# Waymo has announced they are ready and opening in AZ.



## RamzFanz

They are officially driving in AZ with no safety driver. The passenger service will commence within months. (Correction, it's already started). Initially a Waymo employee will ride along in the back and then that will be phased out.

If you live there, they have a signup program.

[I'll link as soon as I can. I'm on mobile.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-with-no-human-in-drivers-seat-idUSKBN1D72BU)

They also announced they are expanding their Pacifica fleet from 100 to 600.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> I'll link as soon as I can. I'm on mobile.


Don't worry, there's no rush. This isn't news; we already know that they are piloting their driverless early rider program - it says so on their website.


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> Don't worry, there's no rush. This isn't news; we already know that they are piloting their driverless early rider program - it says so on their website.
> 
> View attachment 173908


This is definitely a next step as they announced they are ready, are now operating on live roads with no safety driver, and will be carrying actual passengers soon.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> This is definitely a next step as they announced they are ready, are now operating on live roads with no safety driver, and will be carrying actual passengers soon.


Waymo beat you to it. They say on their website that Ted and Candace "are some of the first riders who are already using our self driving cars every day".

Way to go, Ted and Candace!


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> Waymo beat you to it. They say on their website that Ted and Candace "are some of the first riders who are already using our self driving cars every day".
> 
> Way to go, Ted and Candace!


I missed that. It's official then.

tomatopaste wins!

My most "fanboy" estimates were at least months off.

Good job Tomato. jocker12 heynow321 and their clan of naysayers have gone down in flames.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> tomatopaste wins!
> 
> My most "fanboy" estimates were at least months off.
> 
> Good job Tomato. jocker12 and his clan of naysayers have gone down in flames.


Again, no. He believes that Waymo would launch a commercial rideshare service before Christmas.

I don't see what's so difficult to understand - this seems like some kind of remedial class. Ok... let's go through this one more time:

1. Waymo is launching a test program in which they loan driverless cars to individuals in Phoenix.
2. There is no 2.


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> Again, no. He believes that Waymo would launch a commercial rideshare service before Christmas.
> 
> I don't see what's so difficult to understand - this seems like some kind of remedial class. Ok... let's go through this one more time:
> 
> 1. Waymo is launching a test program in which they loan driverless cars to individuals in Phoenix.
> 2. There is no 2.


Just because they aren't charging and it's a limited launch does not mean anything.

Driverless cars are officially carrying passengers in a ride service in AZ. Case closed.

What part of this don't you get?


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> Just because they aren't charging and it's a limited launch does not mean anything.
> 
> Driverless cars are officially carrying passengers in a ride service in AZ. Case closed.
> 
> What part of this don't you get?


A better question would be, what part of it don't you get? You claim that:


RamzFanz said:


> tomatopaste wins!
> 
> My most "fanboy" estimates were at least months off.


However, Tomatopaste thinks this is a commercial rideshare service. It's not. There is a big difference between having end users help with user acceptance testing of driverless technology, and a full commercial launch of a commercial driverless rideshare service.

I thought you had understood this difference, but it looks like you've regressed and are confusing the two.

Again, Waymo _is _introducing driverless cars as part of a test program in Phoenix. And that's impressive. But this _is not _a launch of a commercial driverless car service that will compete with rideshare drivers at this time.


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> A better question would be, what part of it don't you get? You claim that:
> However, Tomatopaste thinks this is a commercial rideshare service. It's not. There is a big difference between having end users help with user acceptance testing of driverless technology, and a full commercial launch of a commercial driverless rideshare service.
> 
> I thought you had understood this difference, but it looks like you've regressed and are confusing the two.
> 
> Again, Waymo _is _introducing driverless cars as part of a test program in Phoenix. And that's impressive. But this _is not _a launch of a commercial driverless car service that will compete with rideshare drivers at this time.


Live roads: check

Live civilian passengers: check

No driver: check


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> Live roads: check
> 
> Live civilian passengers: check
> 
> No driver: check


None of that is in dispute. However, none of that has any relevance to the point I made.

Bottom line - this isn't the commercial rideshare service that you / Tomatopaste were hoping for. There isn't really much more to say about it.


----------



## heynow321

Hey ramz did you know that SeaTac airport has autonomous trains that have been carrying passengers without a conductor for decades ?!?! Holy crap wow !!


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> None of that is in dispute. However, none of that has any relevance to the point I made.
> 
> Bottom line - this isn't the commercial rideshare service that you / Tomatopaste were hoping for. There isn't really much more to say about it.


I predicted early next year. The for profit part, charging riders and open to all of the public, is a few months away. Restricted ridership and not charging is meaningless.

These passengers, who signed up for a service, are receiving said service.

If any of these riders ever rode in a rideshare, and of course they have, then yes, it's competing with us. Saying it's not is like saying if Lyft gives a free ride, they aren't competing with Uber.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> The for profit part, charging riders and open to all of the public, is a few months away.


Maybe so. Maybe not. Time will tell. However, the point remains, this is not the launch of a commercial rideshare service about which you said:


RamzFanz said:


> It's official then.
> 
> tomatopaste wins!


No matter what ancillary information you care to add, further predictions etc etc, nothing changes that fact.


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> Maybe so. Maybe not. Time will tell. However, the point remains, this is not the launch of a commercial rideshare service about which you said:
> No matter what ancillary information you care to add, further predictions etc etc, nothing changes that fact.


Gotcha.

So if Lyft opens in a city where Uber is and gives out free rides for a month or two to early rider sign ups, that's not a service and not competition.

Clear as pudding.

Regardless of your definition, self driving cars with live passengers on live roads is here and that was the spirit of the debate. It's over.

It wasn't never, not in my lifetime, 30 years, decades, or any of the other silly predictions. It was a year earlier than the earliest public expert predictions.


----------



## The Gift of Fish

RamzFanz said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> So if Lyft opens in a city where Uber is and gives out free rides for a month or two to early rider sign ups, that's not a service and not competition.
> 
> Clear as pudding.
> 
> Regardless of your definition, self driving cars with live passengers on live roads is here and that was the spirit of the debate. It's over.


You are arguing that black is white; that what Waymo is doing now in Phoenix is launching a commercial rideshare service to compete with Uber/Lyft. I guess if that's what you believe at this stage then I'll just leave you to it.

I believe that you do have (a) the capacity to realise that on this occasion you are mistaken, but I also believe that (b) you do not have the humility/maturity to accept that you are mistaken. But I could be wrong about (a).

Can't be bothered to find it, but there was a post in which Ramzfanz was correct about one aspect of SDC. Anyway, Ramzfanz hasn't proven anything. When he says that Waymo etc are launching commercial operations, that's clearly wrong - Waymo execs confirm that what they are doing is testing driverless vehicles. But we already know the various companies are testing SDC. The main interest here in this drivers' forum is when driverless cars will replace us in our jobs, and as far as that goes, nobody knows.


----------



## tomatopaste

The Gift of Fish said:


> Again, no. He believes that Waymo would launch a commercial rideshare service before Christmas.
> 
> I don't see what's so difficult to understand - this seems like some kind of remedial class. Ok... let's go through this one more time:
> 
> 1. Waymo is launching a test program in which they loan driverless cars to individuals in Phoenix.
> 2. There is no 2.


The only reason Waymo is not charging pax today is because Waymo *IS* cautious, Ramz is right. Uber is charging passengers already, with the safety driver still behind the wheel. The only difference from what they are doing today and a commercial self driving taxi service, is to charge the passenger. This will happen before the end of the year so they can say they launched their commercial self driving taxi service in 2017.


----------



## RamzFanz

The Gift of Fish said:


> You are arguing that black is white; that what Waymo is doing now in Phoenix is launching a commercial rideshare service to compete with Uber/Lyft. I guess if that's what you believe at this stage then I'll just leave you to it.
> 
> I believe that you do have (a) the capacity to realise that on this occasion you are mistaken, but I also believe that (b) you do not have the humility/maturity to accept that you are mistaken. But I could be wrong about (a).
> 
> Can't be bothered to find it, but there was a post in which he was correct about one aspect of SDC. Anyway, Ramzfanz hasn't proven anything. When he says that Waymo etc are launching commercial operations, that's clearly wrong - Waymo execs confirm that what they are doing is testing driverless vehicles. But we already know the various companies are testing SDC. The main interest here in this drivers' forum is when driverless cars will replace us in our jobs, and as far as that goes, nobody knows.


You rely on their executive's framing of a statement and then completely ignore that they also said within months for open paid service.

You're cherry picking.

Just because this is the early stages of a commercial service doesn't make it not a commercial service.

Customers signed up and are being provided the service they signed up for.

The question of when Waymo will launch is answered.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona

I've been seeing these Waymo vans on the streets of Chandler day and night for the last year or so. As I understand it, this program is limited to a few square miles of some of the easiest suburbia you could design for a SDC trial. I'll let you know when I see one on the freeway.


----------



## tomatopaste

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I've been seeing these Waymo vans on the streets of Chandler day and night for the last year or so. As I understand it, this program is limited to a few square miles of some of the easiest suburbia you could design for a SDC trial. I'll let you know when I see one on the freeway.


Highway driving is the easiest driving there is.



Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I've been seeing these Waymo vans on the streets of Chandler day and night for the last year or so. As I understand it, this program is limited to a few square miles of some of the easiest suburbia you could design for a SDC trial. I'll let you know when I see one on the freeway.


Waymo has 600 of these Chrysler minivans in Phoenix with more on the way. Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## RamzFanz

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I've been seeing these Waymo vans on the streets of Chandler day and night for the last year or so. As I understand it, this program is limited to a few square miles of some of the easiest suburbia you could design for a SDC trial. I'll let you know when I see one on the freeway.


Their geofenced area is large and it's not a trial, they are live.



tomatopaste said:


> Highway driving is the easiest driving there is.
> 
> Waymo has 600 of these Chrysler minivans in Phoenix with more on the way. Let us know how that works out for you.


Well, to be fair, they have 100 and 500 more coming IIRC.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> Their geofenced area is large and it's not a trial, they are live.
> 
> Well, to be fair, they have 100 and 500 more coming IIRC.


I believe they're already in place. There was a recall that slowed things down but I'm pretty sure they have 600 ready to roll now. Although I'm not 100 percent sure on that. If not, they will be soon.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> Just because they aren't charging and it's a limited launch does not mean anything.
> 
> Driverless cars are officially carrying passengers in a ride service in AZ. Case closed.
> 
> What part of this don't you get?


Nobody here ever said SDCs would never happen.

What they said was it was an unsustainable business for a host of reasons.

Seeing a few SDCs on the street in Phoenix doesn't mean anything.

If it becomes a profitable business, then it will matter.

Until then, it's just Larry Page's hobby


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Nobody here ever said SDCs would never happen.
> 
> What they said was it was an unsustainable business for a host of reasons.
> 
> Seeing a few SDCs on the street in Phoenix doesn't mean anything.
> 
> If it becomes a profitable business, then it will matter.
> 
> Until then, it's just Larry Page's hobby


Virtually the entire "Up community" said it would never happen, half still do. Then they consoled themselves by saying it won't happen for ten years. Now if the Chrysler mini vans can't pop a wheelie with 3 pax inside, it doesn't count.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Virtually the entire "Up community" said it would never happen, half still do. Then they consoled themselves by saying it won't happen for ten years. Now if the Chrysler mini vans can't pop a wheelie with 3 pax inside, it doesn't count.


No sir, you misunderstood what the UP Community meant. Maybe some of the members aren't as clear with their communication. If so I'll set the record straight now:

If within a reasonable amount of time after launching the Waymo SDC rideshare, if it does not become as big as uber/lyft and remains basically Larry Page's pet project, then to us that's just as if it's not even there at all. (And the Google Board of Directors will probably agree).

In the real world, it's not enough to have cool toys to play with. You have to have a sustainable business model to be able to keep them around.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> No sir, you misunderstood what the UP Community meant. Maybe some of the members aren't as clear with their communication. If so I'll set the record straight now:
> 
> If within a reasonable amount of time after launching the Waymo SDC rideshare, if it does not become as big as uber/lyft and remains basically Larry Page's pet project, then to us that's just as if it's not even there at all. (And the Google Board of Directors will probably agree).
> 
> In the real world, it's not enough to have cool toys to play with. You have to have a sustainable business model to be able to keep them around.


The fact that there is anyone, anywhere, still unable to see and comprehend the ramifications that self driving cars will have on the entire economy and society is truly mind-boggling.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> The fact that there is anyone, anywhere, still unable to see and comprehend the ramifications that self driving cars will have on the entire economy and society is truly mind-boggling.


OMG, you still don't get it!?

Let me be clear:

If the SDC rideshare business you speak of becomes just as big or bigger of a society game-changer that uber/lyft is, then and only then will it have the "ramifications" you speak of.

But, and again I am repeating myself, for a multitude of reasons that I've already stated, I and many of us here have serious doubts.

The fact that you profess talking points does not prove that these sweeping changes to society will happen; all it proves is that you are a loyal employee.

The only way to prove it will happen as you say is... to actually see it happen as you say.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> OMG, you still don't get it!?
> 
> Let me be clear:
> 
> If the SDC rideshare business you speak of becomes just as big or bigger of a society game-changer that uber/lyft is, then and only then will it have the "ramifications" you speak of.
> 
> But, and again I am repeating myself, for a multitude of reasons that I've already stated, I and many of us here have serious doubts.
> 
> The fact that you profess talking points does not prove that these sweeping changes to society will happen; all it proves is that you are a loyal employee.
> 
> The only way to prove it will happen as you say is... to actually see it happen as you say.


The fact that the "UP community" is still using words like 'if' and 'but' shows the "community" has the vision of a bat. Self driving cars will be one of the most impactful technological advancements in human history. The fact that the "community" can't immediately see that, is truly embarrassing.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> The fact that the "UP community" is still using words like 'if' and 'but' shows the "community" has the vision of a bat. Self driving cars will be one of the most impactful technological advancements in human history. The fact that the "community" can't immediately see that, is truly embarrassing.


lol

Again.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> The fact that the "UP community" is still using words like 'if' and 'but' shows the "community" has the vision of a bat. Self driving cars will be one of the most impactful technological advancements in human history. The fact that the "community" can't immediately see that, is truly embarrassing.


The fact that you cannot persuade anyone is what is truly embarrassing.

Hey Waymo... I think you need a new PR Rep!


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> No sir, you misunderstood what the UP Community meant. Maybe some of the members aren't as clear with their communication. If so I'll set the record straight now:
> 
> If within a reasonable amount of time after launching the Waymo SDC rideshare, if it does not become as big as uber/lyft and remains basically Larry Page's pet project, then to us that's just as if it's not even there at all. (And the Google Board of Directors will probably agree).
> 
> In the real world, it's not enough to have cool toys to play with. You have to have a sustainable business model to be able to keep them around.


Ah yes, moving the goalposts. Now they apparently have to become as large as Uber rapidly. OK.

You do not speak for the community. MANY drivers on here have claimed self driving is impossible. Others have said it would not happen in our lifetime, it would take a century, 50 years, 30 years, and on and on.

They were wrong, it's here and it came faster than all but the most ambitious estimates.

Early next year at least 600 SDCs will be in full public TNC service in Phoenix AZ. You can take that to the bank. From there it will grow in fleet size and cities, rapidly.

Sustainable business model? Are you serious? Their business model is to cut costs by 50% or more in a wide open $14T market while providing a safer ride. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.

Waymo's platform is leasable. Any car manufacturer can add self-driving and/or TNC services to their product line.

I expect Lyft to be bought soon. Alphabet or GM most likely but there are at least 100 possibilities.

Anyone who thinks the public won't quickly adapt to worry free low cost commuting without the stress, and with the regaining hours of their time, along with added safety, is being willfully blind. It's coming and it's coming rapidly.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> Ah yes, moving the goalposts. Now they apparently have to become as large as Uber rapidly. OK.
> 
> You do not speak for the community. MANY drivers on here have claimed self driving is impossible. Others have said it would not happen in our lifetime, it would take a century, 50 years, 30 years, and on and on.
> 
> They were wrong, it's here and it came faster than all but the most ambitious estimates.
> 
> Early next year at least 600 SDCs will be in full public TNC service in Phoenix AZ. You can take that to the bank. From there it will grow in fleet size and cities, rapidly.
> 
> Sustainable business model? Are you serious? Their business model is to cut costs by 50% or more in a wide open $14T market while providing a safer ride. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
> 
> Waymo's platform is leasable. Any car manufacturer can add self-driving and/or TNC services to their product line.
> 
> I expect Lyft to be bought soon. Alphabet or GM most likely but there are at least 100 possibilities.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the public won't quickly adapt to worry free low cost commuting without the stress, and with the regaining hours of their time, along with added safety, is being willfully blind. It's coming and it's coming rapidly.


You raise a good point. Will Google allow Suzuki to lease their SDC package if Suzuki is also partnered with Uber to tap into Uber's customer base?


----------



## RamzFanz

tomatopaste said:


> You raise a good point. Will Google allow Suzuki to lease their SDC package if Suzuki is also partnered with Uber to tap into Uber's customer base?


It's a mess of conflicting interests out there.

Does Waymo just bow out of all TNC and just lease their platform? Stay out of the fray to avoid conflicts? Or perhaps they buy Lyft and insist that any company that leases from them operate on Lyft? Double dip? So many possibilities and strange bedfellows.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> Ah yes, moving the goalposts. Now they apparently have to become as large as Uber rapidly. OK.
> 
> You do not speak for the community. MANY drivers on here have claimed self driving is impossible. Others have said it would not happen in our lifetime, it would take a century, 50 years, 30 years, and on and on.
> 
> They were wrong, it's here and it came faster than all but the most ambitious estimates.
> 
> Early next year at least 600 SDCs will be in full public TNC service in Phoenix AZ. You can take that to the bank. From there it will grow in fleet size and cities, rapidly.
> 
> Sustainable business model? Are you serious? Their business model is to cut costs by 50% or more in a wide open $14T market while providing a safer ride. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
> 
> Waymo's platform is leasable. Any car manufacturer can add self-driving and/or TNC services to their product line.
> 
> I expect Lyft to be bought soon. Alphabet or GM most likely but there are at least 100 possibilities.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the public won't quickly adapt to worry free low cost commuting without the stress, and with the regaining hours of their time, along with added safety, is being willfully blind. It's coming and it's coming rapidly.


I didn't say rapidly, I said "a reasonable amount of time" I'm a reasonable man.

Also, isn't that what we're talking about? We're talking about an SDC rideshare company doing the job of uber better than uber, and as a result becoming as big as or bigger than uber.

I'm not changing the goal posts, I'm just clarifying my argument. To recap my argument is:

Unless Waymo and whoever else starts a ride share SDC business can address the many concerns that the UP community has laid out, it will be a failure. To be fair, it took uber about 5 years to go from zero to being a major part of society so it's fair to give the SDC guys the same timeline. But no amount of time will help them if they do not address the concerns.

Greg Tomato has steadfastly maintained that not only are the concerns we bring up "trivial" but he implied that the road to SDC success will be much quicker than 5 years.

Greg's opinions, though colorful, can at this point only be proven or disproven in the real world. So let's see what you got.

And to your last point- "anyone who doesn't see the public embracing this is blind" comment. Here's the issue I have with that: if this were to go as big as you are saying, people will give up a certain amount of control, and especially in this country, that doesn't sit too well. "Don't tread on me" and all that.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> It's a mess of conflicting interests out there.
> 
> Does Waymo just bow out of all TNC and just lease their platform? Stay out of the fray to avoid conflicts? Or perhaps they buy Lyft and insist that any company that leases from them operate on Lyft? Double dip? So many possibilities and strange bedfellows.


This is why Google's first-mover advantage is so valuable. They can demand all customers sign a 5 year lease. I can see Google having the market to themselves for 6 months. Then Google and GM having it all for another six months, and probably more. YIKES!


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> You do not speak for the community. MANY drivers on here have claimed self driving is impossible. Others have said it would not happen in our lifetime, it would take a century, 50 years, 30 years, and on and on.


I believe when they said those things they were exaggerating to make a point.

For example- let's say this thing happens and it gets a few fanboy customers but certainly nowhere near uber customer numbers. It continues in Phoenix (and perhaps other markets too) as a novelty experience to a small niche group of customers. Technically, SDC is here. Not in 30 years, but now. However, if it's not enough to topple uber, if people still choose to use uber in greater numbers, then effectively, it's as if the SDCs are not even there. This, good sir, is what I believe my UP brothers were trying to say.

Note: the above scenario was used as an example only.


