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

California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#831

Post by __loam »

choppaface wrote: post #817
__loam wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo uses pretty small jaguar crossovers. Zoox uses suvs.

The Jaguar iPace is a full 4-door SUV, not a hatchback or a Rav4. Just because the rear hatch tapers down doesn't make the car smaller from a safety standpoint. Jaguar iPace: 4800lbs, 79inch wide, 183 inches long Pacifica: 4500lbs, 79inch wide, 204 inches long Toyota Highlander: 4400lbs, 76inches wide, 194 inches long Chevy Bolt: 3500lbs, 69inches wide, 163 inches long The iPace might be great for LA but for SF it's…

They look smaller than a lot of the suvs I see in the city while living here.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#832

Post by Dylan16807 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #826
Dylan16807 wrote: post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you even mean by motivation? If it's true (though it's probably a sensor error), it's perfectly reasonable to mention. And lying about it would be ridiculous. What scenario is there where you're worried about bad motivation here? It's not unrealistic for someone to like the idea.

It sounds promotional, having little other value. But the question wasn't answered; instead it was attacked - a good way to avoid answering a question. Oh well.

> But the question wasn't answered

That's because you asked a question with no valid answer.

Seriously, what would you accept as being an innocent response? Anything equivalent to "I thought it was neat" is apparently not good enough since that sentiment was already in the previous post.

If you want to accuse them of being a shill, just do it directly. (But only if you have a good enough reason to break the rule against doing so.) Don't do this roundabout "what's your motivation" thing where you implicitly reject the innocent motivation.

And why would it need to have "other value"?

> a good way to avoid answering

Since I'm the only one that responded, are you suggesting I'm in cahoots with them? Come on, dude.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#833

Post by superfrank »

fhub wrote: post #569
unshavedyak wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait till those are generally available. I'd go out more if i could have a nice night and not have to deal with coming home later. Hell i live about 1.5h from Seattle and i never go because it's just awful (to me) dealing with cars there. If i could get a cab all the way there and back? Oh man, amazing. Or even park and ride would be nice. Cities seem so much more approachable to me if i don't need to drive t…

The current ride pricing feels about 10-20% less than an Uber in SF - but I haven't really checked properly. So don't expect the rideshare product (Waymo One) to be a super cheap option.

Don't forget no pressure to tip your Waymo

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#834

Post by athrun »

edge17 wrote: post #810
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increasing flow often increases the number of cars on the road, particularly with dynamic routing apps, so the first assumption is invalid.

No problem, so what is your argument for utilizing a whole lane for a mode of transportation that consumes a significant public resource without providing much benefit?

100% agreed.

Car lanes in the city consume a significant public resource (space) and encourage negative externalities (noise, heat, air pollution, etc.). They should absolutely be replaced with more space efficient options: tram tracks & bike lanes.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#835

Post by ironmagma »

anticensor wrote: post #828
Avicebron wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could link them together to make it safer so one doesn't veer off the track, maybe get nicely furnished stations where people can switch over to another set of linked cars to get where they need to go. Imagine the possibilities!

At that point, we have just reinvented trains. Which is not a bad thing.

If you can sell America on trains, I don’t care what roundabout pathway you have to take to get there, I’m for it. If it’s just self driving cars on a dedicated roadway, fine by me.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#836

Post by ironmagma »

scythe wrote: post #359
paxys wrote: post #310

I had an epiphany about self driving recently late at night on the streets of San Francisco. It was a somewhat deserted part of town, and the roads were empty. There was a lone Cruise car chugging along and constantly stopping at red lights. The signals were so badly optimized that the car would be the only one waiting at a completely empty intersection for minutes at a time, only to be stopped again at the next one,…

>but tech will never ever be able to solve a social problem I don't know where this mantra came from but it definitely falls in the risible category of leftist rhetoric. Technology has already solved multiple social problems, most obviously the advent of telecommunications itself solving the problem of coordinating actions at a distance. But more embarrassingly, the solutions you propose in the following paragraph ar…

Isn’t every problem a social problem anyway?

