# Uber's Self Driving Cars



## elelegido

I had a pickup tonight and phoned the rider. It went to voicemail, so I ended the call. Just before I pressed the end call button, I heard the first part of the recording. "Hi, this is Tom at U.." and the call ended. There are not many companies that start with U, so I figured that Tom worked for the Dark Side and would therefore be worthy of a grilling if he made it to my car.

Half a minute later, Tom got in the car with a young lady, who was incidentally, and very irrelevantly, very cute. Way too cute for an Ubergeek. But I digress. After pleasantries were exchanged:

(Me) - Do you work for Uber?
(Tom) - Not right now
- What do you mean?
- I'm kind of undercover
- Like a secret agent? Wow, that sounds exciting. Did they give you a badge and a gun?
- No.
- What do you do for Uber?
- I work in LA, on the self driving cars project.
- Really? I don't think that is going to work
- It is true that there are lots of regulatory hurdles to clear. 
- Yeah, and the fact that self driving cars keep crashing into things
- I assume you're talking about Google's self driving cars. They have only had a couple of crashes, and those were caused by other drivers.
- That's not what I heard. Anyway, how is a self driving car going to deal with what we deal with every weekend, like when a rider pukes in the vehicle? Is there going to be some kind of puke detection circuit? How will the car know when someone has chundered in it?
- It is true that there are a lot of considerations to take into account. But we have until 2020 to iron out the bugs. That is when our planned go-live date is.
- What are you going to do in the mean time? I mean your CEO says that "the other guy in the car" is the reason Uber is expensive etc and how you want to get rid of us; how are you going to keep drivers happy for the next four years with a CEO like that?
- Yes, the CEO does say silly things
- Silly? The man knows nothing about employee relations or how to treat people. He's an idiot! Anyway, how are you going to deal with people's objections to being driven by a machine? I mean, a 747 can take off by itself, fly itself, and land itself, but no commercial airliner..."
- Flies without 2 pilots? Yes, I know. Lyft has partnered with GM and we know that they plan to initially have drivers present in the self driving cars who can take over if necessary. This would help get passengers used to the idea of self driving cars.
- But would having Uber drivers present in self driving cars make passengers feel safer? You obviously haven't taken many Ubers.
- Ha.

At that point we arrived at their destination. Tom and his girlfriend got out, we said goodbye, I one starred him for being an Uber employee as is customary, and then went on with my shift.

Some of what he said was interesting information, especially if it's true that they think it will be ready for launch in 4 years.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

The technology is further along than we often acknowledge. Many of the issues they are working on have more to do with the psychological and human aspects of bringing the technology to the market, and the changes that are required as a result are tweaks rather than overhauls.

I assume Uber can probably make it to the release date even if they lose billions during that time.


----------



## SEAL Team 5

elelegido said:


> I had a pickup tonight and phoned the rider. It went to voicemail, so I ended the call. Just before I pressed the end call button, I heard the first part of the recording. "Hi, this is Tom at U.." and the call ended. There are not many companies that start with U, so I figured that Tom worked for the Dark Side and would therefore be worthy of a grilling if he made it to my car.
> 
> Half a minute later, Tom got in the car with a young lady, who was incidentally, and very irrelevantly, very cute. Way too cute for an Ubergeek. But I digress. After pleasantries were exchanged:
> 
> (Me) - Do you work for Uber?
> (Tom) - Not right now
> - What do you mean?
> - I'm kind of undercover
> - Like a secret agent? Wow, that sounds exciting. Did they give you a badge and a gun?
> - No.
> - What do you do for Uber?
> - I work in LA, on the self driving cars project.
> - Really? I don't think that is going to work
> - It is true that there are lots of regulatory hurdles to clear.
> - Yeah, and the fact that self driving cars keep crashing into things
> - I assume you're talking about Google's self driving cars. They have only had a couple of crashes, and those were caused by other drivers.
> - That's not what I heard. Anyway, how is a self driving car going to deal with what we deal with every weekend, like when a rider pukes in the vehicle? Is there going to be some kind of puke detection circuit? How will the car know when someone has chundered in it?
> - It is true that there are a lot of considerations to take into account. But we have until 2020 to iron out the bugs. That is when our planned go-live date is.
> - What are you going to do in the mean time? I mean your CEO says that "the other guy in the car" is the reason Uber is expensive etc and how you want to get rid of us; how are you going to keep drivers happy for the next four years with a CEO like that?
> - Yes, the CEO does say silly things
> - Silly? The man knows nothing about employee relations or how to treat people. He's an idiot! Anyway, how are you going to deal with people's objections to being driven by a machine? I mean, a 747 can take off by itself, fly itself, and land itself, but no commercial airliner..."
> - Flies without 2 pilots? Yes, I know. Lyft has partnered with GM and we know that they plan to initially have drivers present in the self driving cars who can take over if necessary. This would help get passengers used to the idea of self driving cars.
> - But would having Uber drivers present in self driving cars make passengers feel safer? You obviously haven't taken many Ubers.
> - Ha.
> 
> At that point we arrived at their destination. Tom and his girlfriend got out, we said goodbye, I one starred him for being an Uber employee as is customary, and then went on with my shift.
> 
> Some of what he said was interesting information, especially if it's true that they think it will be ready for launch in 4 years.