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> I believe when they said those things they were exaggerating to make a point.
> 
> For example- let's say this thing happens and it gets a few fanboy customers but certainly nowhere near uber customer numbers. It continues in Phoenix (and perhaps other markets too) as a novelty experience to a small niche group of customers. Technically, SDC is here. Not in 30 years, but now. However, if it's not enough to topple uber, if people still choose to use uber in greater numbers, then effectively, it's as if the SDCs are not even there. This, good sir, is what I believe my UP brothers were trying to say.
> 
> Note: the above scenario was used as an example only.


Yes. SDC will be a niche at first. Will it take over the world? Not for me it won't and there are many riders who share my view.



RamzFanz said:


> Ah yes, moving the goalposts. Now they apparently have to become as large as Uber rapidly. OK.
> 
> You do not speak for the community. MANY drivers on here have claimed self driving is impossible. Others have said it would not happen in our lifetime, it would take a century, 50 years, 30 years, and on and on.
> 
> They were wrong, it's here and it came faster than all but the most ambitious estimates.
> 
> Early next year at least 600 SDCs will be in full public TNC service in Phoenix AZ. You can take that to the bank. From there it will grow in fleet size and cities, rapidly.
> 
> Sustainable business model? Are you serious? Their business model is to cut costs by 50% or more in a wide open $14T market while providing a safer ride. Sounds pretty sustainable to me.
> 
> Waymo's platform is leasable. Any car manufacturer can add self-driving and/or TNC services to their product line.
> 
> I expect Lyft to be bought soon. Alphabet or GM most likely but there are at least 100 possibilities.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the public won't quickly adapt to worry free low cost commuting without the stress, and with the regaining hours of their time, along with added safety, is being willfully blind. It's coming and it's coming rapidly.


We're just tired of Tomato's silly hype.


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> Yes. SDC will be a niche at first. Will it take over the world? Not for me it won't and there are many riders who share my view.
> 
> We're just tired of Tomato's silly hype.


Doc: go ahead any lie down on the couch. What seems to be bothering you?
Goneubering: Tomato
Doc: Lisa, cancel my next appointment


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Doc: go ahead any lie down on the couch. What seems to be bothering you?
> Goneubering: Tomato
> Doc: Lisa, cancel my next appointment


Hey Greg, I noticed you studied PolySci at UC Berkeley -- were you happy with yesterday's results?


----------



## RamzFanz

iheartuber said:


> I believe when they said those things they were exaggerating to make a point.
> 
> For example- let's say this thing happens and it gets a few fanboy customers but certainly nowhere near uber customer numbers. It continues in Phoenix (and perhaps other markets too) as a novelty experience to a small niche group of customers. Technically, SDC is here. Not in 30 years, but now. However, if it's not enough to topple uber, if people still choose to use uber in greater numbers, then effectively, it's as if the SDCs are not even there. This, good sir, is what I believe my UP brothers were trying to say.
> 
> Note: the above scenario was used as an example only.


It's highly likely one of Ubers auto partners leases Waymo's product, or another one, and provides Uber with a SDC fleet.

If you've read my blog predictions, This is why I called Waymo winning the worst case scenario for us Uber drivers.

Pinning your hopes on people not wanting more free time and less stress in cheaper and safer transportation is a really bad bet. In one poll, 25% said they would ride in one now. Another 50% were on the fence. The potential for SDCs to take 50%-75% of the market within a few years is there and Uber and Lyft are going to help them.

Yes, there will be holdouts. Some people have irrational fears of technology. My brother just surrendered his flip phone a few months ago. He swore he never would, but in the end, the convenience and capabilities of the smart phone won him over.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> It's highly likely one of Ubers auto partners leases Waymo's product, or another one, and provides Uber with a SDC fleet.
> 
> If you've read my blog predictions, This is why I called Waymo winning the worst case scenario for us Uber drivers.
> 
> Pinning your hopes on people not wanting more free time and less stress in cheaper and safer transportation is a really bad bet. In one poll, 25% said they would ride in one now. Another 50% were on the fence. The potential for SDCs to take 50%-75% of the market within a few years is there and Uber and Lyft are going to help them.
> 
> Yes, there will be holdouts. Some people have irrational fears of technology. My brother just surrendered his flip phone a few months ago. He swore he never would, but in the end, the convenience and capabilities of the smart phone won him over.


I detailed a ton of reasons why an SDC rideshare business will fail. The public's fear of computer cars is but one grain of sand on the beach of reasons


----------



## goneubering

RamzFanz said:


> Pinning your hopes on people not wanting more free time and less stress in cheaper and safer transportation is a really bad bet. In one poll, 25% said they would ride in one now. Another 50% were on the fence. The potential for SDCs to take 50%-75% of the market within a few years is there and Uber and Lyft are going to help them.
> 
> Yes, there will be holdouts. Some people have irrational fears of technology. My brother just surrendered his flip phone a few months ago. He swore he never would, but in the end, the convenience and capabilities of the smart phone won him over.


Pinning your hopes on potential has burned many smart investors. It will be interesting to see what actually happens in the real world.


----------



## iheartuber

goneubering said:


> Pinning your hopes on potential has burned many smart investors. It will be interesting to see what actually happens in the real world.


It's not a new thing for a startup to talk about their potential business to come.

But the Waymo/tomato method of utter arrogance is one of the things that give me pause for concern.


----------



## goneubering

Problems with making left turns.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...mo-driverless-taxi-service-Phoenix-weeks.html

Google's Waymo could begin its first driverless taxi service in Phoenix 'within weeks' (although it admits its minivans struggled to work out how to turn left)


----------



## heynow321

They can't turn left. They can't drive in the snow. They can't drive in the rain. They can't handle construction zones or police directing traffic etc. a.k.a. all the things you see in a major urban center


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> They can't turn left. They can't drive in the snow. They can't drive in the rain. They can't handle construction zones or police directing traffic etc. a.k.a. all the things you see in a major urban center


Of course, it goes without saying, none of that is true.



iheartuber said:


> I detailed a ton of reasons why an SDC rideshare business will fail. The public's fear of computer cars is but one grain of sand on the beach of reasons


None of your reasons hold water.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Well, that didn't take long.
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-crashes-in-las-vegas-hours-after-launch.html


----------



## RamzFanz

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Well, that didn't take long.
> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-crashes-in-las-vegas-hours-after-launch.html


Human error.

Of course.


----------



## heynow321

RamzFanz said:


> Of course, it goes without saying, none of that is true.


it's actually all very true


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> Of course, it goes without saying, none of that is true.
> 
> None of your reasons hold water.


Yeah.. I'm not buying that as a valid argument. It's kind of a last resort to just say "well you're just wrong" but I respect your right to have an opinion.

At the end of the day, like I told your buddy Greg, if you really are "right"
And I really am "wrong", then let's see it all happen in real life as you describe.

I can wait, it's fine.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> it's actually all very true


Not in the slightest.



iheartuber said:


> Yeah.. I'm not buying that as a valid argument. It's kind of a last resort to just say "well you're just wrong" but I respect your right to have an opinion.
> 
> At the end of the day, like I told your buddy Greg, if you really are "right"
> And I really am "wrong", then let's see it all happen in real life as you describe.
> 
> I can wait, it's fine.


You're a roadblock thinker, not a solutions thinker. Every step of the way naysayers have been wrong and they will continue to be.


----------



## heynow321

RamzFanz said:


> Not in the slightest.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-self-driving-cars-not-ready-for-snow-2016-12

Google hasn't even tested their crap in the snow yet . Sit down old man and let the people who still have functioning neurons talk about this.

"Heavy snow and rain tend to confuse lidar sensors and also cameras," John Dolan, principle systems scientist at Carnegie Mellon's Robotics Institute, previously told Business Insider. "So you end up having some problems."


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-self-driving-cars-not-ready-for-snow-2016-12
> 
> Google hasn't even tested their crap in the snow yet . Sit down old man and let the people who still have functioning neurons talk about this


SDCs of various types have already tested in the snow. MIT has already solved locating in the snow, within a CM, and for around $300.

Your old and tired arguments were resolved long ago. Catch up.


----------



## heynow321

Why don't you post a link old man. Otherwise like every other one of your posts it's just conjecture


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> Not in the slightest.
> 
> You're a roadblock thinker, not a solutions thinker. Every step of the way naysayers have been wrong and they will continue to be.


Be that as it may, I'm sorry but I don't believe you. I will believe my eyes if what you say will happen actually does happen.

But hey... you're right, yes? So you have nothing to worry about!


----------



## goneubering

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Well, that didn't take long.
> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-crashes-in-las-vegas-hours-after-launch.html


Can I lol now??!!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> I believe when they said those things they were exaggerating to make a point.
> 
> For example- let's say this thing happens and it gets a few fanboy customers but certainly nowhere near uber customer numbers. It continues in Phoenix (and perhaps other markets too) as a novelty experience to a small niche group of customers. Technically, SDC is here. Not in 30 years, but now. However, if it's not enough to topple uber, if people still choose to use uber in greater numbers, then effectively, it's as if the SDCs are not even there. This, good sir, is what I believe my UP brothers were trying to say.
> 
> Note: the above scenario was used as an example only.


Note: the above scenario is ludicrous


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Note: the above scenario is ludicrous


Oh yeah?


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

RamzFanz said:


> Human error.
> 
> Of course.


SDCs are useless until they can overcome "human error". Humans can overcome human error. A human driver would not have hit that semi. A human driver can handle the the simple task of interacting with a truck slowly pulling out of an alley.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Why don't you post a link old man. Otherwise like every other one of your posts it's just conjecture







Google has been driving in snow in Lake Tahoe for years.



tomatopaste said:


> Google has been driving in snow in Lake Tahoe for years.


----------



## heynow321

Naturally with no mention of how they're unable to handle the snow. Testing =\= successful product.

God it's like amateur hour around here.


----------



## iheartuber

heynow321 said:


> Naturally with no mention of how they're unable to handle the snow. Testing =\= successful product.
> 
> God it's like amateur hour around here.


They're just drunk on Kool Aid that's all


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Naturally with no mention of how they're unable to handle the snow. Testing =\= successful product.
> 
> God it's like amateur hour around here.


I'll get you the adhesion coefficient of the tires that the computer is analyzing, in the morning. In the meantime make yourself some warm milk to get you through the night.


----------



## Uberfunitis

iheartuber said:


> In the real world, it's not enough to have cool toys to play with. You have to have a sustainable business model to be able to keep them around.


Uber still does not have a sustainable business model for ride-share in general.


----------



## iheartuber

Uberfunitis said:


> Uber still does not have a sustainable business model for ride-share in general.


That may be true, but this Waymo model makes the uber model look like Apple


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> That may be true, but this Waymo model makes the uber model look like Apple


When I see the name Waymo I think of that more famous company Wham-O!!!!


----------



## WMUber

Funny how people in this forum are missing the main reason autonomous vehicles (A.K.A. Self Driving Cars/SDC) will happen.

In 2016, 37,461 people died in auto related incidents. Of which over 700 were cyclists and close to 6,000 were pedestrians. It is believed that over 90% of these fatalities were due to human error. Automobile fatalities are the 13th leading cause of death and one of the easiest preventable. Secondarily, they will reduce commute times. Fleets of SDC can operate at a lower (thus safer) but continuous speed. This will simultaneously increase safety and reduce commute time. During rush hour traffic in the Los Angeles Westside it takes one hour to travel 10 miles. This can easily be reduced to 40 minutes.

That said, SDC does not mean an end to Uber independent contractors. The Uber IC may evolve into a butler role instead of driver. Services such as UberPool, UberX, and UberXL may be fully self service/autonomous. Services such as Uber Select/Lux/Black/SUV and Uber Assist may have a human being in the car. Not to drive the car; but to provide a higher level of service. Services such as opening doors, helping with luggage, passing out water, providing conversation; and in the case of Uber Assist, helping the disabled.

Also, what says Uber will want to own 100% of the cars operating on the platform. SDC owners may decide to "Rent" their cars at a per mile basis to Uber. Finally, and admittedly scary, SDC will require humans to service. For example, right now most people pump their on gas, charge electric vehicles, and park their car. When an empty SDC pulls into a gas or electric charging station, it will require a human to operate the equipment. More humans will be needed to monitor the networks of SDC. Basically, an UberX driver is earning minimum wage after expenses. SDC will simply shift these minimum wage workers from operating an automobile to servicing it.

Between pollution, commuting stress, and fatalities, the human operated automobile is a public health crises. It is in our best interest to have this happen as quickly at possible. SDC will happen, if for no other reason than to save 30,000+ lives per year.


----------



## iheartuber

WMUber said:


> Funny how people in this forum are missing the main reason autonomous vehicles (A.K.A. Self Driving Cars/SDC) will happen.
> 
> In 2016, 37,461 people died in auto related incidents. Of which over 700 were cyclists and close to 6,000 were pedestrians. It is believed that over 90% of these fatalities were due to human error. Automobile fatalities are the 13th leading cause of death and one of the easiest preventable. Secondarily, they will reduce commute times. Fleets of SDC can operate at a lower (thus safer) but continuous speed. This will simultaneously increase safety and reduce commute time. During rush hour traffic in the Los Angeles Westside it takes one hour to travel 10 miles. This can easily be reduced to 40 minutes.
> 
> That said, SDC does not mean an end to Uber independent contractors. The Uber IC may evolve into a butler role in stead of driver. Services such as UberPool, UberX, and UberXL may be fully self service/autonomous. Services such as Uber Select/Lux/Black/SUV and Uber Assist may have a human being in the car. Not to drive the car; but to provide a higher level of service. Services such as opening doors, helping with luggage, passing out water, providing conversation; and in the case of Uber Assist, helping the disabled.
> 
> Also, what says Uber will want to own 100% of the cars operating on the platform. SDC owners may decide to "Rent" their cars at a per mile basis to Uber. Finally, and admittedly scary, SDC will require humans to service. For example, right now most people pump their on gas, charge electric vehicles, and park their car. When an empty SDC pulls into a gas or electric charging station, it will require a human to operate the equipment. More humans will be needed to monitor the networks of SDC. Basically, an UberX driver is earning minimum wage after expenses. SDC will simply shift these minimum wages works from operating an automobile to servicing it.
> 
> Between pollution, commuting stress, and fatalities, the human operated automobile is a public health crises. It is in our best interest to have this happen as quickly at possible. SDC will happen, if for no other reason than to save 30,000+ lives per year.


I get what you're saying- SDC should be everywhere to cut down on injuries and fatalities. But doesn't that mean we will have to make 99% if not 100% of the roads all SDC in order to make that most effective?

If so, don't you see a little problem with people not wanting to give up their freedom to be able to drive?


----------



## Shaunizzle42

If it's anything like that self-driving bus in Vegas, yeah bring it on.


----------



## goneubering

WMUber said:


> During rush hour traffic in the Los Angeles Westside it takes one hour to travel 10 miles. This can easily be reduced to 40 minutes.
> 
> That said, SDC does not mean an end to Uber independent contractors. The Uber IC may evolve into a butler role in stead of driver. Services such as UberPool, UberX, and UberXL may be fully self service/autonomous. Services such as Uber Select/Lux/Black/SUV and Uber Assist may have a human being in the car. Not to drive the car; but to provide a higher level of service. Services such as opening doors, helping with luggage, passing out water, providing conversation; and in the case of Uber Assist, helping the disabled.
> 
> Also, what says Uber will want to own 100% of the cars operating on the platform. SDC owners may decide to "Rent" their cars at a per mile basis to Uber. Finally, and admittedly scary, SDC will require humans to service. For example, right now most people pump their on gas, charge electric vehicles, and park their car. When an empty SDC pulls into a gas or electric charging station, it will require a human to operate the equipment. More humans will be needed to monitor the networks of SDC. Basically, an UberX driver is earning minimum wage after expenses. SDC will simply shift these minimum wages works from operating an automobile to servicing it.
> 
> Between pollution, commuting stress, and fatalities, the human operated automobile is a public health crises. It is in our best interest to have this happen as quickly at possible. SDC will happen, if for no other reason than to save 30,000+ lives per year.


I like how you say "easily".


----------



## heynow321

For the millionth time there is no statistical proof that self driving cars are any safer than human beings. Remember at current accident rates you would have to drive for 10,000 years before you would get in a fatal accident.


----------



## WMUber

heynow321 said:


> For the millionth time there is no statistical proof that self driving cars are any safer than human beings. Remember at current accident rates you would have to drive for 10,000 years before you would get in a fatal accident.


Fact: 37,941 died in auto related accidents in the U.S. during 2016
Fact: Over 90% of these were deemed caused by "Human Error" (34,000+)
Fact: 10,497 were alcohol related deaths
Fact: 10,111 were speed related deaths

SDC will not operate alcohol impaired, will not drive faster than it is safe to do so, will not drive distracted, will not drive fatigued, etc.

Explain to me why you feel when SDC are fully employed they will not be safer than human operated cars.

Data source:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/usdot-releases-2016-fatal-traffic-crash-data


----------



## heynow321

let the following sink in - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving*. So, let's say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles.". _According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss data Institute, "There were 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2015 in which 35,092 deaths occurred. This resulted in 10.9 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled", so Chris Urmson is correct, and a person needs to drive for 10.000 years in average to get to the unfortunate point of the possibility of being killed in a car accident. So, the cars and the real people driving them are incredibly safe at this point, and is no reason for anybody to actually panic because "driving is not safe" and needs to be replaced.


----------



## WMUber

iheartuber said:


> I get what you're saying- SDC should be everywhere to cut down on injuries and fatalities. But doesn't that mean we will have to make 99% if not 100% of the roads all SDC in order to make that most effective?
> 
> If so, don't you see a little problem with people not wanting to give up their freedom to be able to drive?


True, fatality rates will not drop until a majority of vehicles are SDC. At some point it may actually be illegal to manually operate a vehicle on the public roadways.

That leads to your second question... People have the right and freedom to travel. To operate a motor vehicle on the public roadway is a privilege. Your avatar says you live in Los Angeles. You want to freedom to hop in your car to commute to work, shop, visit friends, all on your schedule. But do you enjoy driving northbound on La Cienega or La Brea at 6:00 pm? If you need to travel from Westwood to DTLA at 5:30 pm, wouldn't rather spend that time watching a moving on Netflix or reading versus spending an hour plus navigating across town? As long as people's freedom to travel is not curtailed, people will gladly "Ride" in an automobile as opposed to "Drive" an automobile.

As for the driving enthusiasts. I for one understand. During my close to 40 years being a licensed driver, I have raced on Mulholland (Coldwater to Laurel Canyon), tore it up in Angeles Crest and Mulholland by the Rock Store, and blatantly ignored the speed limit on many curvy roads and freeways. Private facilities will open up for these driving enthusiasts to store and operate their manually operated cars (think horse stables and riding trails).


----------



## heynow321

https://www.economist.com/news/scie...-being-around-cornerreal-driverless-cars-will

According to statistics from America's Bureau of Transportation, there were about 35,000 fatalities and over 2.4m injuries on American roads in 2015. That may sound a lot but, given that Americans drive three trillion miles a year, accident rates are remarkably low:1.12 deaths and 76 injuries per 100m miles. Because accidents are so rare (compared with miles travelled), autonomous vehicles "would have to driven hundreds of millions of miles, and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles, to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries," says Nidhi Kalra of RAND Corporation, a think tank in California. At present, there is no practical means for testing the safety of AVs before their use becomes widespread. For many, that is a scary thought.

So again, for the millionth time, there is no statistical evidence that self driving cars are safer than human beings. And human beings are not unsafe drivers. Based on the total amount of miles we drive and the accident rates, it is extremely unlikely that you will be in A fatal accident . You might as well buy a lottery ticket or two while you wait around to get in this fatal accident that probably isn't going to happen.


----------



## WMUber

heynow321 said:


> let the following sink in - _"*So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving*. So, let's say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles.". _According to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Highway Loss data Institute, "There were 32,166 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 2015 in which 35,092 deaths occurred. This resulted in 10.9 deaths per 100,000 people and 1.13 deaths per 100 million miles traveled", so Chris Urmson is correct, and a person needs to drive for 10.000 years in average to get to the unfortunate point of the possibility of being killed in a car accident. So, the cars and the real people driving them are incredibly safe at this point, and is no reason for anybody to actually panic because "driving is not safe" and needs to be replaced.


Let me get this straight. You are O.K. with over 37,000 people dying yearly in automobile collisions? Of which, 34,000 may be preventable simply by automating the vehicle. The ninth cause of death in the U.S. is Kidney Disease. Since it is "Only" 48,000+ fatalities or 1.8% of all deaths, do you feel scientists should stop research to prevent or cure it?

