Autonomous Car Progress

[OxBrew]

If SF under-reacts, and allows Cruise to do whatever they want, and it becomes an epic cluster, that could set back AV considerably, because then the reactions could be draconian.

But step back a couple levels for a minute. Private companies are using public streets that we all depend on every day to develop AV so they can profit. They have not shown they can prevent stalls and chaos. Why should we let them continue to experiment at our expense?

Yes, it would be a net benefit to the public to have AV that made driving safer. Tying that to driverless cars is just a choice by a private company, and has little added benefit to public safety.

Saying you can use it to solve congestion is a dead end for us now. It will take at least a decade, maybe more, AFTER actually solving it, to scale and change behaviors to actually then solve congestion. (just do the math: count the cars that use the roads every day. It's a staggering number. No way will they get replaced by robotaxis in less than 10 years, the manufacturing capacity just is not there).

The simple solution is to require safety drivers until they actually solve it. What's the downside to the public? The private companies need to make their systems actually work before they can remove safety drivers and be more profitable? AV profitability is not the public's problem. Chaos in the streets is the public's problem.

In all the high visibility stalls that caused massive back ups, it was always 100% Cruise's fault. The test is easy: if there were no Cruise AVs present, would the event have happened? Almost always, no, not the same way. Normal traffic blockages clear up quickly because drivers go as soon as it's possible. A stalled Cruise backing up traffic requiring intervention to clear is always Cruise's fault, regardless of what led to it.

 

[EVNow]

It's a pendulum, it'll eventually get to the middle.

Or not.

 

[ThomasD]

I don't see how AVs will reduce traffic. A POV is driven and parked until driven again. The AVs will drive around all day picking up thousands of people . Which will require thousands of AVs. You will need to have AVs positioned everywhere so people won't be waiting long for a ride. Companies will have quite a few AVs roaming around empty going to pickup passengers. From a Uber Statistics article. When it comes to people transportation productivity, an Uber on average carries 1.75-2.0 passengers per hour. For every 100 passenger requests in an hour they must have approximately 50-57 drivers in operation during that hour. I will bet that AV companies will need close to the same number of cars.

 

[diplomat33]

I don't see how AVs will reduce traffic. A POV is driven and parked until driven again. The AVs will drive around all day picking up thousands of people . Which will require thousands of AVs. You will need to have AVs positioned everywhere so people won't be waiting long for a ride. Companies will have quite a few AVs roaming around empty going to pickup passengers. From a Uber Statistics article. When it comes to people transportation productivity, an Uber on average carries 1.75-2.0 passengers per hour. For every 100 passenger requests in an hour they must have approximately 50-57 drivers in operation during that hour. I will bet that AV companies will need close to the same number of cars.

Depends on how you use AVs. If you use AVs like personal cars where 1 person uses 1 AV as their personal car, no it probably won't reduce traffic since you are not changing the total number of vehicles. But if you use AVs as ride-sharing or mass transit where you have an AV carry multiple people around the city then yes, it could reduce traffic since you are replacing 4-5 vehicles with 1 vehicle. Remember that most people use 1 car for 1 person and cars just sit in a parking lot for most of the time. So personal cars are not very efficient. The Cruise Origin can carry 6 people. So the Origin could replace up to 6 cars. And AVs can spend most of their time carrying people so there would be less need for parking spaces. The Origin would not pick up 1-2 people, take them to their destination and then pick up another 1-2 people like Uber does. Instead, 1 Origin could follow the quickest path to pick up 6 people waiting and drop them off in the quickest route possible. AVs like the Origin could function like city buses. They could follow fixed routes around the city, picking up people at designated pick up spots. Yes, you would need many Origins to cover different parts of the city but in theory, you would need fewer vehicles than current cars, if the routes were well designed.

So the real truth is that AVs don't automatically reduce traffic. They can reduce traffic if they are used as ride-sharing or mass transit and carry more than 2 people. But you could probably reduce traffic more, without AVs, with just mass transit like city buses or subways if designed properly.

