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

Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#71

Post by xnx »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #60
ajmurmann wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you taken a Waymo before? The car and ride in general is much nicer than your average Uber or Lyft ride.

I have not and I believe you. But seriously, the incentive for automating anything is cost. Even if it's nicer, the removal of the driver does not make it a "premium" service, it makes it an automated service. The expectation is lower cost not higher. I know that supply and demand and competition right now might be at a place where the same price for eventually the same service is expected. But still "at no additiona…

> the incentive for automating anything is cost

Cost savings are a huge factor, but in self-driving (and other areas) safety and consistency are equally important.

Waymo's make mistakes, but they don't get tired, drunk, distracted, or angry.

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#72

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

xnx wrote: post #64
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are self-driving cars public at all?

Depends on how you define public. The important characteristics to me are that there is affordable transport available to everyone. Government ownership and operation of the vehicles is not important to me. Government ownership makes the most sense when there is a natural monopoly. There is not a need for a monopoly on urban transportation.

If the vehicles are owned and operated by a private company not otherwise contracted by a public entity (as in, a government), how are they public?

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#73

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #65
heliophobicdude wrote: post #56

I was expecting a discount. In the onboarding it says "Prices are the same. You won't pay more for autonomous rides." If that's the case, I would rather give my money to a human driver than just Uber.

I wasn't really expecting a discount, but that quoted statement irked me. The way it's phrased, it's basically trying to subconsciously set the baseline that you should expect to pay more for autonomous rides (because "tech"), despite that, as the top comment states, it's not currently a "glitch free" experience. Pet peeve side note on language - if I see one more article from a tech company about Austin that starts…

> The way it's phrased, it's basically trying to subconsciously set the baseline that you should expect to pay more for autonomous rides (because "tech")

It’s literally already happening in this thread.

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#74

Post by rossdavidh »

So, I live in the corner of Austin (SE) where a lot of the Waymo autonomous cars are based, so they're on the road next to me a lot. At first, always with a human in the car, but lately without. So far, they don't do anything too crazy. What I am curious about is what happens when they become numerous on the road. Rumor has it that an earlier attempt in downtown Austin resulted in gridlock, with a bunch of self-driving cars stuck.

In a situation like that, humans are more likely to figure out that they need to break the rules in order to break the gridlock (although it certainly can happen with human drivers, but in almost 30 years of driving in Austin I've never experienced it). For obvious reasons, self-driving cars are not usually given this kind of programming.

Of course, if they're always a small percentage of the cars, it's not really an issue.

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#75

Post by xnx »

skyyler wrote: post #63
xnx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains and busses are far denser than cars, and that's part of the appeal. You can move more people around with less space needed. This is true only for contrived examples comparing the vehicles directly. Comparing the real-world throughput of a highway vs. a rail line (in the US) and the density advantage goes away. > Why can't I get on a train from Columbus to go to Philly? The US has a different approach to prop…

> This is true only for contrived examples comparing the vehicles directly. Comparing the real-world throughput of a highway vs. a rail line (in the US) and the density advantage goes away. Does it? Can you post some information to back that up?

I'm not a transportation analyst, but this might be a reasonable comparison.

In Chicago there's a commuter rail-line that carries 6,171,000 passengers per year (~17,000/day).

There's a tollway that runs roughly the same route that carries 240,000 vehicles per day. Even if you divide that across 8 lanes you get 30,000/day. That number would go up if since there's often more than one person per vehicle.

Trains and rails are amazing at moving people between fixed points during rush hour, but are vastly underutilized the rest of the time.

In the future, it would be great to see rail lines replaced by dedicated self-driving lanes where cars could safely go 100+ mph.

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#76

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #60
ajmurmann wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you taken a Waymo before? The car and ride in general is much nicer than your average Uber or Lyft ride.

I have not and I believe you. But seriously, the incentive for automating anything is cost. Even if it's nicer, the removal of the driver does not make it a "premium" service, it makes it an automated service. The expectation is lower cost not higher. I know that supply and demand and competition right now might be at a place where the same price for eventually the same service is expected. But still "at no additiona…

[deleted]

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#77

Post by jonas21 »

throwawayffffas wrote: post #16

> Starting today, riders who request an UberX, Uber Green, Comfort, or Comfort Electric could be matched with a Waymo fully autonomous all-electric Jaguar I-PACE vehicle – at no additional cost. That made legit laugh out loud. No additional cost? Are you for real Uber? It should be significantly cheaper.

This is a new technology. Early adopters of almost anything will pay more as it takes time to scale up and improve unit economics. reply

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#78

Post by notepad0x90 »

marxisttemp wrote: post #48
notepad0x90 wrote: post #29

I don't think it's right to expect companies like this to do what is best for their workers or society at large. Nothing wrong with chasing profit, but don't expect them to be what capitalism never allowed them to become. I just have some optimism left in me I guess. I really hope worker-owned companies or companies incorporated to chase after the public's interest take off in technology. In a purely capitalist conte…

Why would any company be motivated to reduce profits? You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what makes capitalism tick. Capitalism writ large will always, always optimize for short-term profits over long-term well being.

it shouldn't. but short term profits is just gambling. Even as individuals, if we accumulate wealth, we should consider our great-great grandkids benefiting from it, not just ourselves. Short-term profits are not about generating wealth but keeping scores and one-upping each other.

It's really a question of wisdom, planting trees under whose shades we'll never sit.

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#79

Post by bryanlarsen »

GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #72
xnx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how you define public. The important characteristics to me are that there is affordable transport available to everyone. Government ownership and operation of the vehicles is not important to me. Government ownership makes the most sense when there is a natural monopoly. There is not a need for a monopoly on urban transportation.

If the vehicles are owned and operated by a private company not otherwise contracted by a public entity (as in, a government), how are they public?

c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)

Re: Ride into the Future with Waymo on Uber in Austin

#80

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #79
GuinansEyebrows wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the vehicles are owned and operated by a private company not otherwise contracted by a public entity (as in, a government), how are they public?

c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_school_(United_Kingdom)

Come on, you’re reaching here.
Post reply on HN