I strongly believe 37,000+ deaths are 37,000+ too many. Yes, I know that statistically I will not die in an automobile coliision; but I am willing to prevent others from dying in automobile collisions.



heynow321 said:


> https://www.economist.com/news/scie...-being-around-cornerreal-driverless-cars-will
> 
> According to statistics from America's Bureau of Transportation, there were about 35,000 fatalities and over 2.4m injuries on American roads in 2015. That may sound a lot but, given that Americans drive three trillion miles a year, accident rates are remarkably low:1.12 deaths and 76 injuries per 100m miles. Because accidents are so rare (compared with miles travelled), autonomous vehicles "would have to driven hundreds of millions of miles, and sometimes hundreds of billions of miles, to demonstrate their reliability in terms of fatalities and injuries," says Nidhi Kalra of RAND Corporation, a think tank in California. At present, there is no practical means for testing the safety of AVs before their use becomes widespread. For many, that is a scary thought.
> 
> So again, for the millionth time, there is no statistical evidence that self driving cars are safer than human beings. And human beings are not unsafe drivers. Based on the total amount of miles we drive and the accident rates, it is extremely unlikely that you will be in A fatal accident . You might as well buy a lottery ticket or two while you wait around to get in this fatal accident that probably isn't going to happen.


I subscribe to The Economist Magazine. I am a big fan of The RAND Corporation. I am familiar with those studies.

Yes, as compared to miles traveled, automobile travel is safe. That is the biggest issue with automobile fatalities, it always happens to someone you do not know. Since the odds of it happening to me or a member of my family is next to zero, it is not my problem.

That said, the 37,000+ fatalities in 2016 are "Preventable Fatalities". Being able to reduce a preventable fatality from 37,000+ to under 4,000 is statistically relevant. Just because the odds of it happening to you is almost zero doesn't mean it isn't a problem that our society needs to address. Again, 37.000+ fatalities are 37,000+ too many.


----------



## heynow321

I don't care about those 37,000 people because the number is incredibly small especially when half of that is attributable to drunk or otherwise impaired driving. If you really want to save those people than crack down on drunk and impaired driving and up the penalties severely. 1 dui = suspended license for 10 years . Those accident rates will start to fall materially.

Nonetheless your appeal to emotion is not effective. Bottom line driving is not dangerous and you are not going to be in a fatal accident. Most importantly, there is no statistical proof that robot cars are any better than humans. In fact as of now they appear to be much worse . You're just assuming they are safer because you were buying into the hype of people who have every incentive to lie to you about their safety record. Wise up. If you don't, it could be hazardous to your health.


----------



## itsablackmarket

RamzFanz said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> So if Lyft opens in a city where Uber is and gives out free rides for a month or two to early rider sign ups, that's not a service and not competition.
> 
> Clear as pudding.
> 
> Regardless of your definition, self driving cars with live passengers on live roads is here and that was the spirit of the debate. It's over.
> 
> It wasn't never, not in my lifetime, 30 years, decades, or any of the other silly predictions. It was a year earlier than the earliest public expert predictions.


Everyone was saying these weren't coming anytime soon. They've come just as soon as I thought they would all along. Everyone that drives full time, you have about a year left till your job will be completely taken by these things. Congrats.

Oh, and I'm going to make another bold prediction, which to me is actually common sense. These things are not going to reduce accidents, they're going to cause more.


----------



## SaintCl89

It WILL kill someone and, “Waymo!” It will be gone...


----------



## iheartuber

WMUber said:


> At some point it may actually be illegal to manually operate a vehicle on the public roadways


If you think there will ever be a law passed that takes away freedom to drive you're living in a fantasy land.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> If you think there will ever be a law passed that takes away freedom to drive you're living in a fantasy land.


They won't have to. New cars won't have steering wheels or pedals and eventually they'll stop making parts for your Corolla. The cost to insure a human will be 2 thousand dollars a month.


----------



## WMUber

iheartuber said:


> If you think there will ever be a law passed that takes away freedom to drive you're living in a fantasy land.


Let's see operating a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege. As tomatopaste posted, cars will simply be made without steering wheels and pedals. No law has to be passed, only the licensing requirements to manually operate a motor vehicle can become harder (i.e. police or Secret Service training / abilities).

Now let's compare privileges to rights. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege. Owning and carrying a firearm is a right (Second Amendment). In California you cannot open carry and getting a CCW is next to impossible in most counties (May Issue). Motor vehicle collisions result in 37,000+ fatalities, firearm fatalities are about 37,000 (of which 25,000 are suicides). So to recap, human operated motor vehicles result in 37,000+ accidental or intentional deaths. Fire arms result in 12,000 +/- accidental or intentional deaths. The motor vehicle is the most deadly machine the average American uses. So in California, I cannot carry a firearm for protection (a right). Do you really think withholding a privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be a legal problem? A privilege that results is three times the fatalities of a right. A privilege that has a machine that kills three times as many people than a weapon that is specifically designed to kill. Still doubt me, look up local horse riding laws. In the City of Los Angeles, it is illegal to ride a horse on a public road.


----------



## heynow321

WMUber said:


> Let's see operating a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege. As tomatopaste posted, cars will simply be made without steering wheels and pedals. No law has to be passed, only the licensing requirements to manually operate a motor vehicle can become harder (i.e. police or Secret Service training / abilities).
> 
> Now let's compare privileges to rights. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege. Owning and carrying a firearm is a right (Second Amendment). In California you cannot open carry and getting a CCW is next to impossible in most counties (May Issue). Motor vehicle collisions result in 37,000+ fatalities, firearm fatalities are about 37,000 (of which 25,000 are suicides). So to recap, human operated motor vehicles result in 37,000+ accidental or intentional deaths. Fire arms result in 12,000 +/- accidental or intentional deaths. The motor vehicle is the most deadly machine the average American uses. So in California, I cannot carry a firearm for protection (a right). Do you really think withholding a privilege to operate a motor vehicle will be a legal problem? A privilege that results is three times the fatalities of a right. A privilege that has a machine that kills three times as many people than a weapon that is specifically designed to kill. Still doubt me, look up local horse riding laws. In the City of Los Angeles, it is illegal to ride a horse on a public road.


lol guess what genius, democracy is a *****. People will not vote to have their freedom of mobility restricted. Especially restricted in such a way that they have to start paying companies to get around for even the simplest activities. Once again, your safety argument does not hold water because these machines are not safer.

Being alive and free has certain risks associated with it . Why don't we just make it illegal to go buy anything at the store when we could just have Amazon deliver it to us?! That way people can stay off the road and we can save a meager 37,000 people, less than .01% of the population in America.


----------



## WMUber

heynow321 said:


> lol guess what genius, democracy is a *****. People will not vote to have their freedom of mobility restricted. Especially restricted in such a way that they have to start paying companies to get around for even the simplest activities. Once again, your safety argument does not hold water because these machines are not safer.
> 
> Being alive and free has certain risks associated with it . Why don't we just make it illegal to go buy anything at the store when we could just have Amazon deliver it to us?! That way people can stay off the road and we can save a meager 37,000 people, less than .01% of the population in America.


Did I say that freedom of movement (i.e. the right to access and travel upon the public roadways) was going to be curtailed? Did I say private car ownership will be banned? No to both. All I stated was the privilege to manually operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways will be seriously limited. You will still be able to buy your Cadillac, keep it parked in your garage, and use it for errands and commuting. The only difference is instead of you "Driving" the car, you will instead enter your destination into GPS and "Ride" in the car.

Are you telling me that somebody who lives in Santa Clarita that commutes daily to Century City would rather "Drive" their commute rather than "Ride" in their commute. That commute time can now become productive (work) or personal (power nap, read, watch Netflix, etc.) time. Yes the environmentalists would rather SDC become "Shared" vehicles, but in reality they will still be privately owned single occupancy vehicles.


----------



## heynow321

WMUber said:


> Did I say that freedom of movement (i.e. the right to access and travel upon the public roadways) was going to be curtailed? Did I say private car ownership will be banned? No to both. All I stated was the privilege to manually operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways will be seriously limited. You will still be able to buy your Cadillac, keep it parked in your garage, and use it for errands and commuting. The only difference is instead of you "Driving" the car, you will instead enter your destination into GPS and "Ride" in the car.
> 
> Are you telling me that somebody who lives in Santa Clarita that commutes daily to Century City would rather "Drive" their commute rather than "Ride" in their commute. That commute time can now become productive (work) or personal (power nap, read, watch Netflix, etc.) time. Yes the environmentalists would rather SDC become "Shared" vehicles, but in reality they will still be privately owned single occupancy vehicles.


 If only we had some kind of large vehicle that was very efficient at moving large amounts of people at one time and the occupants could do other things like work and be productive. I swear I saw something like that in a science-fiction movie one time. I think they called them a bus or maybe buss. Not quite sure.


----------



## tomatopaste

WMUber said:


> The ninth cause of death in the U.S. is Kidney Disease. Since it is "Only" 48,000+ fatalities or 1.8% of all deaths, do you feel scientists should stop research to prevent or cure it?


Excellent point. It's like finding the cure for cancer and then arguing not to implement the cure because it would put oncologists out of work.


----------



## jocker12

WMUber said:


> Did I say that freedom of movement (i.e. the right to access and travel upon the public roadways) was going to be curtailed? Did I say private car ownership will be banned? No to both. All I stated was the privilege to manually operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways will be seriously limited. You will still be able to buy your Cadillac, keep it parked in your garage, and use it for errands and commuting. The only difference is instead of you "Driving" the car, you will instead enter your destination into GPS and "Ride" in the car.
> 
> Are you telling me that somebody who lives in Santa Clarita that commutes daily to Century City would rather "Drive" their commute rather than "Ride" in their commute. That commute time can now become productive (work) or personal (power nap, read, watch Netflix, etc.) time. Yes the environmentalists would rather SDC become "Shared" vehicles, but in reality they will still be privately owned single occupancy vehicles.


Obviously you are new to this forum and this discussion. Please read this - https://uberpeople.net/threads/repl...l-take-30-years-or-more-aurora-ceo-ch.200691/

Corporations don't want progress or to save lives. The only thing they want is profit. Do you need any examples?



WMUber said:


> but in reality they will still be privately owned single occupancy vehicles


Awwwww - ""Yes, cars are "inefficient"-used only 5% of the time for example. But so is art. And so is jewelry, and I've yet to convince my wife to rent it. So are golf clubs but we still buy them. Toothbrushes are used less than 1% of the day, and a perfect app I'll develop called Gumbuddy could find neighbors willing to share for a modest fee. I'd argue that automobiles in the American tradition fall closer to a personal and emotional item." - Bob Brackett of Sanford Bernstein argued that the world may not be making a massive shift to ride-sharing. Brackett, who has a record of dry contrarianism that he calls realism, suggested that, in invoking a cognitive connection between autonomy and ride-sharing, fellow analysts are committing a "conjunction fallacy," invalidly linking one trend to another.
US Census data, Brackett said, shows carpooling in the US plunging over the last three and a half decades, from 19.7% of all commuters in 1980 to 9.4% in 2013. If Americans are so prepared to share cars with other human beings, why are fewer of them doing so now than a generation ago?"


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> They won't have to. New cars won't have steering wheels or pedals and eventually they'll stop making parts for your Corolla. The cost to insure a human will be 2 thousand dollars a month.


Greg, the reason why you don't win arguments is because you do not make statements that are reasonable. I pay $100 a month for insurance. You expect me to believe that my rates will increase 20x?

That's unreasonable.

Be reasonable. Or don't. But then don't wonder why people say you sound crazy.



jocker12 said:


> Obviously you are new to this forum and this discussion. Please read this - https://uberpeople.net/threads/repl...l-take-30-years-or-more-aurora-ceo-ch.200691/
> 
> Corporations don't want progress or to save lives. The only thing they want is profit. Do you need any examples?
> 
> Awwwww - ""Yes, cars are "inefficient"-used only 5% of the time for example. But so is art. And so is jewelry, and I've yet to convince my wife to rent it. So are golf clubs but we still buy them. Toothbrushes are used less than 1% of the day, and a perfect app I'll develop called Gumbuddy could find neighbors willing to share for a modest fee. I'd argue that automobiles in the American tradition fall closer to a personal and emotional item." - Bob Brackett of Sanford Bernstein argued that the world may not be making a massive shift to ride-sharing. Brackett, who has a record of dry contrarianism that he calls realism, suggested that, in invoking a cognitive connection between autonomy and ride-sharing, fellow analysts are committing a "conjunction fallacy," invalidly linking one trend to another.
> US Census data, Brackett said, shows carpooling in the US plunging over the last three and a half decades, from 19.7% of all commuters in 1980 to 9.4% in 2013. If Americans are so prepared to share cars with other human beings, why are fewer of them doing so now than a generation ago?"


Greg (aka the Tomato) got his quasi communist ideas from his time at UC Berkeley no doubt.


----------



## WMUber

iheartuber said:


> Greg, the reason why you don't win arguments is because you do not make statements that are reasonable. I pay $100 a month for insurance. You expect me to believe that my rates will increase 20x?
> 
> That's unreasonable.
> 
> Be reasonable. Or don't. But then don't wonder why people say you sound crazy.
> 
> Greg (aka the Tomato) got his quasi communist ideas from his time at UC Berkeley no doubt.


His comment makes plenty of sense. When SDC become ubiquitous, the cost of insurance to be the one out of 100,000 car owners allowed to manually operate a car will be extremely high. Think about it, when all cars are SDC, then the cost of insurance will be minimal. You want to insure yourself as the only non-SDC in your town, you become the only risk. Your cost of insurance will reflect that you are the only vehicle that can do damage.


----------



## jocker12

WMUber said:


> Fact: 37,941 died in auto related accidents in the U.S. during 2016
> Fact: Over 90% of these were deemed caused by "Human Error" (34,000+)
> Fact: 10,497 were alcohol related deaths
> Fact: 10,111 were speed related deaths





WMUber said:


> The ninth cause of death in the U.S. is Kidney Disease. Since it is "Only" 48,000+ fatalities or 1.8% of all deaths, do you feel scientists should stop research to prevent or cure it?


You got your metric wrong. The cars the way they are built today are incredibly safe. You are talking about human error, I am inviting you to fight to educate the drivers instead of trying to change the whole technology. It's cheaper, safer and much more effective. I keep saying this and if you are smart enough, you'll be able to understand - Education is the future; technology is only a small piece of the big puzzle called EDUCATION.


----------



## Elmo Burrito

I wonder how the female snowflakes will feel the first time a TNC/AV has a failure and dumps them out on the side of the road in the worst part of Oakland CA in the middle of the night? Oh well, those cars prolly won't go through Oakland anyways.


----------



## WMUber

jocker12 said:


> Obviously you are new to this forum and this discussion.


I've been a member of this forum longer than you... True, all the efficiencies and safety benefits will not be realized until all vehicles are SDC. Also, municipalities will need special infrastructure. (The SDC will have to be connected to a traffic control program to manage intersections and pedestrian street crossing cycles.) The current stop, speed to the next light and stop traffic system will need to be replaced. Also, at some point older vehicles will need to be retrofitted with SDC equipment. Think of the switch between Analog TV and Digital TV. The government will have to mandate a date when all cars are SDC and then provide some sort of voucher program for people that cannot afford the upgrade. Now that the ball has started rolling, the question becomes how long. It might be as little as ten years or as long as thirty. Will it be national, state, or local. We could have a situation that in L.A. County all cars must be SDC by 2030, but all counties north of L.A. can still be manually operated.



jocker12 said:


> Education is the future


I fully support European style driving tests and laws. Unfortunately, since I have been driving: 1) Automatic renewals have become the norm. It used to be only granted to drivers with eight years of a clean record; 2) The renewal term has increased from four years to five years; and 3) the written test has been dumbed down to a 3-answer multiple choice test. Even 40 years ago, you only needed six hours of hands-on training to get your license.

But technology will improve traffic flows. No amount of education will allow for manually operated cars to drive withing inches of each other at 85+ mph on the freeway. Imaging L.A.'s 405 freeway at 5:30 pm with what is now bumper to bumper traffic at 20 mph traveling at 60 mph. That cannot happen without technology. Imagine having a 30-mile commute, but being able to spend the time reading or watching Netflix. That cannot happen without technology. Once all the benefits become known, they will demanded by the consumer.


----------



## Elmo Burrito

Oh yeah like the benefit of flat screens belching out non stop advertising while your held captive (no door handles) in the TNC autonomous vehicle on the way to your destination. 
Of course at first you'll have the option to silence them, but later they'll charge you extra for that option.


----------



## iheartuber

WMUber said:


> His comment makes plenty of sense. When SDC become ubiquitous, the cost of insurance to be the one out of 100,000 car owners allowed to manually operate a car will be extremely high. Think about it, when all cars are SDC, then the cost of insurance will be minimal. You want to insure yourself as the only non-SDC in your town, you become the only risk. Your cost of insurance will reflect that you are the only vehicle that can do damage.


Greg's arguments are too much theory not enough real world.

At this point I can only see them either proved or disproved by waiting to see what actually happens


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Greg's arguments are too much theory not enough real world.
> 
> At this point I can only see them either proved or disproved by waiting to see what actually happens


You're the type of person that has to wait til they can touch and feel it before they believe it. Others have vision and can see and understand what's about to happen and then make decisions accordingly. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, there will always be menial tasks that society needs done, for the slow kids.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> If only we had some kind of large vehicle that was very efficient at moving large amounts of people at one time and the occupants could do other things like work and be productive. I swear I saw something like that in a science-fiction movie one time. I think they called them a bus or maybe buss. Not quite sure.


They're not efficient. Governments subsidize ninety percent of the operating costs. Half the time there are two people on the entire bus.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

RamzFanz said:


> They are officially driving in AZ with no safety driver.
> 
> If you live there, they have a signup program.


Finally, now us Phoenicians have a movable target right in our own backyard. I was getting sick and tired of driving two hours down to the International Boarder to get some target practice on moving objects.


----------



## goneubering

https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-google-arizona-phoenix-driverless-self-driving-cars/amp

OK, here's the part where we go over all the things that aren't quite clear. Waymo hasn't disclosed how much territory its cars will cover or what kind of hours they will run, whether it will charge passengers for rides, or the timeline for announcing or figuring out any of that. (Company reps recently declined to give any such details for the existing early rider program in Phoenix.)

It's also unclear if there's a system for preventing a freaked-out passenger from clambering into the driver's seat and grabbing control of the car-or how that would affect questions like insurance, if they then caused a crash. Waymo hasn't shared clear plans for helping autonomous cars find the people they're supposed to be picking up-which you know is a problem if you've ever been on the phone with an Uber driver, insisting I'm right here on the dot!

Then there are the bigger questions, less specific to Waymo: How do you insure this sort of service? (Larry Burns, a former GM exec and onetime adviser to Google's self-driving project, has suggested operators might provide insurance themselves, at least until the technology is proven enough for regular insurers to get into it.) How do you regulate it? How does that change if Congress and President Trump agree on a national system for governing autonomous driving? How do you ensure the cars can handle all the craziness of roads populated by unpredictable humans? What happens when the weather suddenly turns nasty?


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/waymo-google-arizona-phoenix-driverless-self-driving-cars/amp
> 
> OK, here's the part where we go over all the things that aren't quite clear. Waymo hasn't disclosed how much territory its cars will cover or what kind of hours they will run, whether it will charge passengers for rides, or the timeline for announcing or figuring out any of that. (Company reps recently declined to give any such details for the existing early rider program in Phoenix.)
> 
> It's also unclear if there's a system for preventing a freaked-out passenger from clambering into the driver's seat and grabbing control of the car-or how that would affect questions like insurance, if they then caused a crash. Waymo hasn't shared clear plans for helping autonomous cars find the people they're supposed to be picking up-which you know is a problem if you've ever been on the phone with an Uber driver, insisting I'm right here on the dot!
> 
> Then there are the bigger questions, less specific to Waymo: How do you insure this sort of service? (Larry Burns, a former GM exec and onetime adviser to Google's self-driving project, has suggested operators might provide insurance themselves, at least until the technology is proven enough for regular insurers to get into it.) How do you regulate it? How does that change if Congress and President Trump agree on a national system for governing autonomous driving? How do you ensure the cars can handle all the craziness of roads populated by unpredictable humans? What happens when the weather suddenly turns nasty?


They'll be geofenced within a 100-square-mile area of the town of Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix
https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/7/16615290/waymo-self-driving-safety-driver-chandler-autonomous


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You're the type of person that has to wait til they can touch and feel it before they believe it. Others have vision and can see and understand what's about to happen and then make decisions accordingly. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, there will always be menial tasks that society needs done, for the slow kids.


Maybe I'm the one who has the vision and you're the one who's slow?



