4 ms·

An L5 self driving car is decades away. The needle hasn't moved on that one. Nothing we have currently moves closer to that. Just doing more of the same of the

• p1esk 3y ago
  Don't we have self-driving cars operating as taxicabs today in SF?
  • fragmede 3y ago
    Cruise is currently operating self-driving "taxi" service between the hours of 9pm and 5:30 am throughout the city to members of the general public who've waited on the wait-list. Waymo is too, in Phoenix, and supposedly SF too, but I don't know anybody personally of the general public in SF that has ridden one.
    • kortilla 3y ago
      So yes, we have L5 driving. The cars don’t have drivers, regardless of some time restrictions.
      • Dylan16807 3y ago
        Level 5 means it can do anything a human can. They're level 4 with very severe location and weather limits.
        • chx 3y ago
          Yes. Creating a self driving car which can navigate a dark, rainy parking lot is something we do not know how. Not even in theory. You can't just throw more compute at it. You can't go from a Vickers Type 464 bomb -- one of the most complex bombs in WW II -- to the "Little Boy" by just putting more explosives in there.
          • Dylan16807 3y ago
            I don't know if I agree with that particular example. You only need to go 3-5mph in a dark, rainy parking lot.
          • Retric 3y ago
            You have the definition slightly wrong. Level 5 driving just means it can drive a child or blind person around who can’t take over in an emergency. That’s the difference between Little Boy and a Moab. However current level 5 cars aren’t something a consumer would buy. A car that refuses to drive in 99% of situations isn’t marketable. The minimum threshold for that might be a car that can only drive in Hawaii, not a large enough market to pay for R&D, but still plenty use for a blind person living in the area.
            • Dylan16807 3y ago
              > Level 5 driving just means it can drive a child or blind person around who can’t take over in an emergency. No, that's what level 4 means. Level 3 can rely on having a driver to switch to, level 4 can't. The difference between 4 and 5 is that 4 can park and give up under arbitrary circumstances, while 5 has to be able to keep going almost always.
              • Retric 3y ago
                Level 4 is steering wheel mandatory. Level 5 is steering wheel optional. Geofencing is part of the criteria, but a car that can only drive in the USA but can’t drive in Europe still qualifies as level 5. Similarly a car that refuses to drive in a blizzard but can do everything else is level 5. Being able to drive at night or moderate rain is mandatory however. That said, there is plenty of slightly different definitions thrown about. I am sure someone is going to argue a car needs to be able to drive in any country to qualify etc etc. Edit: To be clear existing self driving taxi services aren’t level 5 services with existing restrictions, but the car is physically capable of much more than it’s being used for. It can operate at night and in the rain etc they are however being extremely cautious.
        • kortilla 3y ago
          Humans can’t do everything humans can. What a dumb nebulous definition.
• xyproto 3y ago
  If a city banned all manually driven cars and allowed only self driving cars, the number of car-related deaths would drop to almost nothing. Goods could also be transported more efficiently. The technology to achive this exists right now, L5 or not. The only thing stopping citites from doing this is the cost that inhabitants will have in connection with selling or switching our their car. And all the complaining. But lives would be saved, and the city would be safer and more efficient.
  • Dylan16807 3y ago
    I'm not sure how relevant that argument is. You could have said the same thing 40 years ago.
    • xyproto 3y ago
      No. Self driving cars are better now. In addition to this, Cities are more open to changing which rules cars should follow. The effects of climate change are more visible, and the effects of polluted air are better known.
  • pjerem 3y ago
    Cities will not need to do that. In Europe they are gradually banning cars as a whole from city centers an you are right, it saves lives. And it also makes those cities more livable. When I say gradually, it's an euphemism, it's an _extremely_ slow process, but it's the global tendency here.
    • choeger 3y ago
      They aren't banning cars. They're requiring special permits. That's a difference. In effect, they're banning cars for the masses and keep them for a small group (the wealthy, all sorts of delivery drivers, officials).
      • ArnoVW 3y ago
        you're both right. generally what's happening is a combination of: * making pedestrian zones (i.e. banning) * deny access to certain types / times (no vans, no old cars, etc.. i.e. also banning) * reducing roads (i.e. 2 > 1 lane, thus reducing attractivity) * raising driving prices (the congestion / air quality certificates you mention) * reducing access to parking (remove places, make them more expensive, etc) .. all the while increasing alternatives (i.e. use those reduced lanes for bikes)