6 ms·

California lets self-driving startup Zoox offer autonomous rides

52 points by T-A 8y ago

HillaryBriss 8y ago
article points out that 62 companies are licensed to test self-driving cars in California currently. (testing is not the same as offering autonomous rides.) so, if i judge by analogy to what's happened in the human-driven space (e.g. Uber, Lyft, and ? i don't even know who else), i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away.
- speedplane 8y ago
  > i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away. Don't think you have to go out on a limb to say that. In the early 20th century there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US, but only three really survived. The low chances of success are already pretty well understood.
- Fricken 8y ago
  The list includes most of the world's major automakers, a bunch of tier 1s, several major chipmakers, and Apple. Things would have to get pretty bad for all but 2 to go away. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permit https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permi...
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    They will all license from the winner of the autonomous race. Regulation will come at them fast as failure modes get discovered. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd get faa level of certification required within the following two decade. That will strangle newcomers and stragglers, cementing the working solution in the market
    - ghaff 8y ago
      >faa level of certification required within the following two decade If that's the case (and I'm not saying it isn't), you then probably need maintenance and update processes on par with commercial aviation. And that probably implies certified organizations renting/leasing vehicles only. And, at that point, you're probably cheaper just to have a minimum wage human driver. Mainstream self-driving implies that people can buy cars at a similar price point that they can today and maintain them in the same loosey goosey way that many people also do today.
      - LoSboccacc 8y ago
        Well yes, it is certainly going to be a retirement, a even just a dirty sensor is going to be a showstopper issue or a security risk, so I imagine those vehicles are going to need significant maintenance
  - HillaryBriss 8y ago
    ah. good point. thank you. that list contains lots and lots of established companies which definitely aren't going away. i stand corrected. not sure how long "Phantom AI" will be around though ...
- randomacct3847 8y ago
  well the reason there’s only Uber and Lyft is because there are significant barriers to entry into ridesharing at this point. Yes, anyone could launch an Uber-like app fairly easily, but the barrier to entry is the supply of drivers. You wouldn’t be able to onboard enough fast enough to create a service with low ETAs that would be competitive with either in a mature market unless you had a ton of capital to incentivize them to drive for you with bonuses. With self driving you don’t necessarily have a supply issue assuming you can deploy as many vehicles as you need in a market to achieve ETAs on par with or lower than Uber/Lyft. It’s all going to come down to ETAs, price, and marketing. I don’t think there will be 60 services in a single market but I can see more than the 2 today operating successfully.
  - toast0 8y ago
    I think the barrier to entry in unlicensed taxis is that there are two large companies currently committed to losing money doing it. Attracting drivers may be hard, but it's not zero sum; drivers can be and are active in Uber and Lyft simultaneously, it's not inconceivable to swap one of those for a different app or add a third. But it would need to be compelling in some way, preferably a not so monetary way, because a race to the bottom doesn't usually benefit a small company.
fergie 8y ago
"the robot cars will not be unleashed without human oversight. Regulators are requiring that a backup test driver remain in the driver’s seat to take over if necessary. Zoox is also not allowed to charge passengers, keeping the prospect of a profitable business model elusive."
- Fricken 8y ago
  There is another permit for fully driverless operations, which California introduced in April this year. Waymo got their fully driverless operators permit in late October, and to my knowledge they're the only company to even apply for it.
  - speedplane 8y ago
    Waymo is the only driverless car company that I even remotely trust. I went to a conference where Uber was presenting, two months before the incident where they killed a pedestrian. Their entire presentation focused on providing a public service to improve safety. It was so over the top on feel-good-make-the-world-a-better-safe-place, you couldn't believe a word of it. If they really cared about safety, they would be adding safety features to cars already operated by humans (e.g., automatic breaking, warnings when you veer out of your lane, cameras, etc). They wouldn't try to take the giant step of removing the human. Their presentation was such BS, that it was clear they couldn't be trusted. Then two months later, it was confirmed.
    - mecklenberg 8y ago
      Zoox presentation in the NeurIPS Intelligent Transportation Systems workshop was similarly cringeworthy. First half was them going over the numbers of auto fatalities worldwide and how they should be eliminated, followed by very little information on how they would even come close to human level performance on the task.
      - Fricken 8y ago
        That describes everybody's safety talks and voluntary safety reports, including Waymo's. They all spout the same platitudes.
CPLX 8y ago
My favorite way to figure out if I’m looking at a driverless car is to look and see if there’s a driver in it.
- balfirevic 8y ago
  The article is not about driverless cars, is it?
- Shivetya 8y ago
  but hasn't it been shown that other drivers are more comfortable if they see a driver? I keep remembering back to Total Recall's Johnny Cab. Surely it will be legislated that other than not having an obvious driver autonomous cars should have some visible identification that they are indeed autonomous.