WMUber said:


> Did I say that freedom of movement (i.e. the right to access and travel upon the public roadways) was going to be curtailed? Did I say private car ownership will be banned? No to both. All I stated was the privilege to manually operate a motor vehicle on the public roadways will be seriously limited. You will still be able to buy your Cadillac, keep it parked in your garage, and use it for errands and commuting. The only difference is instead of you "Driving" the car, you will instead enter your destination into GPS and "Ride" in the car.
> 
> Are you telling me that somebody who lives in Santa Clarita that commutes daily to Century City would rather "Drive" their commute rather than "Ride" in their commute. That commute time can now become productive (work) or personal (power nap, read, watch Netflix, etc.) time. Yes the environmentalists would rather SDC become "Shared" vehicles, but in reality they will still be privately owned single occupancy vehicles.


Sir, people like to have the freedom to drive themselves to wherever it is they are going. That's completely different from living in a world where you can only drive a car if you are in some sort of theme park.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Maybe I'm the one who has the vision and you're the one who's slow?
> 
> Sir, people like to have the freedom to drive themselves to wherever it is they are going. That's completely different from living in a world where you can only drive a car if you are in some sort of theme park.


Which one of these are people going to choose? It's not even debatable.


----------



## Retired Senior

heynow321 said:


> They can't turn left. They can't drive in the snow. They can't drive in the rain. They can't handle construction zones or police directing traffic etc. a.k.a. all the things you see in a major urban center


_And - very important here in Bridgeport Ct - they can't be used for spontaneously pulling over and picking up a hooker without creating a record of the trip, or for drive by shooting, or for sneaking off to the local brothel or crack den.

What happens if you need to get yourself or a family member to the local hospital's Emergency Department? Will there be an "express button" that will allow the SDC to go like a bat out of hell, or will you watch your child bleed out because the damn car will not exceed the speed limit or run a red light?

And before you start talking about "call 911" let me tell you something that surprised even me.... a LOT of very ill people call Uber for a ride to the hospital because they have NO health insurance at all and an ambulance ride would cost them $1,000._

Control and Privacy have always been my primary personal concerns regarding SDC. Who owns the vehicle and who controls the data and the trip logs. If SDC ever become inexpensive enough for individual, private ownership then a lot of my reservations about control and privacy become moot.

I still question whether or not the sensor safety parameters will keep cats from being run over. In my 13 months and 2000+ Uber trips the only living creature that I know I have killed is a suicidal bird. Would a SDC be programmed to have the same reverence for life?


----------



## jocker12

WMUber said:


> But technology will improve traffic flows.


Now you are shifting from your point. You repeated what the self driving developers told you and what you really wanted to hear from them - Self driving cars will save lives. Which IS A LIE meant to make you and people like you to stop scrutinizing their underdeveloped software.

Let me put it this way. If your child fails math (like some humans fail driving) what are you going to do. Buy that child a better computer? Go argue with the teacher? Or spend more time to educate that child better because that child need help and you know math is vital for his future?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Which one of these are people going to choose? It's not even debatable.
> 
> View attachment 174515
> View attachment 174516


sir, I will just say one simple and undebateable thing:

No one knows for sure. The only way we will know is when it happens.

In my mind I don't know how you can be right because there are tons of variables that you are completely ignoring. Kinda like how Hillary ignored campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan and it cost her the election.

Let's let the public decide. Nothing ever happens in society without the public's stamp of approval. It's not going to be long to find out anyway


----------



## Chicagochas

Looks like territories out of the snow-belt could see this adapted quickly. Time to move to Minneapolis, Chicago, Fargo ND, and Detroit!


----------



## iheartuber

Chicagochas said:


> Looks like territories out of the snow-belt could see this adapted quickly. Time to move to Minneapolis, Chicago, Fargo ND, and Detroit!


Bro, just because SDCs are on the street doesn't mean people will choose to ride in them. I listed several reasons why they won't. Even if they do ride in them the business plan as described by Greg the Tomato sounds unstable and disorganized. Too many maybes, too many questions, too many variables.

To say this will succeed is a gamble not a slam dunk.


----------



## tomatopaste

Chicagochas said:


> Looks like territories out of the snow-belt could see this adapted quickly. Time to move to Minneapolis, Chicago, Fargo ND, and Detroit!


SDC's will be better drivers in the snow as well. Its sensors will know when the passenger front tire is starting to slip and take the correct action. If the car starts to skid, it will turn into the skid every single time. Most humans are like: oh crap, was it turn into the skid, or...?



tomatopaste said:


> SDC's will be better drivers in the snow as well. Its sensors will know when the passenger front tire is starting to slip and take the correct action. If the car starts to skid, it will turn into the skid every single time. Most humans are like: oh crap, was it turn into the skid, or...?


Ramz made a good point. When SDC's enter a city, Uber drivers are going to flee and move into your city.



iheartuber said:


> Bro, just because SDCs are on the street doesn't mean people will choose to ride in them. I listed several reasons why they won't. Even if they do ride in them the business plan as described by Greg the Tomato sounds unstable and disorganized. Too many maybes, too many questions, too many variables.
> 
> To say this will succeed is a gamble not a slam dunk.


Uh oh, getting sir-ed is bad enough, but when you get bro-ed, you done did go too far.



iheartuber said:


> Bro, just because SDCs are on the street doesn't mean people will choose to ride in them. I listed several reasons why they won't. Even if they do ride in them the business plan as described by Greg the Tomato sounds unstable and disorganized. Too many maybes, too many questions, too many variables.
> 
> To say this will succeed is a gamble not a slam dunk.


It's a two-handed slam dunk.

http://data.whicdn.com/images/25351350/large.gif

iheart is the pasty white guy in this scenario


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> SDC's will be better drivers in the snow as well. Its sensors will know when the passenger front tire is starting to slip and take the correct action. If the car starts to skid, it will turn into the skid every single time. Most humans are like: oh crap, was it turn into the skid, or...?
> 
> Ramz made a good point. When SDC's enter a city, Uber drivers are going to flee and move into your city.
> 
> Uh oh, getting sir-ed is bad enough, but when you get bro-ed, you done did go too far.
> 
> It's a two-handed slam dunk.
> 
> http://data.whicdn.com/images/25351350/large.gif
> 
> iheart is the pasty white guy in this scenario


I'm the pasty white guy? That's the pot calling the kettle black Greg


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> I'm the pasty white guy? That's the pot calling the kettle black Greg


He is commenting to his own comments.... Publicly!

People like this troll are the reason Trump is in the White House and the US is the only nation in official climate change denial.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> He is commenting to his own comments.... Publicly!
> 
> People like this troll are the reason Trump is in the White House and the US is the only nation in official climate change denial.


People like this Troll is the reason why Enron happened.


----------



## SCdave

For the current Waymo vehicle testing in Phoenix -
- Is there a Waymo employee in the vehicle?
- Does the passenger have a means to stop the vehicle?


----------



## iheartuber

SCdave said:


> For the current Waymo vehicle testing in Phoenix -
> - Is there a Waymo employee in the vehicle?
> - Does the passenger have a means to stop the vehicle?


Greg the Tomato will tell you these are trivial questions.

Examples of his replies:

1. There may or may not be an employee in the car at first but even if there is, so what? They will be totally gone in 2 weeks anyway.

2. Why would anyone want to stop the vehicle? Dumb question.


----------



## goneubering

SCdave said:


> For the current Waymo vehicle testing in Phoenix -
> - Is there a Waymo employee in the vehicle?
> - Does the passenger have a means to stop the vehicle?


He did mention an ejection button in one of his earlier posts I believe. 



iheartuber said:


> 2. Why would anyone want to stop the vehicle? Dumb question.


Of course it's a dumb question. Stopping is only going to waste time in a perfect SDC world!!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> People like this Troll is the reason why Enron happened.


Which one of us hearts Uber, the Enron clone?



iheartuber said:


> Greg the Tomato will tell you these are trivial questions.
> 
> Examples of his replies:
> 
> 1. There may or may not be an employee in the car at first but even if there is, so what? They will be totally gone in 2 weeks anyway.
> 
> 2. Why would anyone want to stop the vehicle? Dumb question.


So much hate.

Yes there is a Waymo employee in the back seat.
Yes the pax can push the 'pull over' button and have the car pull over as soon as it's safe to do so.

https://article.images.consumerrepo...er/CR-Cars-Inline-Waymo-Castle-controls-10-17


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Which one of us hearts Uber, the Enron clone?
> 
> So much hate.
> 
> Yes there is a Waymo employee in the back seat.
> Yes the pax can push the 'pull over' button and have the car pull over as soon as it's safe to do so.


Guys, don't underestimate the Tomato.

You know that "No Thanks" button when you see a ping come in? That was HIS IDEA!

Oh yes, this guy is going to be part of a MAJOR change in society


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> Guys, don't underestimate the Tomato.
> 
> You know that "No Thanks" button when you see a ping come in? That was HIS IDEA!
> 
> Oh yes, this guy is going to be part of a MAJOR change in society


But does Wham-O have a No Thanks button??


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> But does Wham-O have a No Thanks button??


My people are in discussions with Waymo about royalties


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> So much hate.


I don't hate you Greg. Your arrogant and boastful posts are annoying but hate is a strong word


----------



## melusine3

RamzFanz said:


> They are officially driving in AZ with no safety driver. The passenger service will commence within months. (Correction, it's already started). Initially a Waymo employee will ride along in the back and then that will be phased out.
> 
> If you live there, they have a signup program.
> 
> [I'll link as soon as I can. I'm on mobile.](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...s-with-no-human-in-drivers-seat-idUSKBN1D72BU)
> 
> They also announced they are expanding their Pacifica fleet from 100 to 600.


How will the driverless car get through the closed gate? Wait for another car? I've had a passenger tell me that and I cancelled immediately. Also, how will they keep random people from basically hijacking the ride? It will also be interesting to see how passengers respect the vehicle without a human monitoring them. These vehicles will become like buses, but worse. lol


----------



## NorthNJLyftacular

RamzFanz said:


> Live roads: check
> 
> Live civilian passengers: check
> 
> No driver: check


I don't have a dog in this fight, but from reading these posts, I think you're wrong.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> My people are in discussions with Waymo about royalties


At least you have a sense of humor!!



melusine3 said:


> These vehicles will become like buses, but worse. lol


That sounds likely because the Tomato brags about how cheap they will be. Cheap will turn into Uber Pool On Steroids!!


----------



## jocker12

SCdave said:


> For the current Waymo vehicle testing in Phoenix -
> - Is there a Waymo employee in the vehicle?
> - Does the passenger have a means to stop the vehicle?


They do have a monitor in the BACkSEAT (wtf are doing in the backseat?)

Waymo has some famous people to ride with you in the backseat. If you are a woman you can choose from Harvey Weinstein, Steven Segal or Louis CK. If you are a man you choose from Kevin Spacey or Charlie Sheen. If you are nice and handsome enough, young and fresh, Charlie Sheen can give you free HIV.

Way go waymo!


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> Yes there is a Waymo employee in the back seat.
> Yes the pax can push the 'pull over' button and have the car pull over as soon as it's safe to do so.
> 
> https://article.images.consumerrepo...er/CR-Cars-Inline-Waymo-Castle-controls-10-17


How long is the test? And when will Waymo pull their employees out of the back seat??


----------



## iheartuber

melusine3 said:


> How will the driverless car get through the closed gate? Wait for another car? I've had a passenger tell me that and I cancelled immediately. Also, how will they keep random people from basically hijacking the ride? It will also be interesting to see how passengers respect the vehicle without a human monitoring them. These vehicles will become like buses, but worse. lol


When I and many other people said the same thing Greg the Tomato just said "You guys are wrong! And dumb! And also wrong!" (Or something like that...)


----------



## goneubering

We need first hand observations. Have any Phoenix drivers ridden in a Waymo?


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> When I and many other people said the same thing Greg the Tomato just said "You guys are wrong! And dumb! And also wrong!" (Or something like that...)


That's ridiculous way of thinking.

Who is going to help elderly people to get inside the car if they cannot do it by themselves? Ridicoulous!

Who is going to help people using crutches to get inside the cars? Also ridiculous!

Lyft serious answer? The cars will still have an attendant inside... Whaaat? What was the problem with the attendant actually driving the car? Lyft answer......... ........ .........


----------



## SCdave

Attendants or Assistants or "Drivers who don't drive but greet passengers and provide the human experience" are a transitional necessity to socialize SDCs into our transportation systems.

More then the Tech, it will be social acceptance and minimizing lawsuits and awesome PR and lots and lots and lots of lobbyists (the really good ones).


----------



## goneubering

SCdave said:


> Attendants or Assistants or "Drivers who don't drive but greet passengers and provide the human experience" are a transitional necessity to socialize SDCs into our transportation systems.
> 
> More then the Tech, it will be social acceptance and minimizing lawsuits and awesome PR and lots and lots and lots of lobbyists (the really good ones).


A whole new flock of Walmart greeters??


----------



## iheartuber

SCdave said:


> Attendants or Assistants or "Drivers who don't drive but greet passengers and provide the human experience" are a transitional necessity to socialize SDCs into our transportation systems.
> 
> More then the Tech, it will be social acceptance and minimizing lawsuits and awesome PR and lots and lots and lots of lobbyists (the really good ones).


Tomato is the opposite of "awesome PR"


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> How long is the test? And when will Waymo pull their employees out of the back seat??


They'll pull them out of the car entirely before the end of the year, is my guess. They want to be able to say they launched their commercial self driving taxi service in 2017, is my guess. The employees are currently in the back seat because Waymo heard from Uber People that every other pax is a puker. They're mainly there to clean up all the puke.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> They'll pull them out of the car entirely before the end of the year, is my guess. They want to be able to say they launched their commercial self driving taxi service in 2017, is my guess. The employees are currently in the back seat because Waymo heard from Uber People that every other pax is a puker. They're mainly there to clean up all the puke.


Lots of guessing. What hours will this test be running to help drunks in Phoenix?


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> Lots of guessing. What hours will this test be running to help drunks in Phoenix?


I wouldn't do the bar scene if I were Waymo. I take the low hanging fruit.


----------



## SCdave

Yu


tomatopaste said:


> I wouldn't do the bar scene if I were Waymo. I take the low hanging fruit.


Yup, Sat/Sun walk of shame hours might be better


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> I wouldn't do the bar scene if I were Waymo. I take the low hanging fruit.


Then it's not a real world test.


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> Then it's not a real world test.


Yeah anything short of driving to the top of Pikes Peak during a blizzard on the first week is not a "real world test."


----------



## SCdave

tomatopaste said:


> Yeah anything short up driving to the top of pikes pike during a blizzard on the first week is not a "real world test."


Great idea. Should have an SDC race Pikes Peak next June 2018.


----------



## tomatopaste

SCdave said:


> Great idea. Should have an SDC race Pikes Peak next June 2018.


They definitely will at some point. They'll have self driving Nascar as well, where the computer nerds are the stars.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland

http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-by-human-driven-truck-hours-after-debut.html
*Self-driving shuttle hit by human-driven truck hours after debut*
*in Las Vegas*

A driverless shuttle was involved in an accident hours after it debuted in the streets of downtown Las Vegas on Wednesday. But those involved in the conception of the project said the shuttle was not at fault.

"The exciting thing is that the vehicle did exactly what it was programmed to do. This is a really good real-world case of how the technology actually works", said John Moreno, a spokesperson for The American Automobile Association (AAA,) a sponsor on the project.

"The shuttle came to a complete stop, a semi-truck driver was backing up and unfortunately continued to back up and may not have seen the shuttle and grazed the front bumper of it," Moreno explained.

"The shuttle recognized that the semi-truck was backing up and as it's programmed to do: it stopped," he added.

AAA and transportation company Keolis conducted a review of the all-electric, eight-seat Navya ARMA vehicle and found the shuttle did everything it was designed to do in the incident. The shuttle did have to pause service for the remainder of the day so the review could be done, but it was still operational and drove away from the scene. There was slight cosmetic damage to the vehicle.

No one was injured in the collision.

In a statement, the City of Las Vegas also noted that the shuttle did what it was supossed to do and said testing of the shuttle will continue.

"Had the truck had the same sensing equipment that the shuttle has, the accident would have been avoided," the statement read. "Testing of the shuttle will continue during the 12-month pilot in the downtown Innovation District. Metro Police cited the driver of the delivery truck."

The pilot program will run for a year and it is free to ride. It travels in a 0.6 mile loop in the central downtown of Vegas, their so-called "Innovation District" that has been testing new integrated technologies that are compatible with city living.

A human attendant remains on the shuttle in case there are kinks that require him or her to manually steer it with a remote control-like console.

"This is the future and having an opportunity to be the first to be able to ride something like this is just like getting a brand new phone, everyone wants to be first one with the brand new iPhone," said Maurice Bell, vice president of Mobility Solutions for Keolis, the operator of the shuttle.

Highlighting the unique nature of the technology, Bell added, "It's the first of its kind in the United States that's integrated with street signals. The shuttle knows when the street signals are going to change from one color to the next."


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> Yeah anything short of driving to the top of pikes pike during a blizzard on the first week is not a "real world test."


Good idea to cherry pick.


----------



## iheartuber

Michael - Cleveland said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-by-human-driven-truck-hours-after-debut.html
> *Self-driving shuttle hit by human-driven truck hours after debut*
> *in Las Vegas*
> 
> A driverless shuttle was involved in an accident hours after it debuted in the streets of downtown Las Vegas on Wednesday. But those involved in the conception of the project said the shuttle was not at fault.
> 
> "The exciting thing is that the vehicle did exactly what it was programmed to do. This is a really good real-world case of how the technology actually works", said John Moreno, a spokesperson for The American Automobile Association (AAA,) a sponsor on the project.
> 
> "The shuttle came to a complete stop, a semi-truck driver was backing up and unfortunately continued to back up and may not have seen the shuttle and grazed the front bumper of it," Moreno explained.
> 
> "The shuttle recognized that the semi-truck was backing up and as it's programmed to do: it stopped," he added.
> 
> AAA and transportation company Keolis conducted a review of the all-electric, eight-seat Navya ARMA vehicle and found the shuttle did everything it was designed to do in the incident. The shuttle did have to pause service for the remainder of the day so the review could be done, but it was still operational and drove away from the scene. There was slight cosmetic damage to the vehicle.
> 
> No one was injured in the collision.
> 
> In a statement, the City of Las Vegas also noted that the shuttle did what it was supossed to do and said testing of the shuttle will continue.
> 
> "Had the truck had the same sensing equipment that the shuttle has, the accident would have been avoided," the statement read. "Testing of the shuttle will continue during the 12-month pilot in the downtown Innovation District. Metro Police cited the driver of the delivery truck."
> 
> The pilot program will run for a year and it is free to ride. It travels in a 0.6 mile loop in the central downtown of Vegas, their so-called "Innovation District" that has been testing new integrated technologies that are compatible with city living.
> 
> A human attendant remains on the shuttle in case there are kinks that require him or her to manually steer it with a remote control-like console.
> 
> "This is the future and having an opportunity to be the first to be able to ride something like this is just like getting a brand new phone, everyone wants to be first one with the brand new iPhone," said Maurice Bell, vice president of Mobility Solutions for Keolis, the operator of the shuttle.
> 
> Highlighting the unique nature of the technology, Bell added, "It's the first of its kind in the United States that's integrated with street signals. The shuttle knows when the street signals are going to change from one color to the next."


When anyone posts any article that makes SDCs look bad, the Tomato will call it "Fake News"


----------



## June132017

Unbelievable robots are taking over. I wonder if someone will hack into the systems


----------



## heynow321

June132017 said:


> Unbelievable robots are taking over. I wonder if someone will hack into the systems


No they are not and yes they will


----------



## goneubering

heynow321 said:


> No they are not and yes they will


I do have to wonder about robots when I read an article like this.

https://qz.com/1070607/deutsche-ban...mber-of-workers-will-be-replaced-with-robots/

Deutsche Bank plans to replace a "big number" of workers with robots
John Detrixhe September 06, 2017


----------



## d0n

Lol.


----------



## YouBeer

iheartuber said:


> Guys, don't underestimate the Tomato.
> 
> You know that "No Thanks" button when you see a ping come in? That was HIS IDEA!
> 
> Oh yes, this guy is going to be part of a MAJOR change in society


Thats his claim to fame?

The 'No Thanks' button?
Or are you trolling?


----------



## tomatopaste

YouBeer said:


> Thats his claim to fame?
> 
> The 'No Thanks' button?
> Or are you trolling?


The 'no thanks' button and self driving Nascar.


----------



## iheartuber

YouBeer said:


> Thats his claim to fame?
> 
> The 'No Thanks' button?
> Or are you trolling?


No joke. Tomato sent an email suggestion to the CSR at uber and lo and behold, very shortly after the "No Thanks" button was born.


----------



## uberboy48

iheartuber said:


> I get what you're saying- SDC should be everywhere to cut down on injuries and fatalities. But doesn't that mean we will have to make 99% if not 100% of the roads all SDC in order to make that most effective?
> 
> If so, don't you see a little problem with people not wanting to give up their freedom to be able to drive?


