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

The dream of driverless cars is dying

spectator.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#91

Post by jexah »

marcosdumay wrote: post #70
ghaff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why anyone would say the "dream" is dying. If anything is dying, it's unrealistic hopes that fully autonomous vehicles will be widespread and dirt cheap to be driven around in by the end of this decade. I suspect the hype's been fueled by--in addition to the usual suspects--the growth of young professionals in urban areas who have this vision of never having to own a car and being driven around everywher…

> For that to be a reality... Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. What you describe already exists.

I don't know man, I would pay $500 a week in Uber if I used it to travel to and from work, let alone anywhere else.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#92

Post by nradov »

amelius wrote: post #35
Symbiote wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A huge benefit was people without a license being able to use the car alone.

Ok, how about remote-controls :) Like where you have a control-center with trained drivers who take over in case of problem-situations.

Construction zones also occur in areas without good cellular data coverage.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#93

Post by throw2016 »

There have literally been hundreds of threads advocating self driving cars saying it's here and now, max 10 years, and rubbishing anyone advocating caution.

Since the hype and exuberance was entirely self created, how can anyone else be blamed? This is like blaming others for taking you seriously.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#94

Post by adrianmonk »

> While there is no doubting the scale of this industry, with billions being invested every year, none of the OEMs has yet made a penny from selling a driverless car. This money, benefiting these exhibitors, is therefore a punt, a high-stakes bet there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

For OEMs, I think it's less about a pot of gold and more of a defensive move. They're willing to throw money at trying to mitigate a huge business risk.

These companies might not know (or even have an opinion on) how close the leaders like Waymo are to making it work. But they know that, if it does work, a new era will begin when nobody will be able to sell a car without it.

And it's almost moot whether they believe it will work. They're protected as long as they're putting sufficient resources into it that they stay roughly as far along as others.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#95

Post by mmt »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #80
marcosdumay wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For that to be a reality... Those on demand trip services (Uber, Lyft, etc) are already cheaper than owning a car. What you describe already exists.

Really? For a family of 4 or 5? Does lift even have car seats for children? We still need a minivan, and we pay 300 a month + gas when our car isn't paid for (which it is). We generally use used cars that are a decade old to save money. How is uber cheaper?

> For a family of 4 or 5?

Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes).

Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#96

Post by gremlinsinc »

mmt wrote: post #95
gremlinsinc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? For a family of 4 or 5? Does lift even have car seats for children? We still need a minivan, and we pay 300 a month + gas when our car isn't paid for (which it is). We generally use used cars that are a decade old to save money. How is uber cheaper?

> For a family of 4 or 5? Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes). Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.

I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more for rides if they're going to continue using real drivers.

The real disruption will be when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan... pay $200/family member/month to Ford, get unlimited self-driving wherever anyone in the family is going. No need for insurance/etc... gas included.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#97

Post by bobwaycott »

mannykannot wrote: post #58
bobwaycott wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t perception necessary for driving?

It is not sufficient.

The comment to which I replied has been edited. Originally, it said ML & DNNs are neither necessary nor sufficient for driving, then proceeded to say they are only used for perception--hence my question that perception was necessary for driving (but obviously not sufficient).

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#98

Post by mmt »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #96
mmt wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a family of 4 or 5? Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes). Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.

I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more fo…

> Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single

That's an easy one.. for the same reason they assume everyone is a young, urban, technical professional living in a major tech hub.

I recall this being a source of criticism (though admittedly not recently) about the problems startups are solving being skewed toward the problems the above people (the same ones doing the solving) tend to have.

> (and always will be)

I'm not sure that's quite true, at least not in the sense that of individuals.

However, they may assume it of the population within a certain location, such as that urban tech hub in which they live, if the individuals who do form >=3 families move away to the suburbs, and are replaced by single individuals. This seems to happen in US cities.

> when car companies instead of selling cars, simply sell memberships to a car sharing plan

What's their incentive? Car-share already exists for non-self-driving cars, but through third parties. It's quite expensive.

> get unlimited self-driving

That seems a particularly unattractive option for the provide, as well as being political dynamite.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#99

Post by ghaff »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #96
mmt wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a family of 4 or 5? Presumably for the "young, urban professionals" the GP referred to, which I'd expect are, at most, a family of 2 (in the GP commenter's eyes). Even given this assumption, even that may be debatable, since it assumes the Uber/Lyft model is sustainable without self-driving cars.

I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more fo…

Seems more likely to be a membership in the 50 cents to $1 per mile range which is what it currently costs to operate a car (including for any deadheading). Not sure why anyone would offer for a fixed fee unless it was for a very high number.

Re: The dream of driverless cars is dying

#100

Post by mmt »

ghaff wrote: post #99
gremlinsinc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got a wife, kid and one on the way, and even just us 3, I think uber/lyft wouldn't work. Why do a lot of people on HN assume everyone is single(and always will be), or a family I can't wait for self-driving tech, I'll probably buy it when it hits used car lots, though. I'm hoping by 2030 it'll be real. I don't think uber/lyft can sustain more than 4-5 more years on investors alone, without charging a LOT more fo…

Seems more likely to be a membership in the 50 cents to $1 per mile range which is what it currently costs to operate a car (including for any deadheading). Not sure why anyone would offer for a fixed fee unless it was for a very high number.

I suspect the assumption is that this cost will go down if insurance/liability (i.e. injury and property damage) costs are drastically reduced by self-driving cars and fuel and maintenance costs are also reduced by all-electric drivetrains.

Still, $200 seems far-fetched in light of the average American 1200 miles monthly. At under $.17/mi (not counting deadheading), that might not even cover depreciation/capital cost.

Post reply on HN