Drunk pax in a self driving vehicle will be just like a 2nd grade classroom when the teacher leaves. Graffiti on the walls, fecies on the floor, stolen staplers and the little annoying kid taped to his chair. You know the vehicle is going to have to have some type of voice recognition. Nothing worse then trying to understand drunkanese or reading a text from a drunk. Example; the automated voice in the car "please say or type in your desired destination" the drunk pax "ah ahhhhhhhh, I dunno"


----------



## Mountainsoloist

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Drunk pax in a self driving vehicle will be just like a 2nd grade classroom when the teacher leaves. Graffiti on the walls, fecies on the floor, stolen staplers and the little annoying kid taped to his chair. You know the vehicle is going to have to have some type of voice recognition. Nothing worse then trying to understand drunkanese or reading a text from a drunk. Example; the automated voice in the car "please say or type in your desired destination" the drunk pax "ah ahhhhhhhh, I dunno"


The initial rollout without the driver is going to be a nightmare! They should save their S class driverless cars until they figure out how to collect cleaning fees without a driver. I imagine they will have cameras inside to find the puker/backseat action couple, but some stains and damage will go undetected by the early systems.

They will probably handle the destination the same way grocery stores handle their self checkout robots. When the car (Siri?) has no idea where to take the PAX it will call a human operator. At first they will be local workers to the market they cover, but over time they will develop a process to streamline the inebriated destination entry process. They will use the rider's home or start point as a default, and the autonomous Uber will simply take them home if it can't understand their drunk ass.

After that, Uber will figure out ways to squeeze more money out of the transaction, like suggesting a stop to pick up a giant anti-hangover burrito. The company will receive ad revenues from the riders it successfully up-sells.


----------



## Oscar Levant

elelegido said:


> I had a pickup tonight and phoned the rider. It went to voicemail, so I ended the call. Just before I pressed the end call button, I heard the first part of the recording. "Hi, this is Tom at U.." and the call ended. There are not many companies that start with U, so I figured that Tom worked for the Dark Side and would therefore be worthy of a grilling if he made it to my car.
> 
> Half a minute later, Tom got in the car with a young lady, who was incidentally, and very irrelevantly, very cute. Way too cute for an Ubergeek. But I digress. After pleasantries were exchanged:
> 
> (Me) - Do you work for Uber?
> (Tom) - Not right now
> - What do you mean?
> - I'm kind of undercover
> - Like a secret agent? Wow, that sounds exciting. Did they give you a badge and a gun?
> - No.
> - What do you do for Uber?
> - I work in LA, on the self driving cars project.
> - Really? I don't think that is going to work
> - It is true that there are lots of regulatory hurdles to clear.
> - Yeah, and the fact that self driving cars keep crashing into things
> - I assume you're talking about Google's self driving cars. They have only had a couple of crashes, and those were caused by other drivers.
> - That's not what I heard. Anyway, how is a self driving car going to deal with what we deal with every weekend, like when a rider pukes in the vehicle? Is there going to be some kind of puke detection circuit? How will the car know when someone has chundered in it?
> - It is true that there are a lot of considerations to take into account. But we have until 2020 to iron out the bugs. That is when our planned go-live date is.
> - What are you going to do in the mean time? I mean your CEO says that "the other guy in the car" is the reason Uber is expensive etc and how you want to get rid of us; how are you going to keep drivers happy for the next four years with a CEO like that?
> - Yes, the CEO does say silly things
> - Silly? The man knows nothing about employee relations or how to treat people. He's an idiot! Anyway, how are you going to deal with people's objections to being driven by a machine? I mean, a 747 can take off by itself, fly itself, and land itself, but no commercial airliner..."
> - Flies without 2 pilots? Yes, I know. Lyft has partnered with GM and we know that they plan to initially have drivers present in the self driving cars who can take over if necessary. This would help get passengers used to the idea of self driving cars.
> - But would having Uber drivers present in self driving cars make passengers feel safer? You obviously haven't taken many Ubers.
> - Ha.
> 
> At that point we arrived at their destination. Tom and his girlfriend got out, we said goodbye, I one starred him for being an Uber employee as is customary, and then went on with my shift.
> 
> Some of what he said was interesting information, especially if it's true that they think it will be ready for launch in 4 years.


How many times have I went to the pin, and it's not where the customer is. So, how does that work, the customer calls a machine to inform the machine where she is? Not all riders pay attention to the app, they assume the vehicle will show up as planned. What about the law? What about in high traffic streets in urban areas where people want to get out of the car in an illegal spot ( like the middle of the road) will the Uber car search for a vacant spot along the curb before letting passengers out?


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Oscar Levant said:


> How many times have I went to the pin, and it's not where the customer is. So, how does that work, the customer calls a machine to inform the machine where she is? Not all riders pay attention to the app, they assume the vehicle will show up as planned. What about the law? What about in high traffic streets in urban areas where people want to get out of the car in an illegal spot ( like the middle of the road) will the Uber car search for a vacant spot along the curb before letting passengers out?


So true! There have been many times for me when the pickup only happened because I was able to get the pax to talk me onto their actual location. My bet is that they will have human operators on call at the city offices when the first of their autonomous cars roll out without a human on board. After that, I think they will work to reduce the number of interactions by aligning the vehicle tendencies and training the pax.

Pax behavior will continue to evolve as Uber tweaks their program and adds the autonomous vehicles to the mix though. On X they learned to tip in cash to keep getting good service, and most of my riders tip now. They will learn to be more attentive if they are relying on a robot car to pick them up. As they remove the no-show fee from many markets, they are teaching them to be ready when the car arrives. By the time they are ready to go live with autonomous cars, they will probably have groomed most passengers to the point where they can reliably use the driverless cars 90% of the time.

I too think the law will play a big part in shaping the way these things actually meet the market. Right now, we don't even know how we would address this as a hypothetical idea. If I were a cop and I pulled over a car without a driver, I don't know exactly what I would do. I would probably call the company first, but we both know how good Uber is at answering phones. After that, I would probably call a tow truck if I considered it necessary. The autonomous cars most likely will not violate posted laws at all. Pax jumping out at red lights will probably be common until the law catches up. Someone could easily die in this situation, and Uber will be like "We told them it was not safe to exit so we aren't responsible." Uber will apply auto child locks after the government forces them to address the issue. That's my guess anyway.


----------



## heynow321

Oscar Levant said:


> How many times have I went to the pin, and it's not where the customer is. So, how does that work, the customer calls a machine to inform the machine where she is? Not all riders pay attention to the app, they assume the vehicle will show up as planned. What about the law? What about in high traffic streets in urban areas where people want to get out of the car in an illegal spot ( like the middle of the road) will the Uber car search for a vacant spot along the curb before letting passengers out?


Exactly. Self driving cars would NEVER work in a place like Seattle. The city is so ****ing crowded you have to get "creative" to pick up certain passengers as finding a spot to legally pull over just isn't possible.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

heynow321 said:


> The city is so &%[email protected]!*ing crowded you have to get "creative" to pick up certain passengers as finding a spot to legally pull over just isn't possible.


