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

321–330 of 449 posts

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

#321

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

m_fayer wrote: post #246
elefanten wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say the vast majority of people don't litter or trash things, but the few that do ruin things for everyone. It only takes a few bad apples (on in this case trashy people) to ruin something for everyone else.

Its like living with 4 roommates, but one of them leaves their shit everywhere. It could make the whole place look unkept for everyone else.

And because we generally don't want to pick up after other peoples shit/mess things may be left trashy for a long time before anything gets cleaned.

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

#322

Post by concordDance »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #249
Mawr wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'm quite confused why I keep seeing posts like this downvoted in this thread. This post is nuanced and probably novel to most readers. Even seems correct to me.

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

#323

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

dventimi wrote: post #263
billjings wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a good friend who's a Lyft driver. According to him, all drivers are rated on cleanliness by passengers; if you're dinged for a weird smell, there are lasting financial consequences (even if it was for reasons outside of your control, e.g. using a Lyft provided rental while repairing from a traffic accident). We'll see how Waymo handles it! It will definitely be Waymo's problem to solve, though.

I haven't used Lyft in awhile but as an Uber rider what I can tell you is, if that company has a similar policy, it hasn't worked for me. The quality and cleanliness of the vehicle, and the quality of the driving, has been vastly inferior for me in San Francisco than Waymo has been.

I travel a lot for work so use Lyft a lot and I can say the same. Its not every time, but maybe 1 in 10 times I'll get in a car that smells like absolute shit, smoke odor, unclean, etc.

I think theres a stigma against reporting drivers so most people don't, but then that leaves the people who don't care about these policies to continue giving people bad experiences.

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

#324

Post by concordDance »

lacker wrote: post #59
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.

If they're really safer than human drivers, like the Google-funded studies claim they are, then this seems like a positive rather than a negative. Perhaps we humans should be slowing down and driving more carefully? But I'm not sure if we can trust these studies. I'd really like to see a completely independent evaluation, of how the safety of Waymo cars compares to human drivers, and to the safety other companies lik…

> Perhaps we humans should be slowing down and driving more carefully?

Not necessarily. Safety is not the only thing we care about, we also want to spend less time in cars.

20mph motorways would be much safer than current limits or even 50mph, but the loss of QALYs from people sitting in cars would not be worth it.

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

#325

Post by jliptzin »

fhub wrote: post #77
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…

> 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.

You should patent the idea, and then sue anyone who independently comes up with it.

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

michaelt wrote: post #287
paulryanrogers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been explained to me that cars are an extension of ones personality, a social signal, and a hobby. So for some apparently what kind one rides in is significant.

I'm pretty sure I don't get any "social signal" from using fancy taxis. I think you've got to own the vehicle for that to happen. Much like buying a museum ticket to see a famous painting isn't comparable to owning the same painting.

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by jyunwai »

michaelt wrote: post #287
paulryanrogers wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been explained to me that cars are an extension of ones personality, a social signal, and a hobby. So for some apparently what kind one rides in is significant.

I'm pretty sure I don't get any "social signal" from using fancy taxis. I think you've got to own the vehicle for that to happen. Much like buying a museum ticket to see a famous painting isn't comparable to owning the same painting.

Some museums do try to frame memberships as something that is part of one's identity. A museum in my city sells annual memberships with a physical card with nice artwork on it, discounts on tickets (including a discount for a friend), and an invitation to a monthly evening event at the museum that is rather quite nice.

I haven't seen Uber or Lyft effectively go down the route of having their service be a part of a user's identity. But Waymo could make an effort, if they wanted to: they use a distinctive car model, and they could offer incentives to make carpooling with Waymo cheaper (to try and make a user 'known' in their social circle for using the service).

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

#328

Post by dventimi »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #323
dventimi wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used Lyft in awhile but as an Uber rider what I can tell you is, if that company has a similar policy, it hasn't worked for me. The quality and cleanliness of the vehicle, and the quality of the driving, has been vastly inferior for me in San Francisco than Waymo has been.

I travel a lot for work so use Lyft a lot and I can say the same. Its not every time, but maybe 1 in 10 times I'll get in a car that smells like absolute shit, smoke odor, unclean, etc. I think theres a stigma against reporting drivers so most people don't, but then that leaves the people who don't care about these policies to continue giving people bad experiences.

I feel that. With about that same frequency, I encounter a vehicle or a driver or driving that's just dreadful. But, I don't report it or even ding the driver because I feel like that's a hard job that I don't wanna do, and I feel bad. I dunno, maybe I should.

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

#329

Post by hedora »

throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #296
badpun wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those stats are probably very different for babies, who are more fragile and could get seriously hurt even at lower speeds.

Where are the stats on infant motor deaths where the baby is secured correctly and car speed is <= 40mph?

Most car seats are improperly installed. If you have one, get its installation checked by a professional.

In the SF Bay Area, you can have CHP check it for free. The full-time job of the officer that checked ours is investigating accidents where kids in car seats died. Almost all the child fatalities around here are due to improper car seat installation.

We had it dangerously wrong. Before the appointment, I read the manual twice and spent something like 60 minutes installing it. The seat used the latch system with a top anchor, it was a new car and we had a top-ranked car seat. All the straps were connected up correctly. During installation, I sat on it with all of my weight, pushed against the ceiling of the car with my back, pulled the tightening strap until it felt like it'd break, and then pulled harder. The straps were still too loose. I'm not small.

Our last car seat had a failure mode where one of the latch straps would just self-release every 1000 miles or so. I'm not sure if it was user error or not. It happened twice.

After that experience, I think part of the certification process for car seats and cars should involve proving that the majority of people that have never installed a car seat (i.e., first time parents) can get it right on the first try without reading the manual. The test group should include people with physical impairments, and should include at least a dozen popular car models going back a decade. (Car certification should be the same, but with multiple car seat models.)

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

#330

Post by verdverm »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #274
verdverm wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an example of how easy it is to find some numbers they posted, countering that they "never" do I'm not trying to answer your question because I don't want to put in the time with someone who seems to only want to be combative in conversation

Don't the HN guidelines have something about "assuming good faith"? I can't be arsed to check now because obviously the comment above is not in good faith. /s

It's assume the best possible interpretation and the other commenter has provided evidence to the contrary through multiple posts
Post reply on HN