Live data from Hacker News

A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

waymo.com

401–410 of 497 posts

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have they solved their mapping problem? Because that, more so than the added Lidar hardware cost, seems like the lynchpin here: As soon as Tesla works, it works everywhere*. Last I heard Waymo, they have to do every city, one at a time – and there are a lot of cities.

The mapping problem keeps getting brought up (often by Tesla enthusiasts). It just doesn't seem like a huge problem? If you have cars equipped with high resolution Lidar and cameras, mapping new routes seems like it ought to scale as the fleet is expanded. This problem seems embarrassingly parallel.

I don't understand. You first need the map, then you can drive, yes? How does the fleet help in the creation of a new map?

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it see you or is there someone else it's seeing?

Waymo, take note: instead of displaying a human walking, display googly eyes glancing at pedestrians.

Ah, now we know what to do with the Vision Pro's outward lenticular eye visualizations.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing with self-driving cars is that it feels like the story of NASA's space pen. All this money being poured into a technology that would not be needed if the richest country in the world had the common sense of simply getting rid of its car dependency and developed proper public transit infrastructure.

Many cities in Europe still have their Roman era street plans. The street layout of a city is incredible sticky. Once you have a city built around cars and all the private property and infrastructure that goes with it, you are basically stuck with it for 1000 years. And American city layouts are horrible for public transit and walking. We can look at international cities with longing and jealousy, but LA, Houston, Mi…

Wait, what? Paris streets are a mess, even after Haussmann. That does not prevent outstanding transit. Even before the latest obsessive aggressive agenda-driven nonsense. The two things that Paris has are (1) inhabitant and workplace density and (2) the will to pursue public transit decade after decade.

After that, there are lots of streets with a single lane of traffic - and buses go through them just fine. And there are lots of too narrow streets but they are isolated here and there - in between streets that are okay for buses. Equally there are lots of very wide avenues for several lanes of traffic and that's fine for pedestrians and transit even though it makes subway stations sometimes very wide. And there are lots of randomly angled streets. There are steep hills. There are rivers and canals and giant mining voids which make building subway tunnels interesting. There are lots of train track rights of way which sometimes block pedestrian traffic but are covered and crossed reasonably often (sometimes still not optimally so). There is snow, ice, floods, hot weather. You name it it's there.

Both of these are essential. "Decade after decade" is essential. Both density and building that infrastructure are impossible to build at the stroke of a pen. So an advantage of Paris compared to San Francisco is that it had decent inhabitant and workplace density from the infancy of public transit when it was private animal pulled carriages.

So what's missing in US cities: decade after decade of density followed by decade after decade of public intent. SF could do it - but for sure you wouldn't see the result tomorrow - but NIMBY so no, SF can't do it. Not before getting rid of NIMBY. LA is much more willing to build anything anywhere so it would have much more of a chance. But it's huge and people often live far from their place of work. Smaller areas with LA would have a better chance. Perhaps Glendale plus the entertainment industry north-south corridor? That might be manageable.

Yet still more "even then", ride Paris transit at rush hours in summer and you won't feel that it's all that good: it's sweaty, packed, and there are lots of timetable incidents. You will regret having chosen rush hour. You car would have been nicely air conditionned and comfortable (but depending on your trajectory would have been stuck in traffic for a while.)

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#404
post #400

These results are meaningless, Waymo only drives in controlled, good weather, urban streets, while the human control group does not. This is not science, this is PR. We need independent investigations. And remember that currently, self-driving cars in California are exempt from traffic tickets : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/04/self-driv... We learned that the hard way with Boeing, you cannot trust…

Google says >Waymo One, is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the following cities: >Los Angeles Waymo One is available across nearly 80 square miles of LA County, including Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and Downtown LA. >San Francisco Waymo One is available across 55 square miles of the Bay Area... 24/7 across those areas sounds different to what you mention.

I agree about the 24/7 part, but the safe zone and weather biases are too big to ignore

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#405

These results are meaningless, Waymo only drives in controlled, good weather, urban streets, while the human control group does not. This is not science, this is PR. We need independent investigations. And remember that currently, self-driving cars in California are exempt from traffic tickets : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/04/self-driv... We learned that the hard way with Boeing, you cannot trust…

"controlled areas" is relative - for example it includes mayhem zone SOMA and the hills. Also they just got started, relatively speaking, and have been expanding. Give it a minute.