Those numbers are not explained correctly, humans have improved compared to the past, the number has fallen, and then you gave to remember how many human drivers are on the road, so out of millions of drivers there is thousands of accidents, btw Germany solved this problem, by raising the standard, there are no speed limits and very little accidents, if you count the accidents the self driving cars have been in out of how many self driving cars are on the road, as of now the numbers are worse for these sdc, but even if they are better, it will result in a worse economy and worse humans


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> Just because they aren't charging and it's a limited launch does not mean anything.
> Driverless cars are officially carrying passengers in a ride service in AZ. Case .





The Gift of Fish said:


> Again, Waymo _is _introducing driverless cars as part of a test program in Phoenix. this _is not _a launch of a commercial driverless car service that will compete with rideshare drivers .





RamzFanz said:


> Live roads: check Live civilian passengers: check No driver: check





RamzFanz said:


> I predicted early next year. The for profit part, is a few months away. Restricted ridership and not charging is meaningless. These passengers, who signed up for a service, are receiving said service.


Here is something parallel:

In the Capital of Your Nation, streetcar service ended in 1962. In early 2016, streetcars returned, although only in one place and on a relatively short stretch of street. The streetcar is still in its "introductory/trial" phase. There is no fare charged. It runs on H Street, N.E. from the train station to Oklahoma Avenue at Benning Road (Benning Road is essentially H Street extended).

Please do not try to tell me that:

1. *Thar' ain't no streetcars in no Kapp-ee-tull o' yer nay-shinn.*
2. They are not providing a service
3. People are not using them to address their transportation needs.

I have used the streetcars more than once as part of getting somewhere that I needed to go. Several times, I have had to leave my cab at the company shops so that some upgraded meter technology could be installed/programmed. This meant that I had to get home so that I could get my Uber Car and go to work. The METRO has two stops near where I live: Brookland and Ft. Rotten. Both of the lines pass through the train station. Now, how to get to the train station? Do I really want to wait for a bus? Well, _*DAYY-unn, SAYY-um*_, I can walk a long block and a short block along Benning Road, walk on the bridge across the Anacostia River, walk two long blocks to Oklahoma Avenue and get on the trolley car! The trolley car has limited stops, drops me at the train station, I can get on the METRO and walk from either stop to my home and get my Uber Car. In fact, now that they have leave-it-anywhere Bicycle Share, I can pick up one of those, pay a small fee, ride the bicycle home and leave it in front of my house until someone else picks up the thing.

The trolley car is still in its "introductory/trial" mode, but even in that mode, it is meeting the transportation needs of the residents of the Capital of Your Nation.

Similarly, the SDCs are in their "introductory/trial" phase, but in said phase, they are meeting the transportation needs of certain residents of Phoenix. Thus, they are doing the job for which they were intended.

_*Dipso facto, QED:*_ Self driving cars are _*here*_.

Of course they are not going to appear everywhere overnight. Steam locomotives and automobiles did not appear everywhere overnight, either. Daimler and Benz built their first car in the 1880s; Ford his first in 1896. There were four of them; two still run, a third exists but does not run. You did not find Fords everywhere in 1897. In fact, even in the 1930s you had fruitmongers and others still using horseys in the big cities(!).

Yes, they are here, yes there will be more of them, no, they are not going to put us out of work to-morrow. Eventually, they might, but not to-morrow.



iheartuber said:


> If it becomes a profitable business, Until then, it's just Larry Page's hobby


One hundred of the things with five hundred more to follow is a rather large hobby. Yes, it is still in its "trial phase". The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public. The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations. You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should.

While there were some rumblings and some documented losses of business, be aware that it took until the late 1940s/early 1950s for the automobile to take away the railroads' passengers in a convincing manner. Things do happen more quickly, these days, but still, while the SDCs are here, they will not take over everything to-morrow.



tomatopaste said:


> Now if the Chrysler mini vans can't pop a wheelie with 3 pax inside, it doesn't count.


If a SDC does that on Uber, will Uber de-activate the car or computer for "dangerous driving"? What do you DO with a car that Uber or Lyft has de-activated?.....................assuming that either or both CAN de--activate a car.......................................



tomatopaste said:


> The fact that the "UP community" is still using words like 'if' shows the "community" has the vision of a bat


While I am no big fan of this, I have long believed that "if" went out a long time past to be superseded by "when". While I do not necessarily agree with the timetable in which many here put their faith, I am not unaware that they are here and will proliferate once the statistics are available to demonstrate to legislators and regulators that they are at least AS safe as cars driven by human beings. To be sure, the SDCs will have their own sets of problems, but, will the statistical bottom line show a lower traffic fatality or injury rate? I do not doubt that it will.



heynow321 said:


> They can't turn left. They can't drive in the snow. They can't drive in the rain. They can't handle construction zones or police directing traffic etc. a.k.a. all the things you see in a major urban center


They have run more than a few of these things that already have done all of the above and did well at it.



WMUber said:


> Fleets of SDC can operate at a lower (thus safer) but continuous speed. This will simultaneously increase safety and reduce commute time. During rush hour traffic in the Los Angeles Westside it takes one hour to travel 10 miles. This can easily be reduced to 40 minutes.
> 
> Also, what says Uber will want to own 100% of the cars operating on the platform.
> 
> SDC owners may decide to "Rent" their cars at a per mile basis to Uber.
> 
> SDC will require humans to service. For example, right now most people pump their on gas, charge electric vehicles, and park their car. When an empty SDC pulls into a gas or electric charging station, it will require a human to operate the equipment. More humans will be needed to monitor the networks of SDC. Basically, an UberX driver is earning minimum wage after expenses. SDC will simply shift these minimum wage workers from operating an automobile to servicing it.


One advantage of these things is that you can set "Industry Standards" that allow different brands to communicate with each other, as well as a Central Brain so that speeds and directions of all vehicles can be adjusted to expedite traffic flow. The Central Brain can communicate with thousands of vehicles at once (that was one of the drawbacks of voice dispatch; the dispatcher can talk only to one driver at a time), analyse everything and issue orders.

Uber will not want to own even one car. There is too much exposure to liability and regulation. Uber and the other TNCs will contract with vehicle owners.

Instead of being a driver, you will own several of these things under contract to one or more TNC. There will be made available financing so that you can purchase several, as you will need more than one, likely, to provide a living wage.

Original Poster and I had several discussions on another topic on the servicing and maintenance of these things. We did agree that much of the work can be done by robots as long as the vehicles are constructed to certain standard methods. It would require modular constructions that would allow swap-outs of the various components taken from a stock of spares thus reducing the time that a vehicle spent in a service facility. The components that needed attention would then be directed to the part of the facility where they could be serviced and returned to stock.

Further, it would require certain construction standards that allowed for quick and easy access to the various modules so that a robot could R and R the various modules. As an example: the vehicle would need some sort of door that could slide up and out of the way so that a robotic arm(s) could undo the clips that hold a dirty interior module, pull out said module, replace it with another one. You could program the vehicle computer to open and close the doors (minivan sliding doors already are switch operated or even automatic). Thus, once the interior module is replaced and a quick OBD is done to determine if there might be something else that requires attention, the facility computer tells the vehicle computer to close the doors and go back to work. Of course, the robotic arm would place the dirty interior module on a conveyor or self driving forklift, which would direct it to a washing line and from the washing line, another self driving forklift or conveyor would put said module in stock.

Likely you would need an Inspector to conduct random checks of things. In the cleaning example just cited, everyone knows that a washing line is not going to get up dried catsup or stuck on gum, so the Inspector likely would have to get out his scraper, squirt bottle and roll of paper towels or direct another employee to do it.


----------



## iheartuber

Another Uber Driver said:


> One hundred of the things with five hundred more to follow is a rather large hobby. Yes, it is still in its "trial phase". The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public. The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations. You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should.


this is a sensible opinion, and if the Tomato said something along these lines from the start I wouldn't even be here.

I've said just two simple things from the start:

1. It's going to take a reasonable amount of time for an SDC rideshare biz to fully "take over"

... to which the Tomato replied: "No way! Give it two months tops!" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was his message)

2. If Waymo wants to get into the rideshare biz they better make sure they have enough money to pay all the inevitable costs involved.

... yet, the Tomato keeps insisting that they can do so at just 35 cents a mile. No reasonable person can believe that.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber will not want to own even one car. There is too much exposure to liability and regulation.


So why does Waymo want to own 600 cars in Phoenix alone?


----------



## CarterPeerless

goneubering said:


> We need first hand observations. Have any Phoenix drivers ridden in a Waymo?


It isn't open to the public. It is the same group of testers that have already been riding for months. They are cherry-picked pax that ride predicable, softball, geofenced, non-highway, non-airport, non-apartment routes. The pax have almost certainly signed NDA's in exchange for their free rides so you will never hear any real feedback.


----------



## iheartuber

CarterPeerless said:


> It isn't open to the public. It is the same group of testers that have already been riding for months. They are cherry-picked pax that ride predicable, softball, geofenced, non-highway, non-airport, non-apartment routes. The pax have almost certainly signed NDA's in exchange for their free rides so you will never hear any real feedback.


Well, that's not anywhere near SDCs "taking over" then is it?

tomatopaste - any idea when there will be real pax that don't have signed NDAs and the cars are NOT in a geofenced area? (In other words, when will SDC taxis enter the real world?)


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> Here is something parallel:
> 
> In the Capital of Your Nation, streetcar service ended in 1962. In early 2016, streetcars returned, although only in one place and on a relatively short stretch of street. The streetcar is still in its "introductory/trial" phase. There is no fare charged. It runs on H Street, N.E. from the train station to Oklahoma Avenue at Benning Road (Benning Road is essentially H Street extended).
> 
> Please do not try to tell me that:
> 
> 1. *Thar' ain't no streetcars in no Kapp-ee-tull o' yer nay-shinn.*
> 2. They are not providing a service
> 3. People are not using them to address their transportation needs.


You need to stop repeating the corporation PR crap, or, if you believe what you are saying, STOP intentionally lying to whoever comes here and reads these comments.

Let me start with your rich imagination. Your scenario with many robots, cleaning facilities, other robots and private fleet owners could qualify you for writing a good Star Trek story, but those Star Trek stories and ships were not real. That was a set built out of cardboard, aluminum foil, few light bulbs and a big TV in the middle. Also CGI animation.

You speak about trolley? That is a more of a curiosity today and cannot even remotely qualify for a "transportation infrastructure" the way corporations envision it today. There is no PROFIT there, and I need to remind you how REALITY works. ALL corporations target MAXIMUM PROFIT with MINIMUM INVESTMENT. Robots, cleaning facilities, warehouses, more robots are only in your imagination. I like how your predictions/speculations contain *a lot* of "should's" or "could's" or "would's" -
"you must make sure that everything works as it *should*.",
or "It *would* require modular constructions that *would* allow swap-outs",
or "The components that needed attention *would* then be directed to the part of the facility where they *could* be serviced and returned to stock."
or "it *would* require certain construction standards"
or "the vehicle *would* need some sort of door",
or "that *could* slide up and out of the way",
or "a robotic arm(s)* could* undo the clips that hold a dirty interior module",
or "You* could* program the vehicle computer",
or " the robotic arm *would* place the dirty interior",
or "which *would* direct it to a washing line",
or "conveyor *would* put said module in stock",
or "Likely you *would* need an Inspector",
or " the Inspector likely *would* have to get out his scrape".

SERIOUSLY? You are abusing your imagination and our intelligence trying this speech to support your delusion - "_*Dipso facto, QED:*_ Self driving cars are _*here*_."

How old are you? 9 ?



Another Uber Driver said:


> be aware that it took until the late 1940s/early 1950s for the automobile to take away the railroads' passengers in a convincing manner.


*NO*. In order for the automobile to take over, GM intentionally bought and closed/destroyed the bus and street cars systems - Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century




There was NO real competition and NO "convincing manner". It was CORPORATE CRIME.
Also FORD killed the electric car project he had with Edison. 



Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber will not want to own even one car. There is too much exposure to liability and regulation. Uber and the other TNCs will contract with vehicle owners.


Remember how you are referring to a corporation that NEVER made a profit in it's 8 years of existence. They are still loosing money as we speak and the day they will make the first dollar in profit, it will be a huge achievement.

Now, you imagine private fleets, but who is going to do the maintenance, cleaning, parking while not in use, refueling or recharging and service? WHO is going to pay for all that, for "the inspector" to scrap the bubble gum from the floor and from the cameras?

Let me explain to you the value of your statements -
"Yes, they are here, yes there will be more of them, no, they are not going to put us out of work to-morrow. Eventually, they might, but not to-morrow." - *conflictual*
"The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public." - *speculation
"*The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations." - *speculation
"*You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should." - *redundant
"*I do not doubt that it will" -* irrelevant 
"*They have run more than a few of these things that already have done all of the above and did well at it." - *vague, speculative and irrelevant 
"*One advantage of these things is that you can set "Industry Standards" that allow different brands to communicate with each other, as well as a Central Brain so that speeds and directions of all vehicles can be adjusted to expedite traffic flow" -* speculation 
"*Original Poster and I had several discussions on another topic on the servicing and maintenance of these things. We did agree" -* irrelevant and redundant
*


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Well, that's not anywhere near SDCs "taking over" then is it?
> 
> tomatopaste - any idea when there will be real pax that don't have signed NDAs and the cars are NOT in a geofenced area? (In other words, when will SDC taxis enter the real world?)


Most of what he said is simply butt speak. The geo fenced area is 100 square miles around Chandler. That there are only easy runs in that 100 square mile area is ludicrous. That they're not going on freeways, the easiest miles, is ludicrous. That the pax signed NDA's, on its face is ludicrous. What good would that do Waymo? They'll start operating a full fledged commercial self driving taxi service in Phoenix before Christmas.


----------



## goneubering

CarterPeerless said:


> It isn't open to the public. It is the same group of testers that have already been riding for months. They are cherry-picked pax that ride predicable, softball, geofenced, non-highway, non-airport, non-apartment routes. The pax have almost certainly signed NDA's in exchange for their free rides so you will never hear any real feedback.


And I'm sure they're also non-drinking!!


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> You need to stop repeating the corporation PR crap, or, if you believe what you are saying, STOP intentionally lying to whoever comes here and reads these comments.
> 
> Let me start with your rich imagination. Your scenario with many robots, cleaning facilities, other robots and private fleet owners could qualify you for writing a good Star Trek story, but those Star Trek stories and ships were not real. That was a set built out of cardboard, aluminum foil, few light bulbs and a big TV in the middle. Also CGI animation.
> 
> You speak about trolley? That is a more of a curiosity today and cannot even remotely qualify for a "transportation infrastructure" the way corporations envision it today. There is no PROFIT there, and I need to remind you how REALITY works. ALL corporations target MAXIMUM PROFIT with MINIMUM INVESTMENT. Robots, cleaning facilities, warehouses, more robots are only in your imagination. I like how your predictions/speculations contain *a lot* of "should's" or "could's" or "would's" -
> "you must make sure that everything works as it *should*.",
> or "It *would* require modular constructions that *would* allow swap-outs",
> or "The components that needed attention *would* then be directed to the part of the facility where they *could* be serviced and returned to stock."
> or "it *would* require certain construction standards"
> or "the vehicle *would* need some sort of door",
> or "that *could* slide up and out of the way",
> or "a robotic arm(s)* could* undo the clips that hold a dirty interior module",
> or "You* could* program the vehicle computer",
> or " the robotic arm *would* place the dirty interior",
> or "which *would* direct it to a washing line",
> or "conveyor *would* put said module in stock",
> or "Likely you *would* need an Inspector",
> or " the Inspector likely *would* have to get out his scrape".
> 
> SERIOUSLY? You are abusing your imagination and our intelligence trying this speech to support your delusion - "_*Dipso facto, QED:*_ Self driving cars are _*here*_."
> 
> How old are you? 9 ?
> 
> *NO*. In order for the automobile to take over, GM intentionally bought and closed/destroyed the bus and street cars systems - Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was NO real competition and NO "convincing manner". It was CORPORATE CRIME.
> Also FORD killed the electric car project he had with Edison.
> 
> Remember how you are referring to a corporation that NEVER made a profit in it's 8 years of existence. They are still loosing money as we speak and the day they will make the first dollar in profit, it will be a huge achievement.
> 
> Now, you imagine private fleets, but who is going to do the maintenance, cleaning, parking while not in use, refueling or recharging and service? WHO is going to pay for all that, for "the inspector" to scrap the bubble gum from the floor and from the cameras?
> 
> Let me explain to you the value of your statements -
> "Yes, they are here, yes there will be more of them, no, they are not going to put us out of work to-morrow. Eventually, they might, but not to-morrow." - *conflictual*
> "The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public." - *speculation
> "*The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations." - *speculation
> "*You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should." - *redundant
> "*I do not doubt that it will" -* irrelevant
> "*They have run more than a few of these things that already have done all of the above and did well at it." - *vague, speculative and irrelevant
> "*One advantage of these things is that you can set "Industry Standards" that allow different brands to communicate with each other, as well as a Central Brain so that speeds and directions of all vehicles can be adjusted to expedite traffic flow" -* speculation
> "*Original Poster and I had several discussions on another topic on the servicing and maintenance of these things. We did agree" -* irrelevant and redundant*


It might be even simpler to understand. Sure, everyone connected to SDCs sound as brainwashed as Scientologists but think about it: even if they are skeptical, how can they NOT put on their game face, always?

BTW, I once picked up a couple pax going to LAX on their way to Phoenix for the holidays. We spoke about SDCs and I said some of the same things I'm saying now. The pax 1 starred me and filed a complaint saying I had an argument with her. Methinks she's someone's daughter who works in the SDC biz.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> It might be even simpler to understand. Sure, everyone connected to SDCs sound as brainwashed as Scientologists but think about it: even if they are skeptical, how can they NOT put on their game face, always?
> 
> BTW, I once picked up a couple pax going to LAX on their way to Phoenix for the holidays. We spoke about SDCs and I said some of the same things I'm saying now. The pax 1 starred me and filed a complaint saying I had an argument with her. Methinks she's someone's daughter who works in the SDC biz.


 Comparing Autonomous cars enthusiasts with Scientologists is very close to the real thing actually. Anthony Levandowsky wanted to create a religion in which the Self Driving would have been "the Jesus" with the Artificial Intelligence it's God - GOD IS A BOT, AND ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKI IS HIS MESSENGER. Of course, their intention was, in case their plans would have been successful, to skip paying taxes and rake much bigger profits. I am going to make a separate post about that insanity.... However,

While the general public is lied to and people are not educated enough about the history and also about the reality of present business environments, you can understand their naive stance. Their prefer to stay in denial and cheer for the the same people that are robbing them with a friendly smile on their faces. And when they wake up, is usually a little too late.

It's easy to wrap up corporate crime and try to sell it as "progress" when consumers are blindly following "your" light. Essentially, this PR crap works like magic on the stage and still, even if we know magic doesn't exist, people choose to think is real if they hear or see whatever they like to hear or see. That is a "selling" trick based on which every individual is a potential client even if he/she doesn't even know it yet. The salesperson job is to identify what every individual likes to hear, to see or to have, and 99% of the job is done.

Some of us today, want to think about ourselves like generous individuals, caring about other people, animals or life/environment in general, but fail to acknowledge and admit how other many people are quietly dying everyday from malnutrition, starvation or lack of clean water. It easy to understand why people would like and embrace the "self driving cars will save lives" slogan, attached to some tailored statistics and few unfortunate stories. Also, we want to save the environment, but ignore how scientifically proven Pets Are More Damaging to Environment Than SUVs.

Long story short, I keep saying this - Education is the future while technology is only a very small piece of the puzzle.


----------



## SCdave

If you just don't want to guess, go to this URL.  waymo.com/apply re how to apply. Yes, obviously includes Waymo PR.

And I just don't get why Discussion and Debate can't be done by some without personal attacks. Not difficult UP community.


----------



## iheartuber

SCdave said:


> If you just don't want to guess, go to this URL.  waymo.com/apply re how to apply. Yes, obviously includes Waymo PR.
> 
> And I just don't get why Discussion and Debate can't be done by some without personal attacks. Not difficult UP community.


I'm guilty of lobbing personal attacks. I'm not proud of it, but if you really are curious I'll tell you why I did it: the Tomato has such an arrogant tone, I just get so angry.

It happens to the best of us


----------



## goneubering

SCdave said:


> And I just don't get why Discussion and Debate can't be done by some without personal attacks. Not difficult UP community.


What about Tomato calling people Commies?? I didn't see you objecting to that.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/waym...because-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> What about Tomato calling people Commies?? I didn't see you objecting to that.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/waym...because-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/


I simply pointed out that there are fewer commies in red states than in deep blue commie blue states.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> I simply pointed out that there are fewer commies in red states than in deep blue commie blue states.