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#837

Post by brewdad »

runarberg wrote: post #756
unshavedyak wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wait till those are generally available. I'd go out more if i could have a nice night and not have to deal with coming home later. Hell i live about 1.5h from Seattle and i never go because it's just awful (to me) dealing with cars there. If i could get a cab all the way there and back? Oh man, amazing. Or even park and ride would be nice. Cities seem so much more approachable to me if i don't need to drive t…

If feel like Seattle needs an all day and weekend Sounder service, more than it needs self driving robo-taxis. 1.5 hours away you might be at the edge or beyond Sounder reach so this may not help you much unless you get a local bus to your closest station, but you can probably still just drive to your closest station and not having to have to deal with driving in the city. If the Sounder would run like the ferries do…

While we’re at it, could we get at least one late night/overnight Amtrak Cascades train? I’d go to a lot more Mariners or Kraken games if it didn’t mean choosing between the hassle of driving and parking or needing a hotel room after the game. If sports aren’t your thing substitute any activity that goes beyond 6pm.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#838

Post by kbos87 »

AustinDev wrote: post #727
TuringNYC wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can any engineers in the field comment on whether the [very cool!] Waymo vs Cruise performance anecdotes being discussed here would have been the result of Google's millimeter-level scanning of SF? Or is it just better algos only? Or both?

Cruise vehicles have sufficient sensor payloads to produce a 'milimeter-level scanning of SF' with many fewer hours than they've been on the road there. I doubt that provides the biggest difference. It's all down the software at this point. Especially because they're not trying to do anything crazy like vision only.

We keep hearing this is crazy, but is there evidence to back that up? At this point with hundreds of thousands of Tesla vehicles logging millions of miles a month, I feel like we’d be hearing non-stop reports of destruction on the highways if it really is as crazy as the average HN reader has been led to believe.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#839

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Symbiote wrote: post #770
runarberg wrote: post #756

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If feel like Seattle needs an all day and weekend Sounder service, more than it needs self driving robo-taxis. 1.5 hours away you might be at the edge or beyond Sounder reach so this may not help you much unless you get a local bus to your closest station, but you can probably still just drive to your closest station and not having to have to deal with driving in the city. If the Sounder would run like the ferries do…

I am staring aghast with European eyes at a city of 4 million people where the commuter rail doesn't run outside peak hours. How do you get home if you go out for a couple of drinks with colleagues, or stay late for a call? You shouldn't be asking for a couple of trains between 8pm and midnight. They should be every half hour, or more! Midnight until 6am on Saturday and Sunday could be every hour or two. (I live in C…

Ya, nothing in the states is set up for that outside of maybe NYC. We just grew our urban planning post war based on cars. It is absolute insanity. Seattle is even considered one of the better cities for public transit.

Re: California suspends Cruise's autonomous vehicle deployment

#840

Post by shiroiuma »

BytesAndGears wrote: post #556
minwcnt5 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pure fantasy to think public transit can replace all/most car trips in American cities, even in most of SF. It's not just a matter of "fix service", it's you need to completely rebuild the city with 5-10x the population density.

Living in a European city and relying 100% on public transit and walking, with occasional biking for longer distances, it’s easy. It does not require 5-10x the population density, maybe just 2-3x, at least compared to San Francisco (which is already somewhat dense in parts). It is not a major shift in lifestyle easier. The tallest buildings in some cities in the Netherlands are 2-3 stories, and those cities still hav…

This is easier said than done. Making the density 2-3x is still a huge undertaking. With suburbs with single-family homes, this means bulldozing half of it and somehow redrawing all the property lines so the lots are 1/2 - 1/3 as large and building new houses within the new lots. You can't just magically take a subdivision full of McMansions and somehow increase density 2-3x, unless all those houses take in boarders.

Also, SF is still pretty unique compared to most American cities. So you might be able to do this stuff in SF, but not so much in places like Houston.

Post reply on HN