52 points by T-A 8y ago

article points out that 62 companies are licensed to test self-driving cars in California currently. (testing is not the same as offering autonomous rides.) so, if i judge by analogy to what's happened in the human-driven space (e.g. Uber, Lyft, and ? i don't even know who else), i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away.

speedplane 8y ago
> i'll go out on a limb and say that roughly 60 of these 62 will eventually just go away. Don't think you have to go out on a limb to say that. In the early 20th century there were hundreds of car manufacturers in the US, but only three really survived. The low chances of success are already pretty well understood.
Fricken 8y ago
The list includes most of the world's major automakers, a bunch of tier 1s, several major chipmakers, and Apple. Things would have to get pretty bad for all but 2 to go away. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permit https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/permi...
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  They will all license from the winner of the autonomous race. Regulation will come at them fast as failure modes get discovered. Wouldn't surprise me if they'd get faa level of certification required within the following two decade. That will strangle newcomers and stragglers, cementing the working solution in the market
  - ghaff 8y ago
    >faa level of certification required within the following two decade If that's the case (and I'm not saying it isn't), you then probably need maintenance and update processes on par with commercial aviation. And that probably implies certified organizations renting/leasing vehicles only. And, at that point, you're probably cheaper just to have a minimum wage human driver. Mainstream self-driving implies that people can buy cars at a similar price point that they can today and maintain them in the same loosey goosey way that many people also do today.
    - LoSboccacc 8y ago
      Well yes, it is certainly going to be a retirement, a even just a dirty sensor is going to be a showstopper issue or a security risk, so I imagine those vehicles are going to need significant maintenance
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  ah. good point. thank you. that list contains lots and lots of established companies which definitely aren't going away. i stand corrected. not sure how long "Phantom AI" will be around though ...
randomacct3847 8y ago
well the reason there’s only Uber and Lyft is because there are significant barriers to entry into ridesharing at this point. Yes, anyone could launch an Uber-like app fairly easily, but the barrier to entry is the supply of drivers. You wouldn’t be able to onboard enough fast enough to create a service with low ETAs that would be competitive with either in a mature market unless you had a ton of capital to incentivize them to drive for you with bonuses. With self driving you don’t necessarily have a supply issue assuming you can deploy as many vehicles as you need in a market to achieve ETAs on par with or lower than Uber/Lyft. It’s all going to come down to ETAs, price, and marketing. I don’t think there will be 60 services in a single market but I can see more than the 2 today operating successfully.
- toast0 8y ago
  I think the barrier to entry in unlicensed taxis is that there are two large companies currently committed to losing money doing it. Attracting drivers may be hard, but it's not zero sum; drivers can be and are active in Uber and Lyft simultaneously, it's not inconceivable to swap one of those for a different app or add a third. But it would need to be compelling in some way, preferably a not so monetary way, because a race to the bottom doesn't usually benefit a small company.

fergie 8y ago

"the robot cars will not be unleashed without human oversight. Regulators are requiring that a backup test driver remain in the driver’s seat to take over if necessary. Zoox is also not allowed to charge passengers, keeping the prospect of a profitable business model elusive."

Fricken 8y ago
There is another permit for fully driverless operations, which California introduced in April this year. Waymo got their fully driverless operators permit in late October, and to my knowledge they're the only company to even apply for it.
- speedplane 8y ago
  Waymo is the only driverless car company that I even remotely trust. I went to a conference where Uber was presenting, two months before the incident where they killed a pedestrian. Their entire presentation focused on providing a public service to improve safety. It was so over the top on feel-good-make-the-world-a-better-safe-place, you couldn't believe a word of it. If they really cared about safety, they would be adding safety features to cars already operated by humans (e.g., automatic breaking, warnings when you veer out of your lane, cameras, etc). They wouldn't try to take the giant step of removing the human. Their presentation was such BS, that it was clear they couldn't be trusted. Then two months later, it was confirmed.
  - mecklenberg 8y ago
    Zoox presentation in the NeurIPS Intelligent Transportation Systems workshop was similarly cringeworthy. First half was them going over the numbers of auto fatalities worldwide and how they should be eliminated, followed by very little information on how they would even come close to human level performance on the task.
    - Fricken 8y ago
      That describes everybody's safety talks and voluntary safety reports, including Waymo's. They all spout the same platitudes.

CPLX 8y ago

My favorite way to figure out if I’m looking at a driverless car is to look and see if there’s a driver in it.

balfirevic 8y ago
The article is not about driverless cars, is it?
Shivetya 8y ago
but hasn't it been shown that other drivers are more comfortable if they see a driver? I keep remembering back to Total Recall's Johnny Cab. Surely it will be legislated that other than not having an obvious driver autonomous cars should have some visible identification that they are indeed autonomous.