reeks of it. Waymo cars will be no different. All it takes is one Armenian guy visiting Glendale slathered in cologne to nuke one of those cars permanently for all time.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Armenian%20s...

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#389

Post by tzs »

_acco wrote: post #117

I love Waymo and use it all the time. One aspect I'd still like to see them figure out: As a bike commuter, I share the road with Waymo often. When cycling, you're always checking the eyes of other drivers to confirm if they see you. I've had a couple incidents where I was a little thrown/unnerved because I couldn't confirm if a Waymo was registering me. It ultimately behaved fine, but I had to put my guard way up be…

Assuming that they will eventually have displays around the sides to show ads, they could also use those to show nearby people who they see and how they plan to maneuver around them.

So if they are showing an ad on the display on your side it means that either it doesn’t see you or thinks you are far enough away that it does not have to account for you in its short term planning.

If it sees you and is taking you into account it could show a diagram showing you and what it plans to do.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#390

Post by abecedarius »

pkaye wrote: post #272
abecedarius wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of them really wanted it? To me when Uber added tipping it seemed to come out of the blue. (And it was stupid and bad for everyone except possibly Uber, because the equilibrium total fare in a marketplace with reputation tracking is not going to be raised by turning part of it into a tip, it just adds uncertainty and friction.)

I don't know how many of the wanted it but here is an article that talks about it. Atleast is New York City they were forced to implement it and then it expanded from there. > Uber might finally be forced to change its tune after New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission introduced a proposal this week that would require ride-hailing companies operating in the city to allow riders to tip their drivers. The need t…

Thanks for the info. Can't see why anyone would downvote you, unless it's that the writer of that story is totally picking a side.
Post reply on HN