I think one advantage of AVs is that you could give people the same convenience of a personal car but without the worry or risk of driving. People could own an AV consumer car and basically have a chauffeur to drive them around. Mass transit can also give you those benefits but there is less freedom with mass transit since you are dependent on the schedule of when the bus comes to your pick up spot or when the subway comes around. Plus you don't have any personal space in a city bus or subway like you have in your own personal car.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I don't see how AVs will reduce traffic. A POV is driven and parked until driven again. The AVs will drive around all day picking up thousands of people . Which will require thousands of AVs. You will need to have AVs positioned everywhere so people won't be waiting long for a ride. Companies will have quite a few AVs roaming around empty going to pickup passengers. From a Uber Statistics article. When it comes to people transportation productivity, an Uber on average carries 1.75-2.0 passengers per hour. For every 100 passenger requests in an hour they must have approximately 50-57 drivers in operation during that hour. I will bet that AV companies will need close to the same number of cars.

That has long been the problem with Uber. The idea is it was "ride sharing" but few people use it that way. Instead it was more like a taxi service where there is typically only one rider or one group of riders. It made it convenient where it actually replaced bus trips (I have personally seen people that get tired waiting for the bus and just call an Uber). It's not a solution to traffic congestion, but rather might cause more traffic. However, I don't think the people using it care that much. If it can be made profitable at the price, a lot of people like the convenience.

 

[Doggydogworld]

Depends on how you use AVs. If you use AVs like personal cars where 1 person uses 1 AV as their personal car, no it probably won't reduce traffic since you are not changing the total number of vehicles. But if you use AVs as ride-sharing or mass transit where you have an AV carry multiple people around the city then yes, it could reduce traffic since you are replacing 4-5 vehicles with 1 vehicle. Remember that most people use 1 car for 1 person and cars just sit in a parking lot for most of the time. So personal cars are not very efficient. The Cruise Origin can carry 6 people. So the Origin could replace up to 6 cars. And AVs can spend most of their time carrying people so there would be less need for parking spaces. The Origin would not pick up 1-2 people, take them to their destination and then pick up another 1-2 people like Uber does. Instead, 1 Origin could follow the quickest path to pick up 6 people waiting and drop them off in the quickest route possible. AVs like the Origin could function like city buses. They could follow fixed routes around the city, picking up people at designated pick up spots. Yes, you would need many Origins to cover different parts of the city but in theory, you would need fewer vehicles than current cars, if the routes were well designed.

So the real truth is that AVs don't automatically reduce traffic. They can reduce traffic if they are used as ride-sharing or mass transit and carry more than 2 people. But you could probably reduce traffic more, without AVs, with just mass transit like city buses or subways if designed properly.

I think one advantage of AVs is that you could give people the same convenience of a personal car but without the worry or risk of driving. People could own an AV consumer car and basically have a chauffeur to drive them around. Mass transit can also give you those benefits but there is less freedom with mass transit since you are dependent on the schedule of when the bus comes to your pick up spot or when the subway comes around. Plus you don't have any personal space in a city bus or subway like you have in your own personal car.

If people don't share high cost personal cars and Ubers, why would they share dirt cheap AVs?

The whole theory is AVs will take over because they are so much cheaper than personal cars. They also eliminate the "time cost" of driving, since you are free to work, nap, watch porn, etc. When you lower the cost of something you get more of it. So there will be more cars on the road, unless cities introduce punitive fees or regulations. Which they very well may. Especially fees!

 

[diplomat33]

If people don't share high cost personal cars and Ubers, why would they share dirt cheap AVs?

No, I don't expect people to share AV personal cars. But I do think people will share AVs like the Origin for the same reason people share buses: they are designed for many people to share.

The whole theory is AVs will take over because they are so much cheaper than personal cars. They also eliminate the "time cost" of driving, since you are free to work, nap, watch porn, etc. When you lower the cost of something you get more of it. So there will be more cars on the road, unless cities introduce punitive fees or regulations. Which they very well may. Especially fees!

You are talking about AV personal cars. Yes, it is likely that people will use AV personal cars more. So AV personal cars could actually make traffic worse. But if we get rid of personal cars in cities and transition to mass transit that includes say AV shuttles or AV buses, if designed correctly, that could reduce traffic. But that is why I said that AVs themselves will likely not reduce traffic. Mass transit like buses and subways will reduce traffic. You don't need AVs to reduce traffic but they could be part of the solution if you convert your buses and shuttles to AVs. But AVs can offer other advantages.

 

[ThomasD]

What is the average number of passengers that Waymo transports per trip?

 

[diplomat33]

What is the average number of passengers that Waymo transports per trip?

We don't know. I don't think Waymo has disclosed that information. But the Pacifica can carry a max of 8 passengers. The Pacifica can carry a max of 3 passengers. The Geely driverless vehicle will be able to carry a max of 5 passengers.

