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

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

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 395 posts

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

#201

Post by jstrong »

polalavik wrote: post #17
xnx wrote: 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.

people voted with their life decisions and it turns out your view is not very popular.

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

#202

Post by nvy »

melling wrote: post #64
polalavik wrote: post #17

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.

“What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents We can’t get great transportation even in the New York City area. We have 0 miles of high-speed rail, while China built 25,000 it’s great that you want to start building some mass transit, but it’ll take a century if we start now. Let’s start by having trains take you to the…

I'll be astounded if we have autonomous vehicles in the snow in my lifetime.

More cars that suck at navigating weather is not the answer to traffic problems.

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

#203

Post by mistercheph »

lmm wrote: post #151
xnx wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> In terms of space use they're still cars.

And energy

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

#204

Post by greiskul »

appplication wrote: post #159
npunt wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

You can accuse people of daydreaming of Utopia, and you might be right. But honestly? The future you are painting? That's doom dreaming. With the exception of global warming, whose effects can be so big we cannot really predict, 100 years from now, worst case scenario, western countries look more like Brazil. Big wealth inequality, walls and eletric fences around condos, but no sniper towers.

And if automation improves enough that there is no more labor market? I don't think anybody has a good idea what society would come after that. If you asked someone in medieval Europe what they would think would happen with the introduction of guns, they would probably say that the noble class (which was the martial class, that trained for war) would just use it to oppress the peasantry more. Nobody would guess that their introduction would lead to the complete end of the idea of a noble class.

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

#205

Post by ponderings »

npunt wrote: post #105
polalavik wrote: post #17

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…

After all cars are driver-less comes tanks, artillery and "suicide" vehicles.

What have drivers done anyway to deserve all this attention? Why try to automate something that involves killing people on-error? It seems any other occupation would be an easier more sensible more realistic target.

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

#206

Post by bobthepanda »

7e wrote: post #51
bobthepanda wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main obstacle to better transit in a developed countries is the cost and scarcity of labor. An automated bus would basically eliminate most of the running cost; make it electric and it would be pennies on the dollar compared to running a bus today.

I think an automated bus would have enough electronics such that it would cost a lot more than the bus driver for a long, long time. At least that's the status quo. A Waymo car costs a lot more than a $7K Uber Prius.

It might actually be easier to amortize over the cost of a bus. The lifespan the Federal Transit Administration replaces buses at is 12 years, longer than a consumer keeps their car.

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

#207

Post by heavyset_go »

melling wrote: post #64
polalavik wrote: post #17

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.

“What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents We can’t get great transportation even in the New York City area. We have 0 miles of high-speed rail, while China built 25,000 it’s great that you want to start building some mass transit, but it’ll take a century if we start now. Let’s start by having trains take you to the…

There's no evidence that self-driving cars would drive any better and plenty of evidence that they're in fact, worse. It's just wishful thinking.

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

#209

Post by inglor_cz »

piffey wrote: post #98
melling wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“What incredible inconvenience are we trying to solve?” 40,000 deaths in the United States every year. Hundreds of thousands of costly accidents We can’t get great transportation even in the New York City area. We have 0 miles of high-speed rail, while China built 25,000 it’s great that you want to start building some mass transit, but it’ll take a century if we start now. Let’s start by having trains take you to the…

There are over 30 US cities with trains to the airport. Another half dozen on the way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airport_rail_link_syst... US also has almost 350 miles of high speed rail, not 0. The Northeast is where it’s all concentrated with Acela being the fastest. If you live in a major city in the States it’s often way easier and faster to take rail. In Seattle for instance you can beat a driver to…

"Mass transit is the solution."

I spent most of my 45 years of age in public transport, I only had a car for a year and a half (and a total lemon, I don't miss that). Yet I say: beware of people who speak of THE solution.

For mass transit to work, population density matters. At least in the EU, there is a trend of people being priced out of capital cities to the surrounding countryside, where the population density drops to levels where providing extensive bus service becomes uneconomical. An important limitation is availability of bus drivers. People are loath to take lives of 40 strangers in their hands + rise out of their beds at 4am, and you can only pay them so much before exhausting the budget. And it is not just question of "more money". Prague, the capital of Czechia, spends about 33 per cent of its municipal budget on public transport and it still has a shortage of drivers.

Reliable self-driving, which was the original topic of this discussion, would be a huge boon to public transport. It would reduce hourly costs and address the driver shortage (which becomes especially acute in flu season etc., where too many people call in sick at the same time).

For mass transit to work better, we need to increase population density, and that means killing of the NIMBY phenomenon. Plenty of people, at least where I live, don't mind living in condos, as long as these are safe and clean. They are just priced out of cities by lack of development and the consequent soaring of prices.

Edit: interesting that this post attracted two downvotes, but no rebuttals. Is public transport such a sacred object for some?

From my personal point of view, it is a service like any other, and obviously cannot work efficiently everywhere.

Post reply on HN