Very true. Seattle is a chaotic place to drive. I think the city governments will offer up solutions to make it accessible to driverless pickups and dropoffs though. They will figure it out eventually. There are thousands of the best engineers working on these solutions with support from every major auto or tech company as well as the federal government.


----------



## autofill

Pax going to have a field trip with Uber's self-driving car. Oh can we stop at McDonalds drive-thru or can you wait while we go inside to eat? Uber will be so happy making 10 cents a minute.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> I had a pickup tonight and phoned the rider. It went to voicemail, so I ended the call. Just before I pressed the end call button, I heard the first part of the recording. "Hi, this is Tom at U.." and the call ended. There are not many companies that start with U, so I figured that Tom worked for the Dark Side and would therefore be worthy of a grilling if he made it to my car.
> 
> Half a minute later, Tom got in the car with a young lady, who was incidentally, and very irrelevantly, very cute. Way too cute for an Ubergeek. But I digress. After pleasantries were exchanged:
> 
> (Me) - Do you work for Uber?
> (Tom) - Not right now
> - What do you mean?
> - I'm kind of undercover
> - Like a secret agent? Wow, that sounds exciting. Did they give you a badge and a gun?
> - No.
> - What do you do for Uber?
> - I work in LA, on the self driving cars project.
> - Really? I don't think that is going to work
> - It is true that there are lots of regulatory hurdles to clear.
> - Yeah, and the fact that self driving cars keep crashing into things
> - I assume you're talking about Google's self driving cars. They have only had a couple of crashes, and those were caused by other drivers.
> - That's not what I heard. Anyway, how is a self driving car going to deal with what we deal with every weekend, like when a rider pukes in the vehicle? Is there going to be some kind of puke detection circuit? How will the car know when someone has chundered in it?
> - It is true that there are a lot of considerations to take into account. But we have until 2020 to iron out the bugs. That is when our planned go-live date is.
> - What are you going to do in the mean time? I mean your CEO says that "the other guy in the car" is the reason Uber is expensive etc and how you want to get rid of us; how are you going to keep drivers happy for the next four years with a CEO like that?
> - Yes, the CEO does say silly things
> - Silly? The man knows nothing about employee relations or how to treat people. He's an idiot! Anyway, how are you going to deal with people's objections to being driven by a machine? I mean, a 747 can take off by itself, fly itself, and land itself, but no commercial airliner..."
> - Flies without 2 pilots? Yes, I know. Lyft has partnered with GM and we know that they plan to initially have drivers present in the self driving cars who can take over if necessary. This would help get passengers used to the idea of self driving cars.
> - But would having Uber drivers present in self driving cars make passengers feel safer? You obviously haven't taken many Ubers.
> - Ha.
> 
> At that point we arrived at their destination. Tom and his girlfriend got out, we said goodbye, I one starred him for being an Uber employee as is customary, and then went on with my shift.
> 
> Some of what he said was interesting information, especially if it's true that they think it will be ready for launch in 4 years.


Nope, not buying it at all. Nice try though. And your points were beyond silly.


----------



## RamzFanz

SEAL Team 5 said:


> Drunk pax in a self driving vehicle will be just like a 2nd grade classroom when the teacher leaves. Graffiti on the walls, fecies on the floor, stolen staplers and the little annoying kid taped to his chair. You know the vehicle is going to have to have some type of voice recognition. Nothing worse then trying to understand drunkanese or reading a text from a drunk. Example; the automated voice in the car "please say or type in your desired destination" the drunk pax "ah ahhhhhhhh, I dunno"


And then they pay a $500 fee, cry like babies, and people get the message. Problem solved.

If a pax can't use the system, oh well. It's not a guarantee.

Do the nay sayers know that the first SDC goes live this month in the Netherlands?


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> How many times have I went to the pin, and it's not where the customer is. So, how does that work, the customer calls a machine to inform the machine where she is? Not all riders pay attention to the app, they assume the vehicle will show up as planned. What about the law? What about in high traffic streets in urban areas where people want to get out of the car in an illegal spot ( like the middle of the road) will the Uber car search for a vacant spot along the curb before letting passengers out?


