Live data from Hacker News

Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

waymo.com

621–630 of 769 posts

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a autonomous car can pass a standard driving test it should be allowed to drive. They always do, every time.

Depending on where you live, "can pass a standard driving test" isn't necessarily saying very much. In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.

No its not, that is kind of my point. It only needs to be better at driving than the average human to be technically viable. And yes, it may very well be allowed on Indian or Chinese roads before its allowed in America, but that's human fiction at work not demonstrable ability.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#622
Being a pedestrian sharing space with moving autonomous cars is not a future I'm looking forward to, not one bit.

1. Pedestrian->driver observation and interaction are the primary factors in deciding what's safe.

2. Roads full of networked autonomous vehicles are a hack away from becoming hoards of hurtling tonnage.

In my opinion this is all a solution looking for a problem and we should know better than to make our roads so utterly hostile to our own kind.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on where you live, "can pass a standard driving test" isn't necessarily saying very much. In any case, I'm not talking about whether it "should be allowed to drive", I'm talking about the level of capability an autonomous car would have to reach in order to become a viable product.

No its not, that is kind of my point. It only needs to be better at driving than the average human to be technically viable. And yes, it may very well be allowed on Indian or Chinese roads before its allowed in America, but that's human fiction at work not demonstrable ability.

I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability. Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough, that you can build a profitable business around the unique service it can provide. That is much harder than simply passing a standard driving test.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an N of one but, I use either Uber or Lyft to and from work every day. People get used to it. I find it far more pleasant than a crowded and dirty bus or train. Even when the car is small and full, the car usually smells better, is cleaner and oddly feels like there are more defined boundaries than a bus or train seat when crowded. Everyone has their own door as well so there isn't as much jostling past and t…

If everyone took a Lyft or Uber or Grab to work, then the congestion would be unbearable. San Francisco's BART takes about 400,000 would-be passengers off the road daily. Mass transit remains the most viable method of transporting people over dense, multi-mile terrain. The last mile and "normal" metros like Memphis, Baltimore, or Cleveland, where it is not dense enough to justify a comprehensive subway/light rail sys…

I actually wonder about this. Is it a matter of most cars being mostly empty, or is it inherently impossible to match the mass transit capacity. If we look at it as passengers carried over space required and time spent, here's how I see it:

Rail mass transit does not as efficiently use the land it's on a occupancy basis (there's not always a train on a specific square foot of track). In peak times, cars are more efficient on a vehicle basis. According to BART system facts[1], there are 107 miles of track. There are 669 cars, seating for 72 in 448 of them with each being 70 feet (with 59 of them having an additional 5 feet for a cab), and seating for 64 in 230 cars[2] (with an indeterminate car length, so I'll use the smaller listed), for a total capacity of 46,976 seated people. BART states that all cars can hold over 200 people in a "crush" load, so we'll assume 200 as the theoretical maximum, and say BART can carry 133,000 people when at peak (crush) capacity, and over the 107 miles of track, that gives us a density of 1,250 people per linear track mile, but with only 8.3% track utilization at any one time.

Cars do not as efficiently pack people per vehicle usually, but can more efficiently use the roads on a per-vehicle basis. Assuming very heavy traffic which is not stop-and-go, so perhaps 35 miles an hour average (the same as BART), and a 4-lane highway (two each direction), if each car is allowing two car lengths between itself and the car in front (slow traffic), we have approximately 33% road utilization (or 25%, or 20% depending on what you think the average space between vehicles is). Since carpooling seems to be at about 10% currently carpooling[4] (ignoring that it may be different in certain arterial routes, as we are discussing), we have around 1.066 people per car[5] as a lower bound. With an average car length of 177.2 inches[6], or 14.77 feet, we can estimate the people per mile on the highway during this time as being 604 people per mile of 4-lane highway.

Interesting take-aways for me:

While 4-lane highways may take more room than rail (not sure the actual sizes here), they are also more versatile.

If the highway bogs down below 35 mph, it's then less than the average rate of BART, and we need to start computing people over time instead of just people over distance.

BART has much more room to increase track utilization, but there is likely unaccounted for overhead here on each train. Optimal usage at current speed is one train arriving immediately after the prior one leaving, at 35 mph exact speed and 20 second stops, for a train of six cars (?) and 425 feet, that would be cars 2.42 train lengths apart, and a utilization of 29%, or roughly a 4x increase over current rates, 5,000 people per track-mile.

Cars have much more room to increase vehicle utilization. If we replaced 50% of vehicles with full size vans transporting on average 7 people each and didn't touch road utilization, we would be at an overall average of 4 people per car, and 2600 people per highway mile. Interestingly, if we somehow moved towards a system where smaller vehicles picked up and shuttled people with small amounts of sharing to bus-stations where they were sorted into smaller buses (40 people) going specific area depots, and from those depots dispersed again to final destinations using individual cars with small amounts of sharing, we might easily surpass rail transit systems. averaging 20.5 people per vehicle, but with somewhat more area used should put us close to 10,000 people per highway mile.

Of course, there's a lot of assumptions in all the numbers, and some speculation in the possibilities, but I thought it was interesting to figure out. ;)

1: http://www.bart.gov/about/history/facts

2: I know the total car numbers don't add up. Complain to BART, it's their data.

3: (66970 feet + 695 feet)/(7 * miles * 5280 feet/mile) = (47125 feet)/(564960 feet) = 8.3%

4: https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf, table 1.