Stay off the sauce.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

iheartuber said:


> ... yet, the Tomato keeps insisting that they can do so at just 35 cents a mile.
> 
> So why does Waymo want to own 600 cars in Phoenix alone?


I would be hard put to buy the thirty five cents the mile. Maintenance/repairs cost the same on a car regardless of its being self-driving, a TNC car with a driver or a taxicab.

There are things that can be done to reduce costs. A large facility that does work on a large volume of cars mostly by means of robots can cut the repair and maintenance costs, but the up-front costs for operating equipment and parts stock will need to be amortised. Thirty five cents the mile is 1962 cab rates. It will not happen.

Waymo owns them now because the whole thing is still in its "test phase". When the day comes that state laws allow these things on the roads, Waymo will dispose of them. Uber owns several SDCs as does Lyft. They stand to benefit from their widespread use. Once the states allow the SDCs, Uber and Lyfy will dispose of theirs.



iheartuber said:


> Well, that's not anywhere near SDCs "taking over" then is it?


Y-E-T



jocker12 said:


> *1. *STOP intentionally lying to whoever comes here and reads these comments.
> 
> *2. *You speak about trolley? That is a more of a curiosity today and cannot even remotely qualify for a "transportation infrastructure" the way corporations envision it today.
> 
> *3. *There is no PROFIT there, and I need to remind you how REALITY works. ALL corporations target MAXIMUM PROFIT with MINIMUM INVESTMENT. Robots, cleaning facilities, warehouses, more robots are only in your imagination. I like how your predictions/speculations contain *a lot* of "should's" or "could's" or "would's" -
> 
> *4. NO*. In order for the automobile to take over, GM intentionally bought and closed/destroyed the bus and street cars systems -
> 
> *5. *Remember how you are referring to a corporation that NEVER made a profit in it's 8 years of existence.
> 
> *6. *Now, you imagine private fleets, but who is going to do the maintenance, cleaning, parking while not in use, refueling or recharging and service? WHO is going to pay for all that, for "the inspector" to scrap the bubble gum from the floor and from the cameras?
> 
> *7.*Let me explain to you the value of your statements -
> - *conflictual*
> " - *speculation
> "* - *speculation
> "*- *redundant*
> -* irrelevant *
> - *vague, speculative and irrelevant
> "*-* speculation *
> " -* irrelevant and redundant*


You make many accusations. You launch a few _*ad hominem*_ attacks. Your "attacks" on the statements are simple name calling without any substantiation. Please be aware that _*ad hominem*_ attacks fall into the category of "confrontational" posts which violate Forum Rules. In fact, a reading of said Rules will render an example that reads something on the line of "attack the content not the poster". Please read and familiarise yourself with the Forum Rules, if you have not done so, already. When you signed up for your account, you acknowledged that you had read and understood the Rules and agreed to abide by them. Please honour that statement. If there is anything about the Rules that you do not understand, please ask any Moderator or Administrator.

I will let pass your recent rule violations, for now, at least.

1. Please indicate what statement is "intentionally lying".

2. Have you ever been in Boston, San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia or Pittsburgh? All of them have trolley cars. Cambridge (across the river from Boston) and San Francisco even have trackless trolleys.

Seattle has dual modes and Vancouver has trackless trolleys.

Thus, we see that trolleys are STILL part of transportation infrastructure of more than one major North American city.

3. The use of the conditional is necessary here, as no such facility currently exists. It would be necessary to have some facility that maintains these things, as anything either mechanical or electronic requires maintenance. Failure to maintain equipment results in nothing's moving. That results in lost income or even bankruptcy.

4. The statement to which you direct this reply was referring to Class I railroads and both their intercity and local passenger service; not streetcar systems.

5. I have been reading about Uber's imminent demise since 2011. It is still here and is still doing business.

6. The people who currently own vehicles pay mechanics and garages to work on their cars. The garages pay for their equipment out of the money that they collect from their customers. The owners of the SDCs will pay the facilities. The facilities will pay for the equipment and parts out of the fees that they charge the vehicle owners. We have a capitalist system, here. Ultimately, it will be the end user who pays for all of it. The vehicle owner will set aside a portion of the fares that he collects for maintenance. When his vehicle requires maintenance, he will pay the facility.

7. Please substantiate your name calling.


----------



## tomatopaste

Another Uber Driver said:


> Uber will not want to own even one car. There is too much exposure to liability and regulation. Uber and the other TNCs will contract with vehicle owners.
> 
> Instead of being a driver, you will own several of these things under contract to one or more TNC. There will be made available financing so that you can purchase several, as you will need more than one, likely, to provide a living wage.


This is utter nonsense. The self driving taxi companies are going to own their own cars. Uber needs drivers but they also need drivers to finance the cars, Waymo needs neither. Owning a car or several cars and putting it on Waymos system would be a horrible investment. Are the most profitable rides going to go to you or to Waymo, and why would Waymo want to have hundreds of thousands of business partners, along with all the extra paperwork and headache?

Does Avis allow you to buy a car and put it on their system? The only company that's suggesting you will be able to buy a car and put it on their system is Tesla. And Tesla is lying. They're just throwing the possibility out there to sucker you into buying a Tesla.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> *1*. crap,
> 
> *2. *intentionally lying
> 
> *3. *You speak about trolley?
> 
> *4. *That is a more of a curiosity today and cannot even remotely qualify for a "transportation infrastructure" the way corporations envision it today. There is no PROFIT there, and I need to remind you how REALITY works. ALL corporations target MAXIMUM PROFIT with MINIMUM INVESTMENT. -
> 
> *5. *How old are you? 9 ?
> 
> *6. *loosing money
> 
> *7. *as we speak
> 
> *8. *"Yes, they are here, yes there will be more of them, no, they are not going to put us out of work to-morrow. Eventually, they might, but not to-morrow." - *conflictual*
> 
> *9. *"The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public." - *speculation
> 
> 10. "*The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations." - *speculation
> 
> 11. "*You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should." - *redundant
> 
> 12. "*I do not doubt that it will" -* irrelevant
> 
> 13. "*They have run more than a few of these things that already have done all of the above and did well at it." - *vague, speculative and irrelevant
> 
> 14. "*One advantage of these things is that you can set "Industry Standards" that allow different brands to communicate with each other, as well as a Central Brain so that speeds and directions of all vehicles can be adjusted to expedite traffic flow" -* speculation
> 
> 15. "*Original Poster and I had several discussions on another topic on the servicing and maintenance of these things. -* irrelevant and redundant*


1. Vulgar and inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults over the age of eighteen years.

2. Redundant. A lie is defined as an "intentional falsehood"

3. Do you hear any voice? I am not "speaking", I am typing.

4. You first and second statement, although in the same paragraph, have nothing to do with each other. If there is a connexion, please explain it.

5. _*Ad hominem*_ attack, inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults; not to mention a violation of Forum Rules,

6. The word that you want is "*losing* money", not loosing. This is a common vocabulary error, but it is an error nonetheless. In addition, pointing out this particular error often evokes a flurry of namecalling and deflection from the person who made the error. Take care not to fall into that trap. Uber has not been untying any money.

7. See Number Three

8. I will pass over your misuse of "conflictual" to point out to you that there is no conflict or contradiction in those statements. If there is one, you failed to point it out to me when you made the accusation. Here is another chance: please demonstrate the conflict or contradiction.

9. That is reality, not speculation. The legislators and regulators in the various cities and states are resisting these things because the operators of them have not yet provided evidence that they are as safe as a human driven vehicle. The reason for the lack of evidence is the paucity of the numbers of vehicles and trips. There will have to be more trips and more miles of operation before there is convincing evidence that they are at least as safe as what is currently out there. Keep in mind that despite their being few in number, that does not mean that they are not here and in operation. Remember, there was a time when Henry Ford had only four cars in operation.

10. If the legislators or regulators had accepted data from the operation of ten or twenty vehicles, autonomous vehicles would already be operating under Uber's auspices in California. You are aware, of course, that California compelled Uber to stop operating autonomous vehicles on the public roads of that state.

11. Please demonstrate what is redundant

12. It is relevant in that it is a statement that the autonomous vehicle will prove that they are at least as safe as what is out there. That is a major concern to the states. This makes it anything BUT "irrelevant". ......or is something "irrelevant" only because you do not agree with it?

13. When taken out of context, it might be vague. When taken in the context of a reply to another poster who mentioned that the SDCs do not acknowledge police, construction zones or weather, it is specific. It is a reply to a concern that the SDC can not acknowledge what a human can. It is far from speculative, it has happened. It is relevant in that it is a reply to specific questions raised by another poster.

14. This is speculation only as far as there are currently not vehicles of different manufacture running in the same tests. At some point, there will be. These vehicles will be equipped with computers. Computers of different manufacture already can communicate with each other. The reason for this is that there are industry standards that facilitate this.

15. It is relevant in that there have been questions raised as to the possible maintenance. If there is anything "redundant", please demonstrate the redundancy. .....or do you define "redundant" as "something with which I do not agree"?



tomatopaste said:


> This is utter nonsense. The self driving taxi companies are going to own their own cars.


Yes, the self driving taxi companies are going to own the cars and they will contract with platform providers such as Uber, Lyft, VIA, Waymo and others. None of the platform providers will own cars. The disconnect is necessary to duck regulation and liability, which is key to the TNC platforms' survival. 
In addition, vehicle maintenance is a distraction to the platform providers' main line of work.

The potential monkey wrench in the works is if the legislators and regulators decide that the platform providers are responsible for their contracting drivers. For years, the cab companies in more than a few large cities hid behind this. Many of them owned no cars, They had affiliates who were either owner-operators or people who owned large fleets of cabs that they rented to drivers. The cab companies existed to provide "services" to cab drivers such as a colour scheme, dispatch, insurance agency. mechanical work and supplies necessary to hacking. What happened was that when a court decided that a cab driver had inflicted harm on someone, the designated "victim" could not collect his judgment, as the cab driver had nothing to take. The legislators and regulators (and even the courts) started holding the companies responsible for their drivers, despite their drivers' being independent contractors. This was because some of the cab companies actually did have something to take. Once this trend accelerated, the cab companies began creating corporate veils to shield their assets. In fact, some of them did that early on, as they saw a day where it might happen.

The leap from currently holding cab companies responsible for their driver/contractors to holding TNCs responsible for the same is not difficult. The TNCs have far more money than any cab company in the U.S. of A.

So no, it is far from "utter nonsense". I have been down a parallel road. I am not just "talking" out of my [donkey].


----------



## tomatopaste

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. Vulgar and inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults over the age of eighteen years.
> 
> 2. Redundant. A lie is defined as an "intentional falsehood"
> 
> 3. Do you hear any voice? I am not "speaking", I am typing.
> 
> 4. You first and second statement, although in the same paragraph, have nothing to do with each other. If there is a connexion, please explain it.
> 
> 5. _*Ad hominem*_ attack, inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults; not to mention a violation of Forum Rules,
> 
> 6. The word that you want is "*losing* money", not loosing. This is a common vocabulary error, but it is an error nonetheless. In addition, pointing out this particular error often evokes a flurry of namecalling and deflection from the person who made the error. Take care not to fall into that trap. Uber has not been untying any money.
> 
> 7. See Number Three
> 
> 8. I will pass over your misuse of "conflictual" to point out to you that there is no conflict or contradiction in those statements. If there is one, you failed to point it out to me when you made the accusation. Here is another chance: please demonstrate the conflict or contradiction.
> 
> 9. That is reality, not speculation. The legislators and regulators in the various cities and states are resisting these things because the operators of them have not yet provided evidence that they are as safe as a human driven vehicle. The reason for the lack of evidence is the paucity of the numbers of vehicles and trips. There will have to be more trips and more miles of operation before there is convincing evidence that they are at least as safe as what is currently out there. Keep in mind that despite their being few in number, that does not mean that they are not here and in operation. Remember, there was a time when Henry Ford had only four cars in operation.
> 
> 10. If the legislators or regulators had accepted data from the operation of ten or twenty vehicles, autonomous vehicles would already be operating under Uber's auspices in California. You are aware, of course, that California compelled Uber to stop operating autonomous vehicles on the public roads of that state.
> 
> 11. Please demonstrate what is redundant
> 
> 12. It is relevant in that it is a statement that the autonomous vehicle will prove that they are at least as safe as what is out there. That is a major concern to the states. This makes it anything BUT "irrelevant". ......or is something "irrelevant" only because you do not agree with it?
> 
> 13. When taken out of context, it might be vague. When taken in the context of a reply to another poster who mentioned that the SDCs do not acknowledge police, construction zones or weather, it is specific. It is a reply to a concern that the SDC can not acknowledge what a human can. It is far from speculative, it has happened. It is relevant in that it is a reply to specific questions raised by another poster.
> 
> 14. This is speculation only as far as there are currently not vehicles of different manufacture running in the same tests. At some point, there will be. These vehicles will be equipped with computers. Computers of different manufacture already can communicate with each other. The reason for this is that there are industry standards that facilitate this.
> 
> 15. It is relevant in that there have been questions raised as to the possible maintenance. If there is anything "redundant", please demonstrate the redundancy. .....or do you define "redundant" as "something with which I do not agree"?
> 
> Yes, the self driving taxi companies are going to own the cars and they will contract with platform providers such as Uber, Lyft, VIA, Waymo and others. None of the platform providers will own cars. The disconnect is necessary to duck regulation and liability, which is key to the TNC platforms' survival.
> In addition, vehicle maintenance is a distraction to the platform providers' main line of work.
> 
> The potential monkey wrench in the works is if the legislators and regulators decide that the platform providers are responsible for their contracting drivers. For years, the cab companies in more than a few large cities hid behind this. Many of them owned no cars, They had affiliates who were either owner-operators or people who owned large fleets of cabs that they rented to drivers. The cab companies existed to provide "services" to cab drivers such as a colour scheme, dispatch, insurance agency. mechanical work and supplies necessary to hacking. What happened was that when a court decided that a cab driver had inflicted harm on someone, the designated "victim" could not collect his judgment, as the cab driver had nothing to take. The legislators and regulators (and even the courts) started holding the companies responsible for their drivers, despite their drivers' being independent contractors. This was because some of the cab companies actually did have something to take. Once this trend accelerated, the cab companies began creating corporate veils to shield their assets. In fact, some of them did that early on, as they saw a day where it might happen.
> 
> The leap from currently holding cab companies responsible for their driver/contractors to holding TNCs responsible for the same is not difficult. The TNCs have far more money than any cab company in the U.S. of A.
> 
> So no, it is far from "utter nonsense". I have been down a parallel road. I am not just "talking" out of my [donkey].


There is no way a self driving taxi company is going to allow a private citizen to put their private self driving car on their network. The liability to the self driving taxi company would increase, not decrease. The self driving taxi company has no idea if you maintain your car or not. All you would be doing is adding in an unnecessary point of failure.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> There is no way a self driving taxi company is going to allow a private citizen to put their private self driving car on their network.


Yes, they will. The platform provider does not want the headaches of vehicle ownership.

Currently, the TNCs and many cab companies allow private owners to put their human operated vehicles on the network. Currently, the only knowledge that these platform providers or cab companies know if you maintain your vehicle is that you show proof that it has passed an annual inspection. It will be the same for an autonomous.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. Please indicate what statement is "intentionally lying".


" Self driving cars are *here". - *Here where? Besides your vague statement, because "here" is a relative term, all you say doesn't have any support in reality because, and I am using your words - "The use of the conditional is necessary here, *as no such facility (*_and self driving cars as units, cannot exist without those facilities_*) currently exists*." Are you serious? Do you realize your comment, besides the introduction about your preferences, is intentional pure speculation? It's simple fantasy, you present it as facts !



Another Uber Driver said:


> 2. Have you ever been in Boston, San Francisco, New Orleans, Philadelphia or Pittsburgh? All of them have trolley cars. Cambridge (across the river from Boston) and San Francisco even have trackless trolleys.


At this point, no city will develop trolleys to fix their traffic problems. Those are "city flavors" meant to give cities a distinct personality as proof of existence of that old and well established community. They are slowly but surely dying due to city expansions, costs, accessibility limitations or modern urban planning. Trolleys are local curiosities to attract a little bit more tourists.
Edit - those cities are ONLY dots on the US map, by the way.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 3. The use of the conditional is necessary here, as no such facility currently exists. It would be necessary to have some facility that maintains these things, as anything either mechanical or electronic requires maintenance. Failure to maintain equipment results in nothing's moving. That results in lost income or even bankruptcy.


The only important statement here is "*no such facility currently exists*". *The rest of it*, and I am going to paraphrase a Literature Nobel prize winner, is *Blowin in the wind. *



Another Uber Driver said:


> 4. The statement to which you direct this reply was referring to Class I railroads and both their intercity and local passenger service; not streetcar systems.


I strongly encourage you to watch that documentary. After that we can come back and talk about YOUR " for the automobile to take away the railroads' passengers in a *convincing manner*." statement.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 5. I have been reading about Uber's imminent demise since 2011. It is still here and is still doing business


I NEVER said anything about "Uber's demise". What I said was Uber " NEVER made a profit in it's 8 years of existence. They are still loosing money as we speak and the day they will make the first dollar in profit, it will be a huge achievement." As a moderator of this website, and the individual lecturing me about the Forum Rules, you should pay attention to MY written WORDS. Don't you think? Or do you think that, if it happens to be a moderator, you are above the rules and you can twist the reality according to your subjectivity? (Edit - notice how I am asking a legitimate question given your words, not making a statement).



Another Uber Driver said:


> The owners of the SDCs will pay the facilities. The facilities will pay for the equipment and parts out of the fees that they charge the vehicle owners.


*So there will be no owners*, and you call that capitalism. Would you agree to buy 10 vehicles, put them on the road for (let's say) 40 cents a mile and do what you fantasize about here? Do you realize what you generously call "We have a *capitalist system, here*" in this case?



Another Uber Driver said:


> 7. Please substantiate your name calling.


Please substantiate what you are referring to, because, and no offence, I don't play hide and seek here.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You make many accusations.


I call you out for your unsubstantiated statements, and using terms like speculation, irrelevant, redundant, vague or conflictual is necessary when describing such ideas, and according to the Terms and Rules - "Appropriate discourse confronts the idea, not the member." If you take it personally, it is not my problem and I really feel sorry for you if you feel that way. This is not the place where you could consider yourself a victim, but the place where you can engage in a constructive discussion, with rational facts about any topic regarding UberPeople concerns.

If you think I am a child you can intimidate with a "Moderator" yellow badge under your user name, you are mistaken. I invite you to participate to this discussion with a distinctive respect for other peoples intelligence, objectivity and respect for reality and detail. In my opinion, comments like "_The use of the conditional is necessary here, as no such facility currently exists._" are *seriously* *insulting* and prove lack of minimal substance in order to maintain a logical change of ideas.

Edit -


Another Uber Driver said:


> Yes, they will. The platform provider does not want the headaches of vehicle ownership.


No, they won't, because no individual in his right mind, already knowing what car sharing is and requires, will agree to the headaches of vehicle ownership. Again, Would you do it? And if yes why, or if no, why not?


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> 1. Vulgar and inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults over the age of eighteen years.


So corporate PR crap is hurting your sensibilities? Crap describes dirty Corporate Propaganda associated with and exercised by ALL corporations, including all the actors involved in the autonomous cars development. Do you understand how people like Joshua Brown honestly believed corporations misleading statements and they lost their lives. Please. try and call his family to ask them if the expression "corporate PR crap" is to harsh for their ears.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 2. Redundant. A lie is defined as an "intentional falsehood"


When is fantasy sold as fact, we have a big problem.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 3. Do you hear any voice? I am not "speaking", I am typing.


As a person with a rich imagination, you also have a great sense of humor.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 4. You first and second statement, although in the same paragraph, have nothing to do with each other. If there is a connexion, please explain it.


Trolleys are curiosities (not even close to your "The trolley car is still in its "introductory/trial" mode") and consequently they are not profitable for the cities. Moving forward on the logical thread towards the "transportation corporate controlled infrastructure future", which all the vehicles are part of, no corporation will invest money in developing "curiosities" as long as corporate ONLY focus is on MINIMAL INVESTMENT with MAXIMAL PROFIT. If you think corporations are in the business to make maximal investments for minimal profit, I am waiting for your typing.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 5. _*Ad hominem*_ attack, inappropriate to what is supposed to be a discussion among civilised adults; not to mention a violation of Forum Rules,


So as an adult, you consider questions attacks, or you think it will be impossible for a 9 year old kid/prodigy to moderate an internet forum? If you go back to your comment, only one paragraph contained 15 could's, should's and would's, something that, as an informed adult considering his opinion relevant to the topic, should be a little alarming, in my opinion. Using those terms doesn't show relevance and substance, but interesting projections and good imagination.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 6. The word that you want is "*losing* money", not loosing. This is a common vocabulary error, but it is an error nonetheless. In addition, pointing out this particular error often evokes a flurry of namecalling and deflection from the person who made the error. Take care not to fall into that trap. Uber has not been untying any money.