Really silly stuff you guys throw out there. Bad pin? Oh well, it's on the pax, fix it or go to the car. Busy area? Force pickups at designated pickup zones. Work with local businesses and governments to have Uber stops. Illegal drop off? Don't drop them there. Whew, that was hard.


----------



## RamzFanz

Mountainsoloist said:


> I too think the law will play a big part in shaping the way these things actually meet the market. Right now, we don't even know how we would address this as a hypothetical idea. If I were a cop and I pulled over a car without a driver, I don't know exactly what I would do. I would probably call the company first, but we both know how good Uber is at answering phones. After that, I would probably call a tow truck if I considered it necessary. The autonomous cars most likely will not violate posted laws at all. Pax jumping out at red lights will probably be common until the law catches up. Someone could easily die in this situation, and Uber will be like "We told them it was not safe to exit so we aren't responsible." Uber will apply auto child locks after the government forces them to address the issue. That's my guess anyway.


You ticket the owner. The NTSB has already stated that SDCs should be treated as drivers.

Cops will know what to do long long before SDCs are connon.

SDCs are already told to violate laws in some circumstances.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> Exactly. Self driving cars would NEVER work in a place like Seattle. The city is so &%[email protected]!*ing crowded you have to get "creative" to pick up certain passengers as finding a spot to legally pull over just isn't possible.


As SDCs become common, so will safe pickup spots. It's not hard.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Pax going to have a field trip with Uber's self-driving car. Oh can we stop at McDonalds drive-thru or can you wait while we go inside to eat? Uber will be so happy making 10 cents a minute.


When they aren't paying out 75%-80%? They'll be very happy to accommodate pax. They won't wait for a pax to eat though, no reason to and no reason to ask.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> Really silly stuff you guys throw out there. Bad pin? Oh well, it's on the pax, fix it or go to the car. Busy area? Force pickups at designated pickup zones. Work with local businesses and governments to have Uber stops. Illegal drop off? Don't drop them there. Whew, that was hard.


.

In truth, only by bringing then to market, will we really know. If they present too much of a hassle for riders or the government, they will reject them or governments will require a live person in the car ( as they have ruled in California recently, which defeats the whole reason for their existence, in the first place -- to save money )
Pax won't "go to the car" no more than they will go to me when I realize they are not at the pin, it's always me going to them, not the reverse. 
The pax will just wait, and when the car doesn't show, they will cancel and try maybe lyft, or an Uber with a real driver.
Uber drop/pickup in how many thousands of cities, millions of newly created pick up spots, working wtih civil governments to create special rideshare pickup, drop off points? Quite an undertaking, I'd say. Possible, but viable only if people want the cars enough to justify the city making the expense, so it won't be done right away, and in the meantime, it's a problem. I remember when cities made dips in sidewalks at street corners to accommodate people in wheelchairs. It cost the city a lot of money to do it, but a new law mandated it, but that was because of humanitarian reasons, and will driverless cars be seen as a humanitarian cause? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how well they actually work, how many lives they actually save, etc., if people actually will want them, and we have so far only assumptions, not real world data.

As for "don't drop them there", its' a machine, there is no driver, remember? People will just climb out of the car in illegal zones, which will be more cause for governments to block them from operating, etc.

I'd say a substantial portion of the time addresses I'm given are wrong, the house next door, accross the street, was the correct one, because this is due to faulty user input, or the software pin thing is not that accurate. Sometimes I'm given an address and the actual adress is another block, another street altogether, this will present a source of fustration for riders, which won't be good for business.

But all of this assumes people will want driverless cars.

I wouldn't, but I'd be very curious to know how may would. I know many will try it out of curiosity.

but, we shall see how it well it works. They still have pilots in airplanes, though they could be flown without them, I wonder why?

Because saving lives is more important than saving costs, that's why.

And why should it be any different with autonomous vehicles?


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Oscar Levant said:


> They still have pilots in airplanes, though they could be flown without them, I wonder why? And why should it be any different with autonomous vehicles?


