3 ms·

Isn't the idea that the cost of the car would go down over time with economies of scale while providing a safer means of transport? Not saying that's the curren

Isn't the idea that the cost of the car would go down over time with economies of scale while providing a safer means of transport? Not saying that's the current reality, but that's the goal isn't it?

ska 3y ago
>Isn't the idea that ... Sure, in the sense that's the idea behind lots of things. But there is an awful lot of handwaving about how to concretely get there. The overall goal of using self-driving technology to reduce human deaths and injuries is clearly admirable. What's less clear is a) if it is technologically achievable and b) if any of the current efforts are scaled appropriately to get there over a decade or two. The early self-driving hype was pretty depressing to behold. It was obviously an Apollo sized or bigger effort, and people were actually getting traction with the laughable idea that we'd "get there" in 2-3 years with a few 10k of engineers (or less, I'm estimating conservatively).
- bdsa 3y ago
  How many people were involved in engineering in the Apollo program?
  - ska 3y ago
    400-500k total staff by some estimates, it's a little hard to know where to draw the lines, and a little hard to do apples-to-apples. Also about 5% total GDP applied which is crucial.
- FullyFunctional 3y ago
  Exactly this. It is still unclear if this is even possible to do, which means betting the company (GM and Tesla) on it is irresponsible. Of the current efforts, the only that I have heard very positive things about is Waymo.
dvt 3y ago
> while providing a safer means of transport Cars are safer than they've ever been; looking at some statistics, we have halved the fatality rates since 1980. So I'm not exactly sure claiming "it's safer" is really much of a selling point. GP is correct that the money has never really made sense, other than in the context of logistics (automating semi trucks maybe?). Given that even the safest of transport modes (say, the metro in London or Paris) still needs to have a conductor (for potential emergencies), it's hard to see the fully driverless dream ever materializing.
- david-gpu 3y ago
  > Cars are safer than they've ever been Not if you are outside the car. Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities have increased steadily in the US over the past ten years [0] due to ever increasing car sizes and speeds [1]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal/trends.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal/trends.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...
- Tiktaalik 3y ago
  Safer for whom? Pedestrian fatality rates have exploded upward in recent years in the united states, at the highest rates in 41 years. up 77% since 2010. Cars are inherently unsafe but we refuse to disengage from this failed model despite the solutions (ie. public transit) being right there for decades and decades. Self driving public transport in contrast is a solved problem. Vancouver's driverless Skytrain has been serving customers since the early 1980s (as you say, requiring a driver only in the rare exception of some emergency or technical malfunction).
- Symbiote 3y ago
  Autonomous metro trains in some cities don't have a conductor. Copenhagen's metro doesn't, for example. London's system is particularly old and deep, and lacks space for emergency walkways.
rented_mule 3y ago
The price will definitely come down. But not enough for taxi/ride-share companies. Many drivers for ride-share companies make less than nothing once you account for consumables, maintenance, and depreciation of their vehicles. That last one is often left out of the discussion. Many such drivers stop being drivers when their cars wear out because they don't make enough to pay off a car loan before the car wears out. In many cases, this means the companies are getting the cars at below cost with drivers thrown in for free. The premium for self driving hardware isn't likely to be negative anytime soon. Self-driving eliminates the drivers and therefore the people providing part of the cost of the cars. There are certainly exceptions, often well publicized by the companies, of drivers who figure out how to exploit the algorithms to make decent money. But when too many figure this out, the companies adjust the algorithms to contain costs, leading right back to the above.

ska 3y ago

>Isn't the idea that ... Sure, in the sense that's the idea behind lots of things. But there is an awful lot of handwaving about how to concretely get there. The overall goal of using self-driving technology to reduce human deaths and injuries is clearly admirable. What's less clear is a) if it is technologically achievable and b) if any of the current efforts are scaled appropriately to get there over a decade or two. The early self-driving hype was pretty depressing to behold. It was obviously an Apollo sized or bigger effort, and people were actually getting traction with the laughable idea that we'd "get there" in 2-3 years with a few 10k of engineers (or less, I'm estimating conservatively).

bdsa 3y ago
How many people were involved in engineering in the Apollo program?
- ska 3y ago
  400-500k total staff by some estimates, it's a little hard to know where to draw the lines, and a little hard to do apples-to-apples. Also about 5% total GDP applied which is crucial.
FullyFunctional 3y ago
Exactly this. It is still unclear if this is even possible to do, which means betting the company (GM and Tesla) on it is irresponsible. Of the current efforts, the only that I have heard very positive things about is Waymo.

dvt 3y ago

> while providing a safer means of transport Cars are safer than they've ever been; looking at some statistics, we have halved the fatality rates since 1980. So I'm not exactly sure claiming "it's safer" is really much of a selling point. GP is correct that the money has never really made sense, other than in the context of logistics (automating semi trucks maybe?). Given that even the safest of transport modes (say, the metro in London or Paris) still needs to have a conductor (for potential emergencies), it's hard to see the fully driverless dream ever materializing.

david-gpu 3y ago
> Cars are safer than they've ever been Not if you are outside the car. Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities have increased steadily in the US over the past ten years [0] due to ever increasing car sizes and speeds [1]. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal/trends.html https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal/trends.html [1] https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/pedestrian_safety/i...
Tiktaalik 3y ago
Safer for whom? Pedestrian fatality rates have exploded upward in recent years in the united states, at the highest rates in 41 years. up 77% since 2010. Cars are inherently unsafe but we refuse to disengage from this failed model despite the solutions (ie. public transit) being right there for decades and decades. Self driving public transport in contrast is a solved problem. Vancouver's driverless Skytrain has been serving customers since the early 1980s (as you say, requiring a driver only in the rare exception of some emergency or technical malfunction).
Symbiote 3y ago
Autonomous metro trains in some cities don't have a conductor. Copenhagen's metro doesn't, for example. London's system is particularly old and deep, and lacks space for emergency walkways.

rented_mule 3y ago

The price will definitely come down. But not enough for taxi/ride-share companies. Many drivers for ride-share companies make less than nothing once you account for consumables, maintenance, and depreciation of their vehicles. That last one is often left out of the discussion. Many such drivers stop being drivers when their cars wear out because they don't make enough to pay off a car loan before the car wears out. In many cases, this means the companies are getting the cars at below cost with drivers thrown in for free. The premium for self driving hardware isn't likely to be negative anytime soon. Self-driving eliminates the drivers and therefore the people providing part of the cost of the cars. There are certainly exceptions, often well publicized by the companies, of drivers who figure out how to exploit the algorithms to make decent money. But when too many figure this out, the companies adjust the algorithms to contain costs, leading right back to the above.