Uber’s self-driving cars start picking up passengers in San Francisco

Post by gtaylor » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

santaclaus wrote: post #177

kafkaesq wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they forget that people like owning their personal space -- especially if it's they need to inhabit for multiple hours in the day, pretty much every day. And (as with the "smart home" advocates), they forget that, outside of the tech crowd - not everyone likes interacting with (and hence, being dependent on) computers for every conceivable need in their life, 24x7. The ownerless model might work for some peopl…

I dunno, of my friends under 35 (San Francisco and Oakland) it is rarer to own a car than to be carless. Most couples I know with cars are also single car families. In cities and the surrounding metros (which continue to grow as a proportion of the US pop) I could totally see an ownerless model working. How many Manhattan residents own cars?

Post by crucini » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:20 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #144

saosebastiao wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why people think traffic will move faster with self driving cars. The status quo is drivers driving well beyond the physical capabilities to stop given the conditions at hand. Sure, they might be able to cut down on reaction time, but they still can't do anything about physics. Given that these vehicles will shift the risk model from driver to manufacturer, and subsequently programmed to obey th…

The idea of traffic reduction is twofold. First is the fact that there can be a lot more carpools because you don't need the owner of the car to be inconvenienced to make the carpool work, so there will be an overall reduction of cars on the road. Second, and more importantly, when you have only autonomous vehicles on the road, you can make assumptions that all drivers are perfectly rational, and then your safety mar…

Post by crucini » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:34 PM UTC

hackalaugh wrote: post #93

hackerboos wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'd be nice if we could get to the point where my self-driving car is earning cash as a taxi whilst I'm doing my 9-5.

Seems potentially unlikely that a consumer could own and (auto-)operate a self-driving vehicle at a rate competitive with Uber & Lyft (or whatever corp.), who could purchase in bulk and have their cars operate for significantly less.

Post by ativzzz » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:43 PM UTC

santaclaus wrote: post #177

kafkaesq wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they forget that people like owning their personal space -- especially if it's they need to inhabit for multiple hours in the day, pretty much every day. And (as with the "smart home" advocates), they forget that, outside of the tech crowd - not everyone likes interacting with (and hence, being dependent on) computers for every conceivable need in their life, 24x7. The ownerless model might work for some peopl…

I dunno, of my friends under 35 (San Francisco and Oakland) it is rarer to own a car than to be carless. Most couples I know with cars are also single car families. In cities and the surrounding metros (which continue to grow as a proportion of the US pop) I could totally see an ownerless model working. How many Manhattan residents own cars?

Post by TuringNYC » Wed, Dec 14, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

drcode wrote: post #63

bigtones wrote: post #61

Actually these Uber Volvo self driving cars have been picking up passengers using UberX in San Francisco for weeks. They're easy to spot because they have a huge lidar contraption on the roof and a lot of camera's mounted on the roof, rear vision mirrors, and the rear tailgate of the vehicle. The depot they use is on Harrison and 3rd so you see a lot of them driving around the area just south of Market Street, which…

If you think self driving cars are cool, wait until two years from now when you're stuck behind them in your morning commute every day, while they drive 15 miles under the speed limit.