Because cars are on the ground.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Nope, not buying it at all. Nice try though. And your points were beyond silly.


I am disappointed that my post does not meet with your strict standards of approval. 

Actually, the points I raised with this guy about the public's resistance to being driven by machines, and how Uber would maintain cleanliness and hygiene in the car are valid and relevant points. He gave a reasonable explanation for the first one, at least.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Mountainsoloist said:


> Because cars are on the ground.


Cars on the ground kill more people per capita than airplanes, and your point is?


----------



## RockinEZ

Mountainsoloist said:


> The initial rollout without the driver is going to be a nightmare! They should save their S class driverless cars until they figure out how to collect cleaning fees without a driver. I imagine they will have cameras inside to find the puker/backseat action couple, but some stains and damage will go undetected by the early systems.
> 
> They will probably handle the destination the same way grocery stores handle their self checkout robots. When the car (Siri?) has no idea where to take the PAX it will call a human operator. At first they will be local workers to the market they cover, but over time they will develop a process to streamline the inebriated destination entry process. They will use the rider's home or start point as a default, and the autonomous Uber will simply take them home if it can't understand their drunk ass.
> 
> After that, Uber will figure out ways to squeeze more money out of the transaction, like suggesting a stop to pick up a giant anti-hangover burrito. The company will receive ad revenues from the riders it successfully up-sells.


What if the drunk pax lives in New York, but is in L.A. for business. 
Will the car take him to New York?

In the summer one third of my pax are tourists......... so much for the address on file.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Oscar Levant said:


> Cars on the ground kill more people per capita than airplanes, and your point is?


That's exactly why they want cars to be driverless. Most of the researchers currently believe that autonomous driving at scale will prevent tens of thousands of fatalities each year.



RockinEZ said:


> What if the drunk pax lives in New York, but is in L.A. for business.
> Will the car take him to New York?
> In the summer one third of my pax are tourists......... so much for the address on file.


That might happen to a few people, and they will complain about it. At the same time as the driverless car technology is progressing I think Google and Apple will get better at snooping through our email and texts to figure out that we are on a business trip or a vacation. At some point, I think it will know what hotel they are staying at and take them there instead.


----------



## RockinEZ

One of the absurd things about the OP's story is the time to product release. 
You can't release any computer based product with more than two moving parts in 4 years. 

Those of you that have worked in R&D will understand 2020 release is not possible for a government regulated product. 

You can't even release a rectal thermometer in that time.


----------



## autofill

RamzFanz said:


> When they aren't paying out 75%-80%? They'll be very happy to accommodate pax. They won't wait for a pax to eat though, no reason to and no reason to ask.


Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".

Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.

Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
- Gas 
- Vehicle maintenance
- Vehicle cleaning
- Insurance
- Vehicle wear and tear

The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

autofill said:


> Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".
> 
> Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.
> 
> Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
> - Gas
> - Vehicle maintenance
> - Vehicle cleaning
> - Insurance
> - Vehicle wear and tear
> 
> The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


Since there are several major companies planning to roll out an autonomous taxi service, I have to assume that they have thoroughly forecast that the model will be profitable even after taking the expenses into consideration.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Mountainsoloist said:


> That's exactly why they want cars to be driverless. Most of the researchers currently believe that autonomous driving at scale will prevent tens of thousands of fatalities each year.


It 's a grand, untested assumption that "driverless cars will reduce deaths". My view is that it might be true if all cars were driverless, and the roads were more well structured for autonomy, but that, not only is NOT the case, it will NEVER be the case becuse of this one unescapable fact: Americans are in love with their cars, and the vast majority want to be in the driver's seat.

It would take an act of congress to mandate driverless cars for everyone, and I gaurantee the american people will never let that happen.


----------



## autofill

Mountainsoloist said:


> Since there are several major companies planning to roll out an autonomous taxi service, I have to assume that they have thoroughly forecast that the model will be profitable even after taking the expenses into consideration.


It's just not profitable to have a driverless car parked standby 24/7 within 4-5 minutes of every pax's pickup location. The cost of a parking spot alone is expensive.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Oscar Levant said:


> It 's a grand, untested assumption that "driverless cars will reduce deaths".


