4 ms·

Perhaps this somewhat publicly unsupported rollout will serve to highlight the as yet unsolved problems with self driving in a city environment, and the rest of

Perhaps this somewhat publicly unsupported rollout will serve to highlight the as yet unsolved problems with self driving in a city environment, and the rest of the world can take note and act accordingly. Unfortunately of course it is the local residents who will have to suffer.

soligern 3y ago
Suffer what? A traffic jam on some day in a major city? That’s a pathetic bar to set for what a city can stomach with what well running autonomous taxis can mean for the future. Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc.
- flextheruler 3y ago
  Right tell that to the people who have crashed and been horribly mutilated or killed from unexpected traffic jams or ambulances or fire trucks that can’t get through because of unexpected traffic. It’s not like regular traffic where everyone knows this part of the road is jammed up at this specific time range if the cars are just locking up in random areas.
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    People have been killed for decades by traffic jam negligence. Another freeloader making an entire jam is just pointing out how wrong it is to let dangerous private property have unlimited use of public streets for free.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Fwiw I feel much safer as a biker and pedestrian around Waymo cars compared to typical drivers in San Francisco. They always yield in a reasonable way to bikers, they are never suddenly swerving to the right without signaling, etc.
- footy 3y ago
  > Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc. or we could just use a train
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Yeah generally relying on massive cultural change to accomplish your policy goals is going to be a loser. Most people dislike trains and are honestly afraid of them (unreasonably so) in cities.
Gibbon1 3y ago
I remember an essay on that from a transportation guy back during the first hype wave of self driving cars. He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. Rail and light rail excel in that. And loading usually doesn't disturb other traffic. Busses are worse but better than private cars. Taxi's are worse than private cars. He thought self driving cars will be the worst of all. Low passengers per hour, a lot of empty trips, and highly disrupting in high traffic areas.
- bgirard 3y ago
  > He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. That's not really a fair metric. Taking rail requires me to take a bus at each end and increases my journey length considerably. I would be boosting the passenger per hour of 3 vehicles despite a worse experience? I think metrics should capture the full cost and experience of the system. Having someone take transit for an 10% longer journey can be worthwhile, having someone take transit for 300% longer journey to save traffic might not be worthwhile if it reduces their labor output to society considerably.
  - fatfingerd 3y ago
    It's really a planning discussion not a personal one. Planners where I lived chose rail as well as streets and I get reliable transport by rail or the Schroedinger street choice.
  - user_named 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - signatoremo 3y ago
      Passengers will choose alternative options if it isn’t convenient enough. So yes it is important to take personal experience into account. Also theoretical throughput is different than the real one. A380’s CASM (cost per available seat mile) is awesome when it can be loaded in full, except that it isn’t usually the case. The program is doomed as the result.

soligern 3y ago

Suffer what? A traffic jam on some day in a major city? That’s a pathetic bar to set for what a city can stomach with what well running autonomous taxis can mean for the future. Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc.

flextheruler 3y ago
Right tell that to the people who have crashed and been horribly mutilated or killed from unexpected traffic jams or ambulances or fire trucks that can’t get through because of unexpected traffic. It’s not like regular traffic where everyone knows this part of the road is jammed up at this specific time range if the cars are just locking up in random areas.
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  People have been killed for decades by traffic jam negligence. Another freeloader making an entire jam is just pointing out how wrong it is to let dangerous private property have unlimited use of public streets for free.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Fwiw I feel much safer as a biker and pedestrian around Waymo cars compared to typical drivers in San Francisco. They always yield in a reasonable way to bikers, they are never suddenly swerving to the right without signaling, etc.
footy 3y ago
> Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc. or we could just use a train
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Yeah generally relying on massive cultural change to accomplish your policy goals is going to be a loser. Most people dislike trains and are honestly afraid of them (unreasonably so) in cities.

Gibbon1 3y ago

I remember an essay on that from a transportation guy back during the first hype wave of self driving cars. He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. Rail and light rail excel in that. And loading usually doesn't disturb other traffic. Busses are worse but better than private cars. Taxi's are worse than private cars. He thought self driving cars will be the worst of all. Low passengers per hour, a lot of empty trips, and highly disrupting in high traffic areas.

bgirard 3y ago
> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour. That's not really a fair metric. Taking rail requires me to take a bus at each end and increases my journey length considerably. I would be boosting the passenger per hour of 3 vehicles despite a worse experience? I think metrics should capture the full cost and experience of the system. Having someone take transit for an 10% longer journey can be worthwhile, having someone take transit for 300% longer journey to save traffic might not be worthwhile if it reduces their labor output to society considerably.
- fatfingerd 3y ago
  It's really a planning discussion not a personal one. Planners where I lived chose rail as well as streets and I get reliable transport by rail or the Schroedinger street choice.
- user_named 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - signatoremo 3y ago
    Passengers will choose alternative options if it isn’t convenient enough. So yes it is important to take personal experience into account. Also theoretical throughput is different than the real one. A380’s CASM (cost per available seat mile) is awesome when it can be loaded in full, except that it isn’t usually the case. The program is doomed as the result.