I have a feeling you're not seeing the woods because of the trees in front of you.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 7. See Number Three


Question not statement - Are we doing Olympic circles here, because I don't see the *relevance* of this comment and Terms and Rules say - " *Posts should be on topic to the thread and to the forum*. Off-topic posting is subject to moderation." ? Good thing you mentioned that section to start with.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 8. I will pass over your misuse of "conflictual" to point out to you that there is no conflict or contradiction in those statements. If there is one, you failed to point it out to me when you made the accusation. Here is another chance: please demonstrate the conflict or contradiction.


So here is your statement - "Yes, they are here, yes there will be more of them, no, they are not going to put us out of work to-morrow. Eventually, they might, but not to-morrow." in which "eventually" is the key word. Follow me now - you say the self driving cars are here and they are not going to put us out of work tomorrow, but they might put us out of work someday. Now when you introduced the adverb "eventually", you twisted your initial rationale - "they might put us out of work because they are here", typing "eventually" or "maybe not". Do you see the contradiction here? Making a statement and contradict that statement in the same phrase with only one word - "eventually".


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> 9. That is reality, not speculation. The legislators and regulators in the various cities and states are resisting these things because the operators of them have not yet provided evidence that they are as safe as a human driven vehicle. The reason for the lack of evidence is the paucity of the numbers of vehicles and trips. There will have to be more trips and more miles of operation before there is convincing evidence that they are at least as safe as what is currently out there. Keep in mind that despite their being few in number, that does not mean that they are not here and in operation. Remember, there was a time when Henry Ford had only four cars in operation.


For the sake of your words - "That is reality, not speculation." and "The providers of these things are going to have to present volumes of figures and facts to regulators and legislators to prove that these things are safe and can meet the needs of the public.", *please* provide a source for this and convince me what you write is not fantasy.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 10. If the legislators or regulators had accepted data from the operation of ten or twenty vehicles, autonomous vehicles would already be operating under Uber's auspices in California. You are aware, of course, that California compelled Uber to stop operating autonomous vehicles on the public roads of that state.


Your initial idea - "The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations." Legitimate question - HOW DO YOU KNOW? Source please, otherwise is more speculation, don't you think?



Another Uber Driver said:


> 11. Please demonstrate what is redundant


Please read you initial statement again - "You must increase the number gradually. At each step, you must make sure that everything works as it should." Now let me explain - any number increase is by definition gradually (or according to dictionary.com - 1.taking place, changing, moving; 2. rising or descending at an even, moderate inclination). So when you say _increase_, that will be only_ gradually _at a higher or lower inclination. The second sentence sounds like (notice how I am not typing/using "is like") you talking to children and telling them about how to pace their work and achieve good results. I need to remind you we are NOT children and we ,and also "The providers of these things", already know how basic life works.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 12. It is relevant in that it is a statement that the autonomous vehicle will prove that they are at least as safe as what is out there. That is a major concern to the states. This makes it anything BUT "irrelevant". ......or is something "irrelevant" only because you do not agree with it?


The fact that you are convinced by something, is irrelevant as long as is not backed up by sources. Essentially, you are convinced because your set of values and your limited perceptions. That doesn't mean is relevant for an industry. Your context was - "will the statistical bottom line show a lower traffic fatality or injury rate? I do not doubt that it will. " for which at this point, the REALITY is NOBODY has any statistical data or scientific evidence. Or if you have any, again provide the source to support your statement.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 13. When taken out of context, it might be vague. When taken in the context of a reply to another poster who mentioned that the SDCs do not acknowledge police, construction zones or weather, it is specific. It is a reply to a concern that the SDC can not acknowledge what a human can. It is far from speculative, it has happened. It is relevant in that it is a reply to specific questions raised by another poster.


He has a source for his statement - Alphabet wants to launch an Uber rival this fall, but the *self-driving cars get tripped up by left turns*, report says
YOU DON'T have a source for YOUR statement.



Another Uber Driver said:


> 14. This is speculation only as far as there are currently not vehicles of different manufacture running in the same tests. At some point, there will be. These vehicles will be equipped with computers. Computers of different manufacture already can communicate with each other. The reason for this is that there are industry standards that facilitate this.


This is funny. You keep speculating - "At some point, there will be."



Another Uber Driver said:


> 14. This is speculation only as far as there are currently not vehicles of different manufacture running in the same tests. At some point, there will be. These vehicles will be equipped with computers. Computers of different manufacture already can communicate with each other. The reason for this is that there are industry standards that facilitate this.


Do you have a SOURCE for this. In particular for - "The Central Brain can communicate with thousands of vehicles at once (that was one of the drawbacks of voice dispatch; the dispatcher can talk only to one driver at a time)"



Another Uber Driver said:


> 15. It is relevant in that there have been questions raised as to the possible maintenance. If there is anything "redundant", please demonstrate the redundancy. .....or do you define "redundant" as "something with which I do not agree"?


Now you are altering my typing (by not using the entire quotation), sir. Let me go back to my statement which is - "*"*Original Poster and I had several discussions on another topic on the servicing and maintenance of these things. We did agree" -* irrelevant and redundant. *The fact that you agreed with OP is irrelevant for the discussion with us. Your agreement doesn't make you right. If I agree with you Saturn is a good car, based on our experiences with Saturn cars, doesn't mean Saturn cars are good cars or it doesn't mean other people had the same experiences as we had. The fact that you think is worth mentioning how you two agreed on "servicing and maintenance of these things" *when is not*, makes that *statement redundant because has no value*, while you make it in order to type/look (not sound) more convincing to other users participating to this discussion or readers reading these comments.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

Let's see a vid of these death traps in action ?



UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Well, that didn't take long.
> http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/11...-crashes-in-las-vegas-hours-after-launch.html


HAHAHA I can laugh because nobody got hurt. Unfortunately we need more accidents(hopefully that don't result in injuries or deaths) to shut these things down once and for all.

Just think about the innocent pedestrians, not really the idiot riders risking their lives by getting in them, that might die before these things finally get shut down.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> Your initial idea - "The legislators and regulators are not going to accept facts and figures from ten or twenty vehicles' operations." Legitimate question - HOW DO YOU KNOW?


You have failed to answer most of my questions. Please explain to me why I should answer yours.


----------



## iheartuber

Another Uber Driver said:


> You have failed to answer most of my questions. Please explain to me why I should answer yours.


I think all of us are basically interjecting our opinions on how we think this is all going to play out.

No sense in trying to "prove" who is "right" because that's impossible.

Just see what happens.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> The only company that's suggesting you will be able to buy a car and put it on their system is Tesla. And Tesla is lying. They're just throwing the possibility out there to sucker you into buying a Tesla.


That's funny. You claim to know more about Tesla than Tesla's management.

The Tesla Network actually sounds like it might be one workable niche solution.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/10/26/tesla-car-sharing-for-owners

Musk also clarified that, unlike a common misconception of the Tesla Network, "it's not Tesla versus Uber, it's the people versus Uber." Last week, in a note posted on its website about its upcoming Tesla Network, the company warned that customers won't be able to use self-driving Tesla cars to drive for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft-they'll only be able to do so as part of Tesla's service.


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> That's funny. You claim to know more about Tesla than Tesla's management.
> 
> The Tesla Network actually sounds like it might be one workable niche solution.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/10/26/tesla-car-sharing-for-owners
> 
> Musk also clarified that, unlike a common misconception of the Tesla Network, "it's not Tesla versus Uber, it's the people versus Uber." Last week, in a note posted on its website about its upcoming Tesla Network, the company warned that customers won't be able to use self-driving Tesla cars to drive for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft-they'll only be able to do so as part of Tesla's service.


I know when Tesla management is trying to blow smoke up my butt. The Tesla network is nothing more than a sales pitch to idiot granola eaters so they can say to their wife: honey it will pay for itself.

How many Teslas are in a large city like Phoenix, 500? What percentage are dumb enough to beat the hell out of their overpriced Tesla for peanuts, 5 percent? So 25 cars?

Tom: Mark I'm not going to be able to make it to the meeting tomorrow.

Mark: Is everything alright?

Tom: Yeah, I just wasn't able to get a Tesla to take me to the airport.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> I know when Tesla management is trying to blow smoke up my butt. The Tesla network is nothing more than a sales pitch to idiot granola eaters so they can say to their wife: honey it will pay for itself.
> 
> How many Teslas are in a large city like Phoenix, 500? What percentage are dumb enough to beat the hell out of their overpriced Tesla for peanuts, 5 percent? So 25 cars?
> 
> Tom: Mark I'm not going to be able to make it to the meeting tomorrow.
> 
> Mark: Is everything alright?
> 
> Tom: Yeah, I just wasn't able to get a Tesla to take me to the airport.


First it's the evil Commies. Now it's the Idiot Granola Eaters. Have you considered taking an Anger Management class??!!


----------



## tomatopaste

goneubering said:


> First it's the evil Commies. Now it's the Idiot Granola Eaters. Have you considered taking an Anger Management class??!!


First, commies are evil. Second, granola eaters are idiots.


----------



## goneubering

tomatopaste said:


> First, commies are evil. Second, granola eaters are idiots.


Your logic is impeccable. Waymo will defeat the Commies and the Granola Eaters and Uber and Lyft. It will be a magical perfect world.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> You have failed to answer most of my questions. Please explain to me why I should answer yours.


I'm going to address only your initial statements, those that made me comment in the first place. I know you'll try to change the context and tailor everything again. I know you want to move away from your initial statement the moment you'll understand my message. It doesn't work with me. Let's stay organized here, don't you agree?

I'll ask you again, regarding the intentional lie promoted by the SDC developers - self driving cars are here? Where? 
Do you want me to address a mathematical ratio SDC's on the road, in the dealerships, sold and used by real consumers versus same criterias for traditionally operated cars?

SDC's are here is either a delusion or an intentional lie?

Please explain your initial statement!


----------



## goneubering

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> I've been seeing these Waymo vans on the streets of Chandler day and night for the last year or so. As I understand it, this program is limited to a few square miles of some of the easiest suburbia you could design for a SDC trial. I'll let you know when I see one on the freeway.


They're cherry picking time and location for this test. I'm much more interested to see what happens if they ever expand their test to real world conditions.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

jocker12 said:


> I'm going to address only your initial statements, those that made me comment in the first place. I know you'll try to change the context and tailor everything again. I know you want to move away from your initial statement the moment you'll understand my message. It doesn't work with me. Let's stay organized here, don't you agree?
> 
> I'll ask you again, regarding the intentional lie promoted by the SDC developers - self driving cars are here? Where?
> Do you want me to address a mathematical ratio SDC's on the road, in the dealerships, sold and used by real consumers versus same criterias for traditionally operated cars?
> 
> intentional lie


HUH?

You have failed to answer my questions. I will ask you, again; why should I answer yours?

I will inform you, again; "intentional lie" is redundant. A "lie" is by definition an intentional falsehood.

You have demonstrated that trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. You lash out at anything and everything simply to do it because you disagree with the bottom line. Further, you resort to name calling, which, by more than one accepted convention means that you have conceded all points and that what you offer for "arguments" really have no substance. In addition, it results in more than a little self-contradiction.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> HUH?
> 
> You have failed to answer my questions. I will ask you, again; why should I answer yours?
> 
> I will inform you, again; "intentional lie" is redundant. A "lie" is by definition an intentional falsehood.
> 
> You have demonstrated that trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. You lash out at anything and everything simply to do it because you disagree with the bottom line. Further, you resort to name calling, which, by more than one accepted convention means that you have conceded all points and that what you offer for "arguments" really have no substance. In addition, it results in more than a little self-contradiction.


Check my posts, and unless you redacted them, I've addressed every single potential issue you raise or had questions about. By saying I have not you are directly insulting me again.

I've asked what name calling are you referring to and you seem to prefer empty accusation instead a clear answer to my question.

Again. Your statement - SDC's are here. Where?

If you repeat a lie that was told to you that is unintentional. If you really believe what you say, that is a delusion. If you know what you say is not true but you still say it, is an intentional lie.

My initial comment had all three options. Repeating, intentional, or delusion.

Please explain your statement!


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> I'm going to address only your initial statements, those that made me comment in the first place. I know you'll try to change the context and tailor everything again. I know you want to move away from your initial statement the moment you'll understand my message. It doesn't work with me. Let's stay organized here, don't you agree?
> 
> I'll ask you again, regarding the intentional lie promoted by the SDC developers - self driving cars are here? Where?
> Do you want me to address a mathematical ratio SDC's on the road, in the dealerships, sold and used by real consumers versus same criterias for traditionally operated cars?
> 
> SDC's are here is either a delusion or an intentional lie?
> 
> Please explain your initial statement!


jocker12 let's state the obvious: technically, they ARE here. They have cars on the road in Phoenix, there were a few tests in Pennsylvania, and other cities as well.

But when we say "SDCs are here" there's an unspoken implication. If an SDC taxi service does not get to be as well known and well used as uber currently is, then it's as if it's not really "here".

Now, in all fairness, the wheels are in motion and it's POSSIBLE that in the next few years things can snowball and, gulp, the Tomato could be proven right. But it's also possible that it can not.



Another Uber Driver said:


> HUH?
> 
> You have failed to answer my questions. I will ask you, again; why should I answer yours?
> 
> I will inform you, again; "intentional lie" is redundant. A "lie" is by definition an intentional falsehood.
> 
> You have demonstrated that trying to discuss anything with you is pointless. You lash out at anything and everything simply to do it because you disagree with the bottom line. Further, you resort to name calling, which, by more than one accepted convention means that you have conceded all points and that what you offer for "arguments" really have no substance. In addition, it results in more than a little self-contradiction.


If I may, I think I understand what jocker12 is asking, emotions and name calling notwithstanding.

The crux of the debate here is when SDCs in general and an SDC taxi service specifically are fully unleashed on the world will they eventually completely change our entire society from human-based driving to machine-based?

I know all the arguments on both sides so there's no need to repeat. There are absolutely passionate believers on each side here on this thread.

Ultimately, to use the words of tomatopaste 's colleague Monica (who described herself as an intern, though really I think she's the boss): "you can't [convince people]. You just have to watch it unfold."

Where is Monica anyway? She's so much more pleasant to talk to than the Tomato


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> jocker12 let's state the obvious: technically, they ARE here. They have cars on the road in Phoenix, there were a few tests in Pennsylvania, and other cities as well.
> 
> But when we say "SDCs are here" there's an unspoken implication. If an SDC taxi service does not get to be as well known and well used as uber currently is, then it's as if it's not really "here".
> 
> Now, in all fairness, the wheels are in motion and it's POSSIBLE that in the next few years things can snowball. But it's also possible that it can not.


Those computer independently software controlled robots are in testing. Do you even remember how many products failed in their testing?

He has 3 options, and I know he sees this. He keeps being wrong and I keep showing him how wrong he is. He knows he is metaphorically speaking, waking on thin ice. And he refuses to explain his statement because he knows I am going to show him the REAL numbers, and he either repeated a lie, believes he is right and intentionally lied or had a delusion.

Somewhere on this forum I've mentioned how I am NOT a regular uber driver.

Now I want to read his explanation.

Just to give you a little more context - technically Segways are here, not in testing anymore.... But literally, effectively, seriously, how many people use them. 
So if you want to describe the actual state of a Segway machine in relation to the real world, you must use the term "technically", because real numbers show a humongous failure of a revolutionary technology.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> Those computer independently software controlled robots are in testing. Do you even remember how many products failed in their testing?
> 
> He has 3 options, and I know he sees this. He keeps being wrong and I keep showing him how wrong he is. He knows he is metaphorically speaking, waking on thin ice. And he refuses to explain his statement because he knows I am going to show him the REAL numbers, and he either repeated a lie, believes he is right and intentionally lied or had a delusion.
> 
> Somewhere on this forum I've mentioned how I am NOT a regular uber driver.
> 
> Now I want to read his explanation.
> 
> Just to give you a little more context - technically Segways are here, not in testing anymore.... But literally, effectively, seriously, how many people use them.
> So if you want to describe the actual state of a Segway machine in relation to the real world, you must use the term "technically", because real numbers show a humongous failure of a revolutionary technology.


It's splitting hairs whether to call what's happening in Phoenix "testing" or the start of the real thing. And believe me, SDC enthusiasts (and employees) will campaign HARD on the idea that it's NOT testing. But I do understand your meaning.



jocker12 said:


> technically Segways are here, not in testing anymore.... But literally, effectively, seriously, how many people use them.


That's what this debate boils down to:

In 5 years, will SDCs be the next uber or the next Segway?


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> In 5 years, will SDCs be the next uber or the next Segway?


Somewhere in between because of the deep pockets involved trying to force or entice people out of their cars.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

iheartuber said:


> If I may, I think I understand what jocker12 is asking, emotions and name calling notwithstanding.


You may, and you are being reasonable, here. It is too bad that the same can not be stated for all participants in this discussion, which is why I am refusing to discuss the matter any further with said participants on such a topic. This is not a topic that I consider that important, Y-E-T, at least. If it is a topic that I consider important, such as unwarranted attacks on the cab business, I will post until the Administrators ban me. There are other topics on these boards to which I would rather devote my time.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> Why don't you post a link old man. Otherwise like every other one of your posts it's just conjecture


I have, many times. It doesn't stop the naysayers. Your evidence is a google away, but we both know you won't bother.


----------



## iheartuber

RamzFanz said:


> I have, many times. It doesn't stop the naysayers. Your evidence is a google away, but we both know you won't bother.


The problem with posting any link on the subject is any link you could possibly post all boil down to the same bottom line: MAYBE all these things will happen in the future as you are saying, but no hard proof anywhere and nowhere near any true "real world" experience.

So, post a link or don't it's all the same: we wait, we see what happens.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> jocker12 let's state the obvious: technically, they ARE here. They have cars on the road in Phoenix, there were a few tests in Pennsylvania, and other cities as well.
> 
> But when we say "SDCs are here" there's an unspoken implication. If an SDC taxi service does not get to be as well known and well used as uber currently is, then it's as if it's not really "here".
> 
> Now, in all fairness, the wheels are in motion and it's POSSIBLE that in the next few years things can snowball and, gulp, the Tomato could be proven right. But it's also possible that it can not.
> 
> If I may, I think I understand what jocker12 is asking, emotions and name calling notwithstanding.
> 
> The crux of the debate here is when SDCs in general and an SDC taxi service specifically are fully unleashed on the world will they eventually completely change our entire society from human-based driving to machine-based?
> 
> I know all the arguments on both sides so there's no need to repeat. There are absolutely passionate believers on each side here on this thread.
> 
> Ultimately, to use the words of tomatopaste 's colleague Monica (who described herself as an intern, though really I think she's the boss): "you can't [convince people]. You just have to watch it unfold."
> 
> Where is Monica anyway? She's so much more pleasant to talk to than the Tomato


So you're telling me there's a chance Tomato could be wrong. YEEEEEAAAAAAH!


----------



## goneubering

RamzFanz said:


> I have, many times. It doesn't stop the naysayers. Your evidence is a google away, but we both know you won't bother.


It's good form to provide a link supporting your claim instead of just saying Google it.


----------



## heynow321

RamzFanz said:


> I have, many times. It doesn't stop the naysayers. Your evidence is a google away, but we both know you won't bother.


 No you don't


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> So you're telling me there's a chance Tomato could be wrong. YEEEEEAAAAAAH!


oh there's a huge chance the Tomato is wrong. But to be fair I'll just say maybe not-- big maybe, BTW

Ps I think you meant to say "there's a chance the Tomato is right"


----------



## wb6vpm

lol @ this thread...


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> oh there's a huge chance the Tomato is wrong. But to be fair I'll just say maybe not-- big maybe, BTW
> 
> Ps I think you meant to say "there's a chance the Tomato is right"


https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/953877b6-4ac5-408a-99e5-26458b58dec0


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/953877b6-4ac5-408a-99e5-26458b58dec0


Wow. I got the Tomato to come down from his arrogant stance of "I'm 100% right" to admitting he's at 95%.

I call that a win!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Wow. I got the Tomato to come down from his arrogant stance of "I'm 100% right" to admitting he's at 95%.
> 
> I call that a win!


She then says: "but it's 100 percent." Chastain and I agreed to 95 percent solely because certainty freaks you guys out.


