Blog Tesla Plans Debut of Robotaxi Service in 2020

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Tesla believes it can have a ride-hailing service that leverages its self-driving system in operation sometime next year, Chief Executive Elon Musk said Monday.

Speaking at Tesla’s Autonomy Day presentation, Musk offered the most details yet on plans for the Tesla Network, a program that enables Tesla owners to offer their cars for use as robotaxis.

The 2020 timeframe is dependent on regulatory approval, which will vary by jurisdiction. But, Musk seems confident that the service will be up and running in some parts of the U.S. next year.

Tesla owners will be able to offer their vehicles as available via a ride-sharing app that works similarly to other services like Uber and Lyft. Tesla will take a 25 percent to 30 percent cut of the revenue generated by an owner’s car.

Tesla also plans to operates its own dedicated fleet of robotaxis. To build that fleet, Tesla will require that all leased vehicles be returned. The cars will then be put into service for the Tesla Network.

Musk said that a Model 3 used as a robotaxi could generate about $30,000 in gross profit per year. And, he estimates that a full self-driving car that is part of the Tesla Network would have a value of around $200,000.

It’s another hard-to-believe claim from the ambitious CEO. But, it will certainly be exciting to see if Tesla’s robotaxi efforts will alter consumer’s transportation habits in the way the company predicts.

Check out the full presentation below, with the robotaxi portion beginning at around 3:05:00:[/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE?t=11111″ video_title=”1″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

 

[jgs]

That said the vehicle still uses Radar and Ultrasonics as main anti collision sensors

The cameras are non-optional safety equipment when using AP, that much is clear (no pun intended). That said, I'm not concerned about safety per se, I expect the car will pull over if it finds itself in a state where it can't operate safely, just like in current versions it disables AP and requires the driver to take control.

so at worst. A robo taxi will stop and request a customers help to clean camera

I think it's a worse (worst? who knows, don't tempt fate) case for it to drop off its customer, then while returning home with nobody in the car to encounter a problem and be forced to stop and wait for someone to show up and help it. This may require the owner to take a (non-robo?) taxi to come to its aid, for example. Embarrassing indeed. And potentially costly.

P.S.: I don't get the point of your "disagree" ratings, but then again I don't understand the point of that "feature" at all.

 

[jgs]

I expect the car will pull over if it finds itself in a state where it can't operate safely

Come to think of it, this is too optimistic — there are situations where there is no safe pull-over option, e.g. when on a bridge, a construction zone, a narrow highway, or pick your own example. It’s hard to see getting past Level 3 autonomy as long as the chance of such things happening is in the “low probability” range instead of “virtually impossible”. Which is what I guess the situation to be, based on some experience (see earlier post).

 

[Daniel in SD]

Come to think of it, this is too optimistic — there are situations where there is no safe pull-over option, e.g. when on a bridge, a construction zone, a narrow highway, or pick your own example. It’s hard to see getting past Level 3 autonomy as long as the chance of such things happening is in the “low probability” range instead of “virtually impossible”. Which is what I guess the situation to be, based on some experience (see earlier post).

Cars break down everywhere all the time. I don't think a "virtually impossible" chance of a breakdown is required to exceed the reliability of the average car and the average driver.

 

[jgs]

Cars break down everywhere all the time. I don't think a "virtually impossible" chance of a breakdown is required to exceed the reliability of the average car and the average driver.

It's a worthwhile point. A lot depends on details and exactly what the failure modes are. I'll give you that if the all-in chances of the robotaxi being left dead in a traffic lane are not greater than the all-in chances of the same car with human driver being stranded that way, then it might be OK. Since the only difference in this scenario is the driver -- human, or robot? -- this basically boils down to whether it's more likely a sensor will be blocked such that the robot has to stop the car (or the robot otherwise fails), or whether it's more likely the human driver will become impaired (stroke, heart attack, seizure, etc) such that they have to stop the car (or should have done).

I think it's fair to make the point of comparison "a Tesla with a driver" and not "an average car with a driver", for various reasons. One of the reasons (not necessarily the most important one) is that it's likely the relevant regulatory bodies will require not just parity in safety, but greater safety. Since there's so much suspicion of driverless cars among the general public, the car will likely need to meet a Caesar's wife level of safety and reliability to be cleared, and "it was involved in an accident because some wet leaves hit the windows" may not pass the laugh test.

The funny thing is, the whole topic would be moot if there were some provision for the car to clear its own sensors. But there isn't.

 

[Dinoraptor101]

The cameras are non-optional safety equipment when using AP, that much is clear (no pun intended). That said, I'm not concerned about safety per se, I expect the car will pull over if it finds itself in a state where it can't operate safely, just like in current versions it disables AP and requires the driver to take control.

I think it's a worse (worst? who knows, don't tempt fate) case for it to drop off its customer, then while returning home with nobody in the car to encounter a problem and be forced to stop and wait for someone to show up and help it. This may require the owner to take a (non-robo?) taxi to come to its aid, for example. Embarrassing indeed. And potentially costly.

P.S.: I don't get the point of your "disagree" ratings, but then again I don't understand the point of that "feature" at all.

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your reply as much as you are confused by mine! But in case of no human robo taxi issues the customer support will remote into the vehicle and drive it home manually.

 

[jgs]

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your reply as much as you are confused by mine! But in case of no human robo taxi issues the customer support will remote into the vehicle and drive it home manually.