I agree, but it is the standard assumption based on all testing on the matter up to this point. It will be tested soon, when they begin the roll-out of these cars.



Oscar Levant said:


> Americans are in love with their cars... It would take an act of congress to mandate driverless cars for everyone, and I guarantee the American people will never let that happen.


I also agree. This would end up just like gun control, or some other controversial issue which would result in a general stalemate for many years.



Oscar Levant said:


> the vast majority want to be in the driver's seat.


That is the part that is changing. Carmakers are working hard to determine how they are viewed by their specific buyers so that they can figure out how to market autonomous capabilities in the future. BMW, for example is a car that many people buy because they are a dream to drive. That doesn't necessarily mean that I would not enjoy the freedom offered by the feature. I would love to drive my M5 on a twisty mountain pass before turning on autopilot and reading a book, or sending it on its own to get an oil change. Google has cars which don't even have steering wheels, and there are plenty of people who would buy them or similar products. Minivans may do well with a fold-away steering wheel, or eventually may ship without them. I don't imagine anyone would ever buy a Corvette without a steering wheel. Most of the car companies aren't going to go out of business if they can adapt to our rapidly changing world.



autofill said:


> It's just not profitable to have a driverless car parked standby 24/7 within 4-5 minutes of every pax's pickup location. The cost of a parking spot alone is expensive.


I don't think they plan on having them parked most of the time. I think they are going to use the massive amounts of data they have collected from their markets along with the latest in machine learning efficiency to maximize their revenue and build a sufficient logistics system. I also think they will partner with companies with unused parking space and maintenance capacities.


----------



## Ubernic

Sounds like a made up story to be honest, the way you wrote it, people don't talk like that. Sounds more like your opinions and predictions of the future OP. Sorry if I am wrong. 

Also, people are going to absolutely hate riding in self driving cars if they become common. Way too many times I need to force my way in between cars in traffic, or around cars in some weird way that a self driving car would never do, they will sit their like a little ***** waiting for 1,000 cars to go by until they pull out of the busy intersection, where a human would be more aggressive and just pull out.

Human drivers will exploit and abuse robot cars, the robot cars will get walked on and take forever to get to their destination. Who is going to respect a car with no driver? Once people figure out they can just pull in front of it and it will stop, people will abuse it and the riders will get super annoyed.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

Ubernic said:


> Sounds like a made up story to be honest, the way you wrote it, people don't talk like that. Sounds more like your opinions and predictions of the future OP. Sorry if I am wrong.
> 
> Also, people are going to absolutely hate riding in self driving cars if they become common. Way too many times I need to force my way in between cars in traffic, or around cars in some weird way that a self driving car would never do, they will sit their like a little ***** waiting for 1,000 cars to go by until they pull out of the busy intersection, where a human would be more aggressive and just pull out.
> 
> Human drivers will exploit and abuse robot cars, the robot cars will get walked on and take forever to get to their destination. Who is going to respect a car with no driver? Once people figure out they can just pull in front of it and it will stop, people will abuse it and the riders will get super annoyed.