Really, computers seem more naturally suited to driving in SF than humans - from the point of view of paying attention to enough things, not having to pay attention to map navigation and having more modes of sensory input than humans.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#406
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole thing with self-driving cars is that it feels like the story of NASA's space pen. All this money being poured into a technology that would not be needed if the richest country in the world had the common sense of simply getting rid of its car dependency and developed proper public transit infrastructure.

Nobody says it has to be a car form factor. It can be a self driving van or shuttle or bus. Last mile is a nightmare with all public transit. With the low population density of the US we need a lot of small vehicles to feed transit hubs.

That would be a more reasonable trajectory for US cities: more frequent, faster main line transit plus a flood of local inexpensive automated electric vehicles. That would be compatible with the current low density.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should open the PDF and look into that xD Really they discussed this. I'm still skeptical that they measure what we are interested in. But _your_ points they discuss

I went through the report, and they reference other studies that consider my points, but they end up only measuring incident numbers, don't specifically say how comparable were the driving conditions (iow whether they are representative). If anything, they could have removed incidents by human drivers which did not happen within their operating constraints, but I did not see that mentioned.

But that data isn’t available to them. They are (iiuc) simply looking at the full set of insurance data and their own set. There simply is no driver-level data which would allow statistically relevant conclusions.

Up to now their data for their own cars is still not able to strongly constrain the results. You wouldn’t be able to tell effects of sensor degradation.

But let me ask this instead: What kind of analysis would you like to see?

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#408
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it doesn't even occur to you that the problem is the poor infrastructure? It has occurred to me. > Do you honestly think that the optimal solution here is just to keep waiting for some trillion dollar corporation to be able to sell some new product that will bring you more "convenience" Not sure where you got this idea. I’m not waiting for anything. I’m still excited for self driving vehicles to compliment the…

> Why would a self driving car need to park? The ability to always be in use is one of the advantages. They are not going to be always in use. Unless you got a perfectly uniform distribution of demand over time, eventually most of these cars will have to be parked somewhere. And whey they do, let's hope they don't keep doing this: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/c2977546-lot-full-of-self-drivi...

> And whey they do, let's hope they don't keep doing

How does bringing this up help anything? It's a bug, bugs happen, bugs get fixed. Quickly when they are software bugs. As opposed to NIMBY mind bugs.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#409
post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it doesn't even occur to you that the problem is the poor infrastructure? It has occurred to me. > Do you honestly think that the optimal solution here is just to keep waiting for some trillion dollar corporation to be able to sell some new product that will bring you more "convenience" Not sure where you got this idea. I’m not waiting for anything. I’m still excited for self driving vehicles to compliment the…

> Why would a self driving car need to park? The ability to always be in use is one of the advantages. They are not going to be always in use. Unless you got a perfectly uniform distribution of demand over time, eventually most of these cars will have to be parked somewhere. And whey they do, let's hope they don't keep doing this: https://www.ctvnews.ca/video/c2977546-lot-full-of-self-drivi...

Ok but they only need one parking space and even it can be time shared. They don’t need the same parking infrastructure we have now.

Buses also need a place to park and get maintenance. Self-driving allows locating the parking in more distant locations.

Re: A comparison to Waymo’s auto liability insurance claims at 25M miles

#410
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grocery store is 1.3 miles from here but it’s a 300’ climb and it’s 42f and raining right now. Even with my e-bike that’s not pleasant. On a conventional bike that’s unrealistic for all but the most hardcore cyclists. There’s a bus that serves that route but the stop is uncovered and service is unreliable because it’s immediately after a rest stop where the human drivers take care of their biological needs. A rob…

>The grocery store is 1.3 miles from here but it’s a 300’ climb and it’s 42f and raining right now. I would get a jacket and umbrella and walk this without giving it a second thought.

That’s 1.5 hours round trip by foot and 15 minutes by car/e-bike.

And I have to carry my groceries so I’m limited on how much I can buy.

If there was a robobus I would absolutely take that option.

Post reply on HN