Live data from Hacker News

We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

twitter.com

151–160 of 395 posts

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#151
post #133
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let’s start by having trains take you to the airport directly… I thought the US had legalised those now, so they'll happen as new systems come online. > In the meantime, getting self driving cars that are all electric will be a big win. Why? They're still going to take up as much road space (maybe even more, since they'll be moving around empty half the time). They'll still be spewing particulate pollution around o…

> road-use pricing, bicycle priority at junctions, better parking laws, building more transit... Excellent suggestions. Road-use pricing could easily be added as a rule to self-driving fleets. Self-driving cars could always yield to pedestrians and cyclists. There will be a glut of empty parking spaces when self-driving cars are common. Self-driving cars are transit.

> Self-driving cars could always yield to pedestrians and cyclists.

They could, but they will be unpopular with users if so.

> There will be a glut of empty parking spaces when self-driving cars are common.

The self-driving cars still have to go somewhere. If they're not parked then they're going to be taking up space on the roads instead, which might be worse.

> Self-driving cars are transit.

Not really. In terms of space use they're still cars. https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/21715/cyclestreets2171...

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#152
post #140
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it’s silly to suggest public transit can replace cars Ew. This is so flawed. What is china’s car ownership per capita? Trips taken per day? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_... China has 2 cars for every 10 people (#99 in the world), while the United States has 9 cars for every 10 people. While China buys a lot of cars (duh, they have a population of over a billion), they would buy eve…

> you would need 15 lanes of highway to handle the same amount of passenger load as a two-track subway tunnel. Certainly true for some cases. For the trains I'm familiar with, the parallel road carries many times more passengers in a single lane over the course of an hour.

> For the trains I'm familiar with, the parallel road carries many times more passengers in a single lane over the course of an hour.

Which train and road would that be? That's either a severely underused rail line (if the road is busy enough to be congested - and if not, it doesn't matter), or one that prioritises freight.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got a lot of answers already but ... wow... Allow me to say first of all that I agree we should have denser cities/towns, better public transport to get around, and we should all use it more. But some stats (no citation, these are rattling around in my memory, feel free to fact check). 90% of cars are not utilised 90% of the time. That is insane wastage for energy intensively manufactured, expensive pieces of…

> Then imagine cars halve in size and drive bumper to bumper and twice the speed. And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole Beyond this, how will there ever be 100% adoption to support that dream? There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road. It's really hard to see how that 2x2x2 dream could ever happen.

> And now imagine one of those cars hitting a large pothole

Or imagine the first time a self-driving car encounters a road-obstacle it flags it so that it can be repaired and all other cars avoid it automatically.

> There will always be a desire to have a steering wheel on some cars to go off road

Very true. People also own horses and burn candles, but these are not our primary means for transportation or lighting.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#154
post #12

This is a good move on Cruise's part. Cruise is still nowhere near the maturity level that Waymo was at when Waymo first started driving on public roads. On the other hand, we definitely need a real competitor to Waymo. It doesn't seem likely, but hopefully some combination of Cruise, Apple(?), Tesla, or another player will be able to have a feasible alternative to Waymo's Driver.

Out of all the tech problems to solve, driverless cars or driverless taxis has always baffled me. It’s a very complex thing to solve with a zillion edge cases. And for what net gain? What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve? Lack of good public transit? Let’s solve that instead. Millions of cars driverless or not are not a great solution to anything.

A lot of people want to go directly from point A to B in the comfort of a car. You can't just brush that desire away just because you personally don't value it.

And regardless of how America should have built up rail/bus infrastructure over the last century, the reality is that they didn't, and a lot of its cities are already setup to immediately benefit from large self-driving fleets of cars.

There's still a lot of opportunity to build up high-capacity rail where it makes sense, but that will take decades. Self-driving cars (and busses too!) can deliver utility on a far shorter timescale.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#155
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct. Mobile phone service isn't free either, but it's so much better than land lines that most people have given up their land line. I expect a similar adoption pattern for self-driving car service.

I don’t think that’s a valid comparison. Landlines and mobile solve two different problems and were probably about the same price. If a subscription to a car costs you as much as owning a car over a long period of time, why subscribe ?

You're right, it ultimately comes down to cost and benefits. The ultra-rich have drivers because they don't want to bother with any of the details of car ownership or waste time driving, self-driving cars might bring that level of valet-like service to anyone for the same price as owning an economy car.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#156
post #150
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over a million people die annually from traffic accidents.

That number could be cut by more than half by applying technology that already exists today. If reducing traffic deaths is the goal then there is no particular need for autonomous vehicles.

A lot of deaths are being reduced by developing ADAS systems (collision avoidance, lane-keeping, blind-spot detection). Self-driving cars takes those systems to their logical conclusion.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#157
post #139
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely an immensely complex challenge, a legitmate "moonshot" scale effort. The benefits can also be huge. Think of the huge portion of a household's budget (purchase price, fuel, insurance, maintenance) and time is spent on cars. If someone can provide a better alternative to private car ownership (and goods transportation), they stand to capture a meaningful portion of those billions of dollars and billion…

Even if autonomous driving is made to work I'll still buy private cars. It will just be another optional feature. I like my cars to be clean and ready to go as soon as I want to. And many of us keep a variety of stuff in our cars like tools, snacks, spare clothes, sports equipment, pepper spray, first aid kit, etc. You're going to need some of that stuff occasionally, especially if you ever drive through rural areas.…

There will be a place for private cars for a long time, but those may operate in self-driving mode a lot of the time. Shared self-driving cars will take some households from 1 car to 0, but it will take many more households from 3 to 2, or 2 to 1.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public transit is no good. I don’t want to walk to a station and then share the space with other people. I don’t want to lug grocery bags around. I want to make pit stops. I want to go off road. I want to live in the suburbs or semi rural areas so I can have a lot of land.