I admire your optimism even though I don't agree with it. I don't think there's any evidence that this is even possible, just for starters it would require more bandwidth from the car back to the remote driver than the cellular network guarantees. Furthermore, that remote driver would be relying on the same sensors (the ones that were covered up, which is why the robo taxi can't drive itself) to allow them to "see".

 

[Dinoraptor101]

I admire your optimism even though I don't agree with it. I don't think there's any evidence that this is even possible, just for starters it would require more bandwidth from the car back to the remote driver than the cellular network guarantees. Furthermore, that remote driver would be relying on the same sensors (the ones that were covered up, which is why the robo taxi can't drive itself) to allow them to "see".

You're missing the main point, the front facing sensor is impossible to cover up, but good point on bandwidth nevertheless. Where is that darn Huawei 5G already

 

[jgs]

You're missing the main point, the front facing sensor is impossible to cover up

You keep saying that word "impossible". I do not think it means what you think it means. I keep mentioning that my front facing sensor has been covered up, heaters and wipers notwithstanding.

Edit to add: even if it were true that it's impossible to cover the front camera (it's not true, but let's suppose it is), the other sensors are non-optional. Would you be able to safely drive a car if your head were fixed in position facing forward and you had one or more (and as many as all) rearview or side mirrors out?

 

[electronblue]

I think people are not sufficiently thinking about the problems autonomous cars driving without people in them can face. If a normal car breaks down its passengers can get out and put a warning sign out there, push the car to the side, perhaps mend or clean things that need it. A truly autonomous car could make use of quite a bit of redundancy to avoid getting into such situations compared to a regular car.

 

[Dinoraptor101]

Edit to add: even if it were true that it's impossible to cover the front camera (it's not true, but let's suppose it is), the other sensors are non-optional. Would you be able to safely drive a car if your head were fixed in position facing forward and you had one or more (and as many as all) rearview or side mirrors out?

Absolutely, a manual drive with the front cameras is possible, the side repeater cameras ARE optional as they are only required for lane changes. Your argument is digressing into the possibilities of software, if you're arguing the current software capability you do have a valid point, however if you are arguing the possiblity in general then if a human to drive a car with a single front facing camera so can an AI. Totally possible. And to prove a point by it example is several times harder to fly a remote drone than to drive a car, mind you a drone only uses 1 front facing wide angle camera. Meanwhile Tesla has 3 front facing cameras, 360 degrees radar, and an army of ultrasound sensors. Therefore it is a software patch away (albeit an expensive one)

As for the LTE bandwidth, that shouldn't be a problem so long the drive is 35mph or so... Certainly not for highways lol.

Relatively impossible in the sphere of (if a human can do it, so can the machine) that excludes supernatural damage that can be caused by (but not limited to) collisions, golf ball size hail, Zues wrath, or nyan cats.

In today's storm conditions and heavy rain, Tesla will auto-steer it's way better than any driver (Earthling or Martian) would. And this was tested with current state software.

Motto here don't be trapped in dogma and think what's possible, only then can you progress :3

I hope this was helpful.

 

[electronblue]

Meanwhile Tesla has 3 front facing cameras, 360 degrees radar, and an army of ultrasound sensors. Therefore it is a software patch away (albeit an expensive one)

Tesla has only a narrow forward radar. No corner, side or rear radars at all — so not 360 degrees.

 

[Dinoraptor101]

Tesla has only a narrow forward radar. No corner, side or rear radars at all — so not 360 degrees.

Welp okay then .... That really won't work.

 

[jgs]

Absolutely, a manual drive with the front cameras is possible

(etc)

So although you didn't answer my question, viz. "Would you be able to safely drive a car if your head were fixed in position facing forward and you had one or more (and as many as all) rearview or side mirrors out?", I take it that your answer would be that yes, you do feel it would be OK for a human driver to operate a car on the roads with their head clamped in the forward position and no mirrors. The adverb was important in the question. Drive, sure. Safely? I guess you either think yes, or don't care, in either case it's not clear why.

I disagree and am glad the authorities probably do as well. Since we disagree on premises, there's probably not too much more to be said. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[GAN0505]

It won't happen in 2 years. They might have the technology in 5 years, but takes longer for authorities to approve it. Some traffic rules may have to changed to support self driving cars eg. human drivers may have to obey the law to the letter - can't inch ahead of red light or stop sign, which could confuse the robot cars.

 

[Dinoraptor101]

It won't happen in 2 years. They might have the technology in 5 years, but takes longer for authorities to approve it. Some traffic rules may have to changed to support self driving cars eg. human drivers may have to obey the law to the letter - can't inch ahead of red light or stop sign, which could confuse the robot cars.

I fully support punishing humans for bad driving to the letter. Because of human negligence we lost our friends, children and parents, every single day. Why are American drivers worse than German drivers? There is absolutely no excuse for this.

The other unwritten law where officers don't stop drivers speeding is stupid.

Today I had a human driver driving in my blind corner ON PURPOSE and I had the choice between speeding up and crossing him or slamming the breaks as my lane was ending... I slowed down and stopped because its the right thing to do. But for those human drivers not to give right of way they should be in jail and revoked of license.

It is true Tesla Drivers marginally see the errors of human driving because AI drives very perfectly and safely. By getting Tesla I automatically assured myself to never die by car crash. That's a 30% greater chance for me to reach 100 years old