 

[EVNow]

If people don't share high cost personal cars and Ubers, why would they share dirt cheap AVs?

I do share Ubers (may be because I'm cheap). I'll share AVs whenever they become available - at the current rate of progress we'll probably have Waymo in my city by 2040s

But I won't be sharing my personal car (except may be with family, when they are nice) .... even if it ever becomes an AV.

 

[ThomasD]

I don't think two drunk strangers getting into a Waymo will end well.

 

[Tam]

Another issue that I didn't know:

"And in a revelation straight out of science fiction, city officials have determined that driverless vehicles cannot be cited for moving violations under current California law. That means if an AV without a safety driver is caught running a red light, there will be no fines, no points on anyone’s license and no clear lines of accountability for the autonomous vehicle operator."

Are Cruise's self-driving cars ready for prime time?

San Francisco transportation and public safety officials are skeptical

www.sfexaminer.com

That's not right.

That needs to be fixed. When a driverless AV violates the law, its software owner should be penalized.

The software writer is the one who decides whether an AV can do a rolling stop sign maneuver or not, to comply with the law or not...

 

[OxBrew]

So in one perfect iteration of the future, AVs help eliminate all parked cars, so we only need 1/6 as many cars. Ok, so? Does nothing for congestion. Would allow 6 times as many people as now to have access to a car, so future growth is facilitated without increasing production.

The best things to do right now is to dial up EV busses (trains would be better, but take too long to deploy). For last mile, take an e bike, or at most an NEV.

That's the only feasible way to bridge to a possibly truly sustainable transportation situation. it it won't happen, because individuals prioritize their own immediate needs over our collective needs.

If everyone stands still on an escalator, more people per hour can use it. But we won't give up the walk on the left stand on the right, because we can't feel the benefit, even if we had to wait for 20 minutes to get on the escalator. I got mine, so f___ everyone behind me (ignoring everyone who gave you the finger just as you did to make you wait).

 

[diplomat33]

Another issue that I didn't know:

"And in a revelation straight out of science fiction, city officials have determined that driverless vehicles cannot be cited for moving violations under current California law. That means if an AV without a safety driver is caught running a red light, there will be no fines, no points on anyone’s license and no clear lines of accountability for the autonomous vehicle operator."

Are Cruise's self-driving cars ready for prime time?

San Francisco transportation and public safety officials are skeptical

www.sfexaminer.com

That's not right.

That needs to be fixed. When a driverless AV violates the law, its software owner should be penalized.

The software writer is the one who decides whether an AV can do a rolling stop sign maneuver or not, to comply with the law or not...

Agreed. We need to update our laws for AVs.

 

[hgmichna]

So in one perfect iteration of the future, AVs help eliminate all parked cars, so we only need 1/6 as many cars.

Doesn't one shared car replace 15 private ones? As little as cars actually move, 1/6 sounds like too much.

 

[Dewg]

Immediately, it's more about productivity and reducing labor costs for drivers. If your car drives itself even partially, allows you to use the drive time in traffic productively. If you take an AV, it's the same, as you don't have to interact with a driver, and the company avoids having to hire a driver, reducing labor costs.

 

[kabin]

I wonder how AV would work with heavily attended sporting events and concerts. I imagine the AVs would need to remain parked and out of commission otherwise traffic flow would become more complicated. If so that might substantially increase user fees.

 

[Bladerskb]

I do share Ubers (may be because I'm cheap). I'll share AVs whenever they become available - at the current rate of progress we'll probably have Waymo in my city by 2040s

But I won't be sharing my personal car (except may be with family, when they are nice) .... even if it ever becomes an AV.

What city do u live in if u don’t mind me asking?

 

[diplomat33]

I'll share AVs whenever they become available - at the current rate of progress we'll probably have Waymo in my city by 2040s

IMO, Waymo will have AVs in your city way before the 2040's.

 

[diplomat33]

I wonder how AV would work with heavily attended sporting events and concerts. I imagine the AVs would need to remain parked and out of commission otherwise traffic flow would become more complicated. If so that might substantially increase user fees.

We've seen clips of waymo handling driving outside a busy sporting event. That is why waymo has trained NN to do perception and prediction on hundreds of objects. It is more difficult but AVs need to be able to handle it without causing chaos, not stay parked.