5: 105,476 drove alone, 13,917 carpooled, if we assume all carpooling was just two people per car, we get person to car density by (105,476+13,917/2)/105,476 = 1.066 people per car

6: https://www.reference.com/vehicles/average-length-car-2e8538...

7: 5280 feet/mile / 14.77 feet/car * 0.33 highway mile utilization = 117 cars at highway lane mile utilization. 117 cars * 1.066 people/car = 126 people per mile of highway lane. 4 lanes fives us 604 people per highway.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two kids. They need car seats. We often haul stuff between home and the in-laws. This makes perma-Ubering infeasible. We need a radically new car seat design, either: 1. Super portable and quick to install/remove, or 2. Built into the car, safe for all ages, easily extended/retracted.

1. is never happening. If you want a proper safe car seat for a 1-3 year old, it's going to weigh 30-40 lbs no matter what sintered pixie dust you build it from. And it has to be pretty huge since a small person has to fit almost inside it. Even the ones for babies, that people for some reason I can't fathom like to carry around in the supermarket, are actually also 20+ lbs, you've just left 15 lbs remaining in the c…

I don't have kids, but friends who do have strollers where the seat is a removable car seat.

Would Ubering with something like this work?

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#626

What I don't understand is if trains aren't completely automated, planes aren't completely automated, subways aren't completely automated, ships aren't completely automated, How are CARS supposed to be automated??

> trains aren't completely automated > subways aren't completely automated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_... > planes aren't completely automated https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

Many of which are still piloted by people on the ground.

And I can't take a flight without a pilot yet.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Toyota could probably do it more cheaply than Uber. I agree. The fact that autonomous cars will likely reduce ownership will put a squeeze on car companies, and it might make sense for them to branch into service areas, as they can get the cars at cost. I guarantee that for 10,000 Camrys purchased by Uber and 10,000 Camrys built and shuffled to a ride service division by Toyota, Toyota's ride-sharing division will…

I think that is suboptimal vertical integration. Hertz is a fleet buyer for a good reason; it doesn't want to be reliant on its Hertz Automotive subsidiary to meet a production quota. It doesn't want that capital expenditure. It wants to buy cars at volume and sell them as they depreciate.

> It doesn't want that capital expenditure.

Ah, but the car companies have already expended that capital. The problem here is they will have a lot of building capacity from all the factories they own, and possibly less to build with that capacity. There's nothing stopping them from buying extra needed capacity from another company, but in the meantime it may help them fill the lack of utilization they may see. At some point, some factories will need modernization as normal, and they can choose at that point to reduce factory capacity.

The point is that it's a possible strategy to get them from point A to point B when they've already banked heavily on certain future production trends if they've overestimated.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also: Private car ownership is going to fall off a cliff shortly after autonomous ride services arrive. Which probably means general demand for vehicles will fall off a cliff. I've seen this sentiment so many times now that I have to ask a serious question to anyone who echoes this sentiment: Do you own a personal car right now? If so, why? All of this... excitement over the transformations that self-driving vehicl…

I have to agree with you skepticism. Let's e.g. replace "car" with "apartment". Imagine an apartment where you pay a premium to have all the cooking, cleaning and maintenance done for you. This obviously exists today, yet >99% of people don't use it. I believe people like owning things, and using them to do stuff. This is a basic fact of being human. Probably goes right back to the stone age. I doubt autonomous cars…

The connection to ownership works for things you operate. If I do my own laundry I want a nice washing machine, and I'll shop for one, upgrade on features, etc. Same for kitchen knives.

I have a maid who does my laundry so I don't care about my washing machine anymore. I still cook so I want good knives, but if my maid were to start cooking I'd stop caring.

I don't own a car, but sometimes I rent one. And when I do I almost always pay 2-3x for a sports car because it's fun.

When I use Uber, I never pay for the upgrade to a nicer car. I'm just going to read or fiddle with my phone, so I don't care about the car at all.

I predict the exact same behavior for autonomous cars. And why would I pay $25k for a car when I can get the same thing for $1 a ride (and not have to worry about parking or maintenance or upgrades to new models).

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. is never happening. If you want a proper safe car seat for a 1-3 year old, it's going to weigh 30-40 lbs no matter what sintered pixie dust you build it from. And it has to be pretty huge since a small person has to fit almost inside it. Even the ones for babies, that people for some reason I can't fathom like to carry around in the supermarket, are actually also 20+ lbs, you've just left 15 lbs remaining in the c…

I don't have kids, but friends who do have strollers where the seat is a removable car seat. Would Ubering with something like this work?

Don't see why not. Just make sure they have accessible ISOFIX (UAS) connectors and it'd be very straightforward.

Re: Waymo: Google's self-driving car company

#630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No its not, that is kind of my point. It only needs to be better at driving than the average human to be technically viable. And yes, it may very well be allowed on Indian or Chinese roads before its allowed in America, but that's human fiction at work not demonstrable ability.

I'm not talking about technical viability! I'm talking about product viability . Can this hypothetical device be manufactured and sold for a profit? Can it be used, profitably, for some purpose, for which it will be cheaper or in some way preferable to existing solutions? It is not enough that this autonomous car can drive around the block without crashing; it has to be good enough, reliable enough, efficient enough,…

Yes of course it is enough, if that is your definition of 'viable product', that should be self-evident. It only needs to be better than a human at driving for it to be a viable product. Are you prepared to pay the insurance premium on a non-autonomous transport appliance in 10 years time ? I'm betting you won't.
Post reply on HN