----------



## jocker12

Another Uber Driver said:


> You may, and you are being reasonable, here. It is too bad that the same can not be stated for all participants in this discussion, which is why I am refusing to discuss the matter any further with said participants on such a topic. This is not a topic that I consider that important, Y-E-T, at least. If it is a topic that I consider important, such as unwarranted attacks on the cab business, I will post until the Administrators ban me. There are other topics on these boards to which I would rather devote my time.


Good you understand when I told you to stop.

You keep making strange statements even if I am sure you don't want to.

First - You are implying "other participants" to this discussion are not reasonable, right? But websites Terms and Rules states "Opposing opinions are encouraged. Appropriate discourse confronts the idea, not the member."
NOT THE MEMBER. If you read my posts, I addressed your statements not the person but you say other members are not reasonable.

Second. Let's say "other participants" to this discussion are not reasonable. Then why are you even mentioning the possibility of being banned by the Administrators? See how you are conflicting yourself? Again?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> I know all the arguments on both sides so there's no need to repeat. There are absolutely passionate believers on each side here on this thread.


True, but there are only passionate believers with facts on one side.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> True, but there are only passionate believers with facts on one side.


Sir, customers may or may not choose to flock to an SDC rideshare over uber. It is still at this point unproven. Def NOT a "fact"

And at the end of the day, that's the only "fact" that matters

Also, it remains to be seen if Waymo knows how to run a taxi business. They (or, more accurately, you) have given me very low confidence.


----------



## uberboy48

jocker12 said:


> That's ridiculous way of thinking.
> 
> Who is going to help elderly people to get inside the car if they cannot do it by themselves? Ridicoulous!
> 
> Who is going to help people using crutches to get inside the cars? Also ridiculous!
> 
> Lyft serious answer? The cars will still have an attendant inside... Whaaat? What was the problem with the attendant actually driving the car? Lyft answer......... ........ .........


Away for them to pay people less, pointless tech, really hope it fails


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Sir, customers may or may not choose to flock to an SDC rideshare over uber. It is still at this point unproven. Def NOT a "fact"
> 
> And at the end of the day, that's the only "fact" that matters
> 
> Also, it remains to be seen if Waymo knows how to run a taxi business. They (or, more accurately, you) have given me very low confidence.


Now wait a darn minute, you can't sir me for that. That was not a sir-able offense. Moderators need to start cracking down on all the over sir-ing taking place on this forum.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> No wait a darn minute, you can't sir me for that. That was not a sir-able offense. Moderators need to start cracking down on all the over sir-ing taking place on this forum.


What about "Sirrah"?


----------



## tomatopaste

Another Uber Driver said:


> What about "Sirrah"?


If I may. What if you go in and change iheart's picture with this pic of a schoolmarm, for 24 hours?
https://shankell.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/schoolmarm.jpg?w=240


----------



## Another Uber Driver

tomatopaste said:


> If I may. What if you go in and change iheart's picture with this pic of a schoolmarm, for 24 hours?


Forum Rules do not permit me to discuss such things. I do, however, find your request in possession of a _*high degree of risibility*_. I suppose that now I should replace the schoolmarm with a Jesuit priest who is holding a Latin textbook and a pointer. If you ever took Latin in high school, you would know that the translations that the students render are some of the most stilted and tortured renderings of what is supposed to pass for "English" that I ever have seen.


----------



## tomatopaste

Another Uber Driver said:


> Forum Rules do not permit me to discuss such things. I do, however, find your request in possession of a _*high degree of risibility*_. I suppose that now I should replace the schoolmarm with a Jesuit priest who is holding a Latin textbook and a pointer. If you ever took Latin in high school, you would know that the translations that the students render are some of the most stilted and tortured renderings of what is supposed to pass for "English" that I ever have seen.


However nothing prevents iheart from doing the honorable thing by accepting the punishment and changing the picture himself.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> That's what this debate boils down to:
> 
> In 5 years, will SDCs be the next uber or the next Segway?


If you do compare the two products, self driving cars and Segways, the promise revolves or revolved around mobility and convenience.
People express doubts today about self driving cars, ignoring the fact that we can analyse why Segways failed.
So - "The product is very clever. It works well. The company, Segway Inc., had tremendous funding and resources. The level of press and TV exposure was astounding. So what went wrong? What lessons about the success or failure of innovations can we learn?

*Expectations were too high*. The Segway was described as the future of transport. As an innovation it was said to be on a par with the PC or the internet. Inevitably it could not live up to this level of hype. PR exposure is generally useful but this time it was overdone.
*It was a product not a solution.* The product works well but it lacked a support context. Where can you park it? How do you charge it? Do you use it on roads or sidewalks? Our cities are designed for pedestrians or speedy vehicles and this was neither so it had no proper infrastructure to support it.
*No clear need or target market*. Who was the target market? Who really needed this? It was an appealing novelty but there was no compelling need for anyone to buy it - and it was very expensive.
*It was an invention rather than an innovation.* The Segway was patented and kept under wraps until its launch. There was no user feedback or iteration in the process. Its inventors were then surprised when people criticised or ridiculed the design for being 'dorky' rather than cool.
*Regulation.* The Segway fell foul of regulation in many countries where it was banned from sidewalks and roads because it did not fit any existing categories. This is a problem for a truly revolutionary product - but it was not properly anticipated."
And most importantly - *A radical invention with ample backing still needs to gain market acceptance.
*
Also from - 4 Things You Can Learn From Segway's Notorious Product Fail

*Avoid overhyping*

When the super-secret project got big corporate names like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos to sign off, the hype machine went into overdrive. The inventors' secrecy, the prominence of the endorsements, and the beyond-bold claims that this new product -- whatever it was -- would revolutionize our lives of course combined to skyrocket expectations into the stratosphere of the impossible.
Basically, Kamen set the Segway up to fail. Touting a single new product as all of these things, and letting the media get carried away without any real context, doomed the Segway to be a disappointment. All the coverage and crazy claims could hardly be satisfied by the actual Segway, though a more savvy (read: scaled-back and informative) marketing strategy could have generated interest and delivered on its promises.

This sounds alarmingly familiar.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> No wait a darn minute, you can't sir me for that. That was not a sir-able offense. Moderators need to start cracking down on all the over sir-ing taking place on this forum.


I'll sir you any time I darn well please.

Sir.


----------



## goneubering

jocker12 said:


> If you do compare the two products, self driving cars and Segways, the promise revolves or revolved around mobility and convenience.
> People express doubts today about self driving cars, ignoring the fact that we can analyse why Segways failed.
> So - "The product is very clever. It works well. The company, Segway Inc., had tremendous funding and resources. The level of press and TV exposure was astounding. So what went wrong? What lessons about the success or failure of innovations can we learn?
> 
> *Expectations were too high*. The Segway was described as the future of transport. As an innovation it was said to be on a par with the PC or the internet. Inevitably it could not live up to this level of hype. PR exposure is generally useful but this time it was overdone.
> *It was a product not a solution.* The product works well but it lacked a support context. Where can you park it? How do you charge it? Do you use it on roads or sidewalks? Our cities are designed for pedestrians or speedy vehicles and this was neither so it had no proper infrastructure to support it.
> *No clear need or target market*. Who was the target market? Who really needed this? It was an appealing novelty but there was no compelling need for anyone to buy it - and it was very expensive.
> *It was an invention rather than an innovation.* The Segway was patented and kept under wraps until its launch. There was no user feedback or iteration in the process. Its inventors were then surprised when people criticised or ridiculed the design for being 'dorky' rather than cool.
> *Regulation.* The Segway fell foul of regulation in many countries where it was banned from sidewalks and roads because it did not fit any existing categories. This is a problem for a truly revolutionary product - but it was not properly anticipated."
> And most importantly - *A radical invention with ample backing still needs to gain market acceptance.
> *
> Also from - 4 Things You Can Learn From Segway's Notorious Product Fail
> 
> *Avoid overhyping*
> 
> When the super-secret project got big corporate names like Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos to sign off, the hype machine went into overdrive. The inventors' secrecy, the prominence of the endorsements, and the beyond-bold claims that this new product -- whatever it was -- would revolutionize our lives of course combined to skyrocket expectations into the stratosphere of the impossible.
> Basically, Kamen set the Segway up to fail. Touting a single new product as all of these things, and letting the media get carried away without any real context, doomed the Segway to be a disappointment. All the coverage and crazy claims could hardly be satisfied by the actual Segway, though a more savvy (read: scaled-back and informative) marketing strategy could have generated interest and delivered on its promises.
> 
> This sounds alarmingly familiar.


Welcome to Waymo World!!


----------



## jocker12

goneubering said:


> Your logic is impeccable. Waymo will defeat the Commies and the Granola Eaters and Uber and Lyft. It will be a magical perfect world.


 Allow me to reveal the cloud of stupidity (the ideas and the spirit of this section of the forum, not the members) that is floating around here.

Few days ago, one specific member account user created a parallel thread about Waymo in Arizona - Waymo launced self driving cars in Arizona *because it's a red state. Fewer commies.* Instead of using only the articles main title from NY Times -Where Self-Driving Cars Go to Learn, that specific user of that account (which is used by multiple individuals) redacted the title, *choosing to politicize it*. As a result he said Arizona is a red state (so they vote Republicans) and has less Communists. What does that individual understands to be a Communist is revealed by another modification to the NY Times article. In his view, the Communists are the members of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Association, because "They're a bunch of big government ralph nader type weenies that want to regulate anything and everything. They want to mandate that everyone go pee before they get in the car even if they don't have to pee." (comment #8). From their website, we learn how "*Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of consumer, medical, public health, and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer. Advocates' mission is the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and programs that prevent motor vehicle crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and contain costs.*"

All these being said, a simple Google search will reveal how REAL communists from Communist China are "considering giving the *green light to driverless car companies to conduct tests on public roadways*, a move that is expected to help ambitious Chinese firms pull ahead in autonomous driving.
The regulators are considering issuing licenses to qualified car manufacturers, auto parts makers, internet companies, universities and other applicants, the source said. In order to qualify for road testing, a vehicle must have already been test-driven for at least 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) in a closed environment and, it must pass an assessment by a third-party technology institution authorized by the government, among other conditions."

Now we can stop for a second to understand the image we are looking at. Following a simple logic, if the REAL Chinese communists are considering allowing self driving cars on the public roads, then the Arizona officials mentioned by the NY Times article (especially Arizona's governor, Doug Ducey) , are also communists. All the self driving cars enthusiasts could also be communist sympathizers that are infiltrating the American society and this forum. And the insanity could go on and on and on....

. This anomaly was previously brought to forums participants attention by other forum members,

Why is this important? - Because the discussion is not about politics. As Terms and Rules section of this forum states, commentators do not supposed to deviate from the main topic.


----------



## iheartuber

jocker12 said:


> I will also email this comment to [email protected] and use the"contact us" feature for the administrators to make sure they see it (and I ask and encourage any Moderator to contact the Administrators and show them this comment)
> 
> Allow me to reveal the cloud of stupidity (the ideas and the spirit of this section of the forum, not the members) that is floating around here.
> 
> Few days ago, one specific member account user created a parallel thread about Waymo in Arizona - Waymo launced self driving cars in Arizona *because it's a red state. Fewer commies.* Instead of using only the articles main title from NY Times -Where Self-Driving Cars Go to Learn, that specific user of that account (which is used by multiple individuals) redacted the title, *choosing to politicize it*. As a result he said Arizona is a red state (so they vote Republicans) and has less Communists. What does that individual understands to be a Communist is revealed by another modification to the NY Times article. In his view, the Communists are the members of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Association, because "They're a bunch of big government ralph nader type weenies that want to regulate anything and everything. They want to mandate that everyone go pee before they get in the car even if they don't have to pee." (comment #8). From their website, we learn how "*Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of consumer, medical, public health, and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer. Advocates' mission is the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and programs that prevent motor vehicle crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and contain costs.*"
> 
> All these being said, a simple Google search will reveal how REAL communists from Communist China are "considering giving the *green light to driverless car companies to conduct tests on public roadways*, a move that is expected to help ambitious Chinese firms pull ahead in autonomous driving.
> The regulators are considering issuing licenses to qualified car manufacturers, auto parts makers, internet companies, universities and other applicants, the source said. In order to qualify for road testing, a vehicle must have already been test-driven for at least 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) in a closed environment and, it must pass an assessment by a third-party technology institution authorized by the government, among other conditions."
> 
> Now we can stop for a second to understand the image we are looking at. Following a simple logic, if the REAL Chinese communists are considering allowing self driving cars on the public roads, then the Arizona officials mentioned by the NY Times article (especially Arizona's governor, Doug Ducey) , are also communists. All the self driving cars enthusiasts could also be communist sympathizers that are infiltrating the American society and this forum. And the insanity could go on and on and on....
> 
> Why did I choose to make this comment? Because* all this insanity is allowed by the moderation team on this website. They know* about this user repeated outrageous statements, claims and behavior, and still fail to use at least their editing available tools to clean the garbage. This anomaly was previously brought to forums participants attention by other forum members, but I personally used the Report Button few days ago and reported the title anomaly and the ridiculous poster's comment #6 on the same thread - "I enhanced the article." so *at least one of the moderators team members knows about it and decided to do nothing*.
> 
> Why is this important? - Because the discussion is not about politics. As Terms and Rules section of this forum states, commentators do not supposed to deviate from the main topic. The individual posting is trolling ("antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content") this forum with moderators permission, which in my opinion as a member of the forum, is outrageous. At least, in my opinion, they need to redact his disruptive posts to a forum acceptable level.
> 
> In case the poster will choose to alter his created thread out of panic, here is the post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and archived threads pages
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...because-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...e-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/page-2
> 
> The most of it is a joke.


Tomato is a very poor PR rep.
He makes Waymo and any of his other clients look bad.

I hope people from Waymo see how he represents them. But I have a funny feeling someone at Waymo is his uncle


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I will also email this comment to [email protected] and use the"contact us" feature for the administrators to make sure they see it (and I ask and encourage any Moderator to contact the Administrators and show them this comment)
> 
> Allow me to reveal the cloud of stupidity (the ideas and the spirit of this section of the forum, not the members) that is floating around here.
> 
> Few days ago, one specific member account user created a parallel thread about Waymo in Arizona - Waymo launced self driving cars in Arizona *because it's a red state. Fewer commies.* Instead of using only the articles main title from NY Times -Where Self-Driving Cars Go to Learn, that specific user of that account (which is used by multiple individuals) redacted the title, *choosing to politicize it*. As a result he said Arizona is a red state (so they vote Republicans) and has less Communists. What does that individual understands to be a Communist is revealed by another modification to the NY Times article. In his view, the Communists are the members of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Association, because "They're a bunch of big government ralph nader type weenies that want to regulate anything and everything. They want to mandate that everyone go pee before they get in the car even if they don't have to pee." (comment #8). From their website, we learn how "*Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of consumer, medical, public health, and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer. Advocates' mission is the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and programs that prevent motor vehicle crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and contain costs.*"
> 
> All these being said, a simple Google search will reveal how REAL communists from Communist China are "considering giving the *green light to driverless car companies to conduct tests on public roadways*, a move that is expected to help ambitious Chinese firms pull ahead in autonomous driving.
> The regulators are considering issuing licenses to qualified car manufacturers, auto parts makers, internet companies, universities and other applicants, the source said. In order to qualify for road testing, a vehicle must have already been test-driven for at least 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) in a closed environment and, it must pass an assessment by a third-party technology institution authorized by the government, among other conditions."
> 
> Now we can stop for a second to understand the image we are looking at. Following a simple logic, if the REAL Chinese communists are considering allowing self driving cars on the public roads, then the Arizona officials mentioned by the NY Times article (especially Arizona's governor, Doug Ducey) , are also communists. All the self driving cars enthusiasts could also be communist sympathizers that are infiltrating the American society and this forum. And the insanity could go on and on and on....
> 
> Why did I choose to make this comment? Because* all this insanity is allowed by the moderation team on this website. They know* about this user repeated outrageous statements, claims and behavior, and still fail to use at least their editing available tools to clean the garbage. This anomaly was previously brought to forums participants attention by other forum members, but I personally used the Report Button few days ago and reported the title anomaly and the ridiculous poster's comment #6 on the same thread - "I enhanced the article." so *at least one of the moderators team members knows about it and decided to do nothing*.
> 
> Why is this important? - Because the discussion is not about politics. As Terms and Rules section of this forum states, commentators do not supposed to deviate from the main topic. The individual posting is trolling ("antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content") this forum with moderators permission, which in my opinion as a member of the forum, is outrageous. At least, in my opinion, they need to redact his disruptive posts to a forum acceptable level.
> 
> In case the poster will choose to alter his created thread out of panic, here is the post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and archived threads pages
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...because-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...e-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/page-2
> 
> The most of it is a joke.


I'm in trouble now.


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> I will also email this comment to [email protected] and use the"contact us" feature for the administrators to make sure they see it (and I ask and encourage any Moderator to contact the Administrators and show them this comment)
> 
> Allow me to reveal the cloud of stupidity (the ideas and the spirit of this section of the forum, not the members) that is floating around here.
> 
> Few days ago, one specific member account user created a parallel thread about Waymo in Arizona - Waymo launced self driving cars in Arizona *because it's a red state. Fewer commies.* Instead of using only the articles main title from NY Times -Where Self-Driving Cars Go to Learn, that specific user of that account (which is used by multiple individuals) redacted the title, *choosing to politicize it*. As a result he said Arizona is a red state (so they vote Republicans) and has less Communists. What does that individual understands to be a Communist is revealed by another modification to the NY Times article. In his view, the Communists are the members of the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Association, because "They're a bunch of big government ralph nader type weenies that want to regulate anything and everything. They want to mandate that everyone go pee before they get in the car even if they don't have to pee." (comment #8). From their website, we learn how "*Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety is an alliance of consumer, medical, public health, and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer. Advocates' mission is the adoption of federal and state laws, policies and programs that prevent motor vehicle crashes, save lives, reduce injuries, and contain costs.*"
> 
> All these being said, a simple Google search will reveal how REAL communists from Communist China are "considering giving the *green light to driverless car companies to conduct tests on public roadways*, a move that is expected to help ambitious Chinese firms pull ahead in autonomous driving.
> The regulators are considering issuing licenses to qualified car manufacturers, auto parts makers, internet companies, universities and other applicants, the source said. In order to qualify for road testing, a vehicle must have already been test-driven for at least 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) in a closed environment and, it must pass an assessment by a third-party technology institution authorized by the government, among other conditions."
> 
> Now we can stop for a second to understand the image we are looking at. Following a simple logic, if the REAL Chinese communists are considering allowing self driving cars on the public roads, then the Arizona officials mentioned by the NY Times article (especially Arizona's governor, Doug Ducey) , are also communists. All the self driving cars enthusiasts could also be communist sympathizers that are infiltrating the American society and this forum. And the insanity could go on and on and on....
> 
> Why did I choose to make this comment? Because* all this insanity is allowed by the moderation team on this website. They know* about this user repeated outrageous statements, claims and behavior, and still fail to use at least their editing available tools to clean the garbage. This anomaly was previously brought to forums participants attention by other forum members, but I personally used the Report Button few days ago and reported the title anomaly and the ridiculous poster's comment #6 on the same thread - "I enhanced the article." so *at least one of the moderators team members knows about it and decided to do nothing*.
> 
> Why is this important? - Because the discussion is not about politics. As Terms and Rules section of this forum states, commentators do not supposed to deviate from the main topic. The individual posting is trolling ("antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content") this forum with moderators permission, which in my opinion as a member of the forum, is outrageous. At least, in my opinion, they need to redact his disruptive posts to a forum acceptable level.
> 
> In case the poster will choose to alter his created thread out of panic, here is the post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #6
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> comment #8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and archived threads pages
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...because-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/
> https://web.archive.org/web/2017111...e-its-a-red-state-fewer-commies.217470/page-2
> 
> The most of it is a joke.


Officer: Can you describe the perpetrator?

Jockey: THE ONE ON THE LEFT! THE ONE ON THE LEFT! THAT'S HIM, THAT HIM!


----------



## tohunt4me

Another Uber Driver said:


> What about "Sirrah"?


I prefer DORIS DAY & QUE SERA SERA . .
. .

.


----------



## heynow321

iheartuber said:


> Tomato is a very poor PR rep.
> He makes Waymo and any of his other clients look bad.
> 
> I hope people from Waymo see how he represents them. But I have a funny feeling someone at Waymo is his uncle


Greg is from Berkeley. I know preschools that graduate kids with better critical thinking skills. Berk is a joke and a shell of its former self.


----------



## goneubering

iheartuber said:


> Tomato is a very poor PR rep.
> He makes Waymo and any of his other clients look bad.
> 
> I hope people from Waymo see how he represents them. But I have a funny feeling someone at Waymo is his uncle


At this point I don't believe he has any real connection to Waymo. When I see his name pop up now I think of Rotten Tomatoes.


----------

