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

Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 449 posts

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#241

Post by lopkeny12ko »

schoen wrote: post #113
lopkeny12ko wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but any argument that basically boils down to "it's better because I don't have to talk to a driver" is not a real argument. Drivers are people too. Nevermind the fact that you are cheering for people to lose their jobs.

Would you accept any historical development that reduced demand for some kind of labor (or human interaction) as potentially positive? There are a lot of those. (I'm happy to hear if the answer is "yes".) For example, most kinds of shops were (like jewelry stores today) apparently historically not self-service, so you had to ask the shopkeeper for every item individually, and the shopkeeper would have to retrieve it…

This is not a reasonable comparison.

In Tesla's model, you buy a Tesla, and allow it to operate as a robotaxi when you're not using it. It generates income passively for you. The technology has introduced automation that might have displaced your job responsibility but not your means of generating income.

In Waymo's model, you have completely displaced both the job itself and the means of generating income. This is a strict lose-lose for everyone except Google, who reaps the profit.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#242

Post by TulliusCicero »

lopkeny12ko wrote: post #106
TulliusCicero wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo has been pretty clear about this: they do have remote navigators/coaches who tell the cars what to do if it gets stuck/confused, but they're not directly driving the car, they're telling it where to go, like a navigator in the front passenger seat. Remote operation is considered dangerous due to possible issues with network connection latency or stability. If it was actually happening, Waymo is big enough now (…

> they do have remote navigators/coaches who tell the cars what to do if it gets stuck/confused, but they're not directly driving the car, they're telling it where to go That sounds a lot like remote operation. Waymo is notoriously tight-lipped about this. Look at the number of journalists and reporters who have, over the years, asked very basic questions, like: 1. How often do remote operators intervene? 2. How many…

> That sounds a lot like remote operation.

If you have a friend in the front passenger seat directing you where to go, are they operating the car?

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#243

Post by epolanski »

josephcsible wrote: post #133
worik wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Waymo is 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic" actually means "Waymo drives at the legal speed limit for that location... Probably 100% safer too Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles

> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Not in the way you think. If you're going 55 because it's the speed limit, but everyone else is going 70, you're the most likely driver to cause a collision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve

The wiki you link finds the theory to be biased and without solid backing data.

Not sure why did you link it.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#244

Post by epolanski »

bushbaba wrote: post #238
tanvach wrote: post #7

We recently started using Waymo more often: - Quality of Lyft and Uber rides have gone down significantly. - Consistently spacious, clean and quiet cars. You know what you'll get. - AC always works and not up to the whim of the driver. - No chatty driver to disturb our sleeping baby. Negatives: - Rides have usually 10% mark up over Lyft and Uber. - Pick up and drop off tend to be a small walk from requested locations…

> - Rides have usually 10% mark up over Lyft and Uber. Isn't the whole point of Waymo is that it'll be cheaper than a human driver?

The point is that it's more profitable for who runs the taxi company.

Eventually price will always be what people are willing to pay.

I bet what that in a decade the price will be identical to (disappearing) human drivers and then gouged higher.

It's depressing how focused we are on the wrong things for cities and planet, self driving taxis rather than quality public transport. We are destined to extinction and we deserve it.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#245

Post by drivebyhooting »

notatoad wrote: post #193
firloop wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rarely discussed negative to Waymo is that they drive slower than human drivers. Anecdotally they can be 10-25% slower than the rest of traffic, and it's not uncommon to see human drivers do unsafe moves to pass a Waymo.

10% slower on a 30-minute journey is 3 minutes. if i'm in the back of a taxi, i'm on my phone or reading a book or something. getting there 10% slower really just doesn't matter. humans drive fast becuase when they're late it makes them feel like they're doing something to solve their problem, but the time savings are almost always inconsequential.

Hard disagree. Time savings from speeding comes from discontinuities like beating traffic lights.

Also 3 minutes is huge if you’re almost late to a 30 minute private lesson.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#246

Post by m_fayer »

elefanten wrote: post #189
underyx wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their policy from an email sent out Oct 2023: > Many of our riders choose Waymo for the clean and consistent vehicle we offer. To ensure every rider gets this experience, we’ll be applying a vehicle cleaning fee for riders who leave a mess behind in the vehicle, such as vomit, excessive trash, and smoking odors. > For those that self-report their mess during their ride (not including smoking), the fee will be $50. Fo…

That’s an awesome policy. Compare to car share services (in SF.. apples to apples) such as Gig Car and Getaround which allow unsupervised general access (i.e. no driver there to witness car treatment)… those are generally pigsties. Blunt ash all over the dashboard, used kleenexes in the door handles and cupholders, trash on the floor. It always blew my mind that the perpetrators weren’t fined into the dirt. Good for…

Considering that I’m in a social bubble of considerate people all of whom wouldn’t leave a single bottle cap in a car, this makes me despair at how people must be outside of my bubble.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#247

Post by tialaramex »

thepasswordis wrote: post #176
fhub wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can choose a soothing music play list in the car and it automatically resumes in the next ride Oh wow! There is a non zero chance that was implemented because of some feedback I provided as a trusted tester many months ago. I napped my son in them a lot when they were free and just spent my time thinking up things they should do and reporting them in app.

It’s been that way for several years.

This also just makes sense when you conceive these taxis not as "Some other person's car" (as they would be with Uber, or with a conventional private hire service) but as interchangeable units. Of course they should all share state and so it makes sense that resuming the music carries on from where it left off.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#249

Post by Dylan16807 »

Mawr wrote: post #184
josephcsible wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speed is the most dangerous aspect of motor vehicles Not in the way you think. If you're going 55 because it's the speed limit, but everyone else is going 70, you're the most likely driver to cause a collision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve

The mental hoops drivers go through to justify their unsafe behaviour...

Oh please.

Let's assume people are going at a speed that the road is designed to handle, since that's usually the case. In that situation, the behavior you're calling out as unsafe is simply "going faster". Now, in a technical sense that's true, but it's always true. Going faster reduces safety when you're above the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're at the speed limit. Going faster reduces safety when you're below the speed limit.

If you reduce safety to black and white, then you should always go slower, until you're barely moving. If the speed limit is 40, that doesn't magically make it safe to go 40.

Black and white thinking leads to a bad conclusion, so let's add nuance back in. Speed is dangerous but roads are designed to let you go a certain speed while minimizing the danger. You're not being dangerous until you go over that speed. And that speed is almost always higher than the speed limit, especially in good weather.

Going over the speed limit is not itself a problem. It's going over the design speed of the road that's a problem.

Re: Self-driving Waymos secure final clearance for expansion beyond S.F

#250

Post by Dylan16807 »

level1ten wrote: post #227
serf wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Rear-ending someone going slower than you is not their fault. who gives a shit who is at fault when they're in an accident? the goal is to avoid the event all together, not to have a scapegoat.

The type of people who see a "lane ends ahead" and immediately merge, blocking up traffic and wasting a half mile of empty lane. "I'm in my assigned place and I did what I was supposed to!!"

The thing that blocks up traffic at a merge is when people can't get over smoothly.

If everyone gets over at the first opportunity, then things go fine. The empty lane isn't wasted, it absorbs brief bursts in traffic that need more time to get over. But even if it was wasted, that wouldn't be a big deal. A 5-mile long section with fewer lanes and a 5.5-mile long section with fewer lanes will have almost the same throughput.

Everyone staying split across two lanes until the end and aligning themselves to do a clean zipper merge also goes fine.

What makes everything go wrong is when people drive down the nice empty lane that's ending and intend to do a normal merge at the end, but they don't start it early enough. Then everything slows down as they squeeze over.

Post reply on HN