5 ms·
What cities? Article light on any details
by savrajsingh 9y ago
What cities? Article light on any details
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThis article is actually just about them buying the cars. But currently their service operates in a small area in Arizona... A state chosen because they decided not to require Waymo to disclose safety statistics that other states like California require of self-driving cars.
- robkop 9y agoWaymo's "on the road" page [0] says that they're also currently testing in Mountain View, CA, Austin, TX and Kirkland, WA. Their early rider program is only in Phoenix AFAIK. [0]: https://waymo.com/ontheroad/ https://waymo.com/ontheroad/
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoThat's correct, they are testing in those cities, but AFAIK, only specially trained Waymo contractors are involved in those locations who can intervene during a failure. (Some parts of) Phoenix is the only place they're currently allowing passengers, where they conveniently, do not need to disclose any information about their safety record.
- dmix 9y agoThey mentioned "25 cities" in the article though. I wonder when they'll release the complete list. > Takeaway number two: You may come in contact with these cars sooner than you think, especially if you live in one of the 25 cities where Waymo is currently testing the tech.
- rwmj 9y agoIf someone is familiar with the US, are these cities all mainly wide freeway, low traffic? Or do they include cities with difficult, narrow, busy streets and also country lanes?
- maxyme 9y agoLast I heard the only place they are currently truly driverless is Chandler, AZ. A suburb of Phoenix. It has wide quiet roads and large freeways (I don't think they autonomously drive on there, always have seen a driver). Also very clean road lines and almost no weather.
- jtmcmc 9y agoalso chosen because chandler az has essentially ideal driving conditions. they have been for years now operating in ca which does require them to disclose safety statistics
- 762236 9y agoDoes CA require reporting handoffs to remote drivers?
- jtmcmc 9y agoI believe they require a disengagement rate. I am not sure if that would extend to remote drivers or not.
- joshuamorton 9y agoI don't believe CA allows remote drivers at all. That said, Waymo did test the fireflies (the little bubble cars) pretty extensively in the MTV area, and I believe those had no driver at all, either safety or remote. But they also weren't classified as (basically) golf carts and not motor vehicles.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoMy understanding was that Google was required to retrofit the fireflies with driving controls: https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-steering-wheel-or-pedals-not-so-fast-california-says/ https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/08/21/a-car-without-a-stee... Here's Google's own statement about them having safety drivers [2015]: https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e https://plus.google.com/+SelfDrivingCar/posts/3NuRpigxp4e I do not believe what Waymo is launching in Arizona is legal in California.
- joshuamorton 9y agoYou may indeed be right about the fireflies. And yeah, it's very clear that waymo is interested in moving towards full autonomy faster than the California legislature is, and so it's making advances in areas where such things are allowed. Elsewhere you said the move to AZ was because of the difference in reporting required. While I guess technically true, I think that the real answer is broader. What waymo wants to do isn't legal at all in CA. The looser reporting required is just gravy on the ability to actually test the cars.
- danmaz74 9y agoOther articles I read talked about Phoenix, but I can't cite the source.