What's wrong with sharing space with other people? Do you have some kind of phobia? You don't need to lug groceries around - just get them delivered.

> What's wrong with sharing space with other people? Do you have some kind of phobia?

Not OP, but I enjoy and value having personal space when I travel. Being able to reliably sit down is also nice.

It's amusing to see that your immediate reaction to someone else having different values is to accuse them of having a mental illness, and then trying to force your personal preferences onto them.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#159
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of all the tech problems to solve, driverless cars or driverless taxis has always baffled me. It’s a very complex thing to solve with a zillion edge cases. And for what net gain? What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve? Lack of good public transit? Let’s solve that instead. Millions of cars driverless or not are not a great solution to anything.

Think bigger. "Driverless cars" are a technology that moves atoms without the need for people, a lot like how we move bits around today. There are innumerable benefits to moving the right atoms to the right places at the right time. There are many form factors that moving atoms can take, only one of which looks like a car. The car is a good place to start for many reasons, including everyone needing transportation, e…

I think you’re absolutely right. But while we’re daydreaming about the future, I think it’s more likely we’re going to irreversibly fuck the planet well before we realize beautiful technological utopia. And if fucking the planet doesn’t kill (all of) is, it’s going to leave us irreversibly broken. Inequality will reach staggering levels. Further advances will not be for the benefit of all, but the enrichment of the few.

The technologically enabled cities of 100 years from now are not beautifully interconnected reorganized and optimized. They will be literal fortified pockets of safety - gated neighborhoods with autonomous access control. Those living here spend most days completely within the walls. These pockets are surrounded and vastly outnumbered by slums. Ones whose inhabitants have neither inter-generational wealth nor the means to accumulate even a fraction of what it would take to rise beyond their lot. The labor market has long ago dried up with the onset of more efficient and profitable automation. The inhabitants here are the first to bear the brunt of climate-induced emergencies. Hundreds of thousands regularly die at once as bouts of famine, disease, and natural disasters strike with increasing frequency.

These people subside exclusively on the regular allotment of their sovereign governance. And not all of the governments of the world are quite so motivated to maintain a standard of living. Much of Asia and Eastern Europe has largely unified under or become a puppet state to a single authoritarian state. The European Union has condensed westward and hardened, closing off borders in an attempt to maintain sovereignty amid influx of climate refugees. The United States is an aggressive corporate republic, under which the only legislation to pass in decades is related to military spending, border security, and population monitoring in the name of antiterrorism. Policy is now largely decided in the courts, which corporations have found is the shortest path to pushing their agenda, and also the most reliably fruitful, given enough lawyers and money.

Parts of the Middle East are permanently uninhabitable, and the bits of the Amazon that have not been clear cut are now beginning to succumb to changing climate forces. Sea level has risen considerably, and pacific island and Caribbean nations have been all but wiped out, as their governments realized it no longer made sense to rebuild year after year.

Those living in the slums have access to sophisticated VR/AR technology at affordable rates, even compare to their minimal dole and the informal barter/trade economy that has redeveloped. They create as much content as they consume, in an effort to find some foothold they can capitalize on and create wages.

We vastly underestimate the effectiveness of warfare. Highly mobile drones will be able of surgically eliminate threats in seconds. Direct conflict is rare and pointless. Nation states will focus their efforts on undermining infrastructure of their enemies, or isolating entirely. Information warfare will no longer exist to a meaningful degree because the nations themselves will have near unrestricted control over the information their populace consumes. The military and police will have blurred or fully merged in most governments. Revolts will be put down with ease and erased from public memory.

Education is perhaps perplexingly accessible, to a point. AI tutors work one on one with students, who now are considered anyone under the age of 25. The entrenched elite have access to private cutting edge versions of the same, and if you know the right people you may be able to send your children to a Luddite school, where children learn from physical books and corporeal teachers.

Re: We have decided to pause driverless operations across all of our fleets

#160
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents Somehow, after a decade of hype, it doesn’t seem like driverless cars are the most direct path to solving that problem. > Let’s start by having trains take you to the airport directly I feel like that exists in a lot of places? Not sure what you mean.

Driverless cars are significantly safer than human drivers. https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2309/2309.01206.pdf

I never said that they weren’t/wouldn’t be.

But that wasn’t the point I was responding to. The point I was responding to was that we need to address 40,000 traffic deaths per year, to which I said it doesn’t seem to be the most direct route there.

Just because self driving cars are safer in some situations doesn’t mean that we will inevitably have that result within a reasonable timeframe and level of investment.

Besides the types of things that reduce human caused accidents would lead to benefits for self driving cars: slower speeds, fewer conflicts, etc.

Post reply on HN