I must agree on SoCal driving. The engineers will really need to nail the queue in traffic. I wouldn't' be surprised if the robot cars are more aggressive in some areas.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> .
> 
> In truth, only by bringing then to market, will we really know. If they present too much of a hassle for riders or the government, they will reject them or governments will require a live person in the car ( as they have ruled in California recently, which defeats the whole reason for their existence, in the first place -- to save money )
> Pax won't "go to the car" no more than they will go to me when I realize they are not at the pin, it's always me going to them, not the reverse.
> The pax will just wait, and when the car doesn't show, they will cancel and try maybe lyft, or an Uber with a real driver.
> Uber drop/pickup in how many thousands of cities, millions of newly created pick up spots, working wtih civil governments to create special rideshare pickup, drop off points? Quite an undertaking, I'd say. Possible, but viable only if people want the cars enough to justify the city making the expense, so it won't be done right away, and in the meantime, it's a problem. I remember when cities made dips in sidewalks at street corners to accommodate people in wheelchairs. It cost the city a lot of money to do it, but a new law mandated it, but that was because of humanitarian reasons, and will driverless cars be seen as a humanitarian cause? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how well they actually work, how many lives they actually save, etc., if people actually will want them, and we have so far only assumptions, not real world data.
> 
> As for "don't drop them there", its' a machine, there is no driver, remember? People will just climb out of the car in illegal zones, which will be more cause for governments to block them from operating, etc.
> 
> I'd say a substantial portion of the time addresses I'm given are wrong, the house next door, accross the street, was the correct one, because this is due to faulty user input, or the software pin thing is not that accurate. Sometimes I'm given an address and the actual adress is another block, another street altogether, this will present a source of fustration for riders, which won't be good for business.
> 
> But all of this assumes people will want driverless cars.
> 
> I wouldn't, but I'd be very curious to know how may would. I know many will try it out of curiosity.
> 
> but, we shall see how it well it works. They still have pilots in airplanes, though they could be flown without them, I wonder why?
> 
> Because saving lives is more important than saving costs, that's why.
> 
> And why should it be any different with autonomous vehicles?


Na, not a big deal. People want to imagine all these roadblocks that don't exist or Uber and Taxis wouldn't work either. When passengers want a ride for 75%-80% less, they will learn to drop a pin. They aren't going to pay 75%-80% more over fixing the pin or walking to the car. Not gonna happen.

I don't have any idea why you think the government would punish the car for the acts of the passengers. It doesn't even make sense. It's called a ticket for the passenger. Or just lock the doors until you arrive. Or have penalty fees for exiting early. Or all three. These are all non-issues.

You are ignoring the facts. Cities, states, and national governments are already preparing for SDCs. Many governments are even financing their development. The advantages, like 1.2 million less deaths, WAY less pollution, and reclaiming the parking lots in land strapped cities, are huge.

The Netherlands already has an autonomous bus on the roads so we can now officially stop pretending this technology doesn't work or is decades out. GM has announced they will be running live self driving Lyfts next year. Experts who were saying 2035 are now saying 2020 and sooner in the US.

I like how you pretended the costs of having drop off and pick up points would stop governments from saving lives and then ended with the exact opposite. Planes will indeed be flying themselves in the future because the automation is far far safer, faster reacting, much more capable, and smarter than pilots. We already have autonomous drones. It's not much of a leap if any to add that to passenger planes. Planes just have a long life cycle and people aren't ready for it. SDCs will be a step on that path.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> I am disappointed that my post does not meet with your strict standards of approval.
> 
> Actually, the points I raised with this guy about the public's resistance to being driven by machines, and how Uber would maintain cleanliness and hygiene in the car are valid and relevant points. He gave a reasonable explanation for the first one, at least.


Either he is fictional or he was just messing with you. Self driving cars don't "keep crashing into things" so he's either a ghost or a liar, your choice.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".
> 
> Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.
> 
> Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
> - Gas
> - Vehicle maintenance
> - Vehicle cleaning
> - Insurance
> - Vehicle wear and tear
> 
> The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


You get paid the fare you agreed to. The booking fee is between the pax and Uber and has nothing to do with your rates. But OK, we can say 50% savings and the result is the same. You also need to consider the costs Uber pays out acquiring drivers and keeping them. No more referral fees, new driver fees, advertising for drivers, or partner support.

Driverless fleet cars will almost certainly be electric. There are already planned cordless recharging stations worldwide. The cost of maintaining a lite electric vehicle is tiny compared to a gas burner.

Uber will self insure. The cars will be too safe not to.

Cleaning could easily be automated with no control systems in the interior. Slide the interior onto a conveyer to auto wash and slide a clean one in. As can be repairs also. Electric motors are self contained as are batteries. You could hot swap one in seconds. Other parts like sensors, tires, windshields, the same way. Car pulls in, swap parts, it's on the road minutes later. You won't need trained auto mechanics.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Either he is fictional or he was just messing with you. Self driving cars don't "keep crashing into things" so he's either a ghost or a liar, your choice.


*Reading comprehension

I'm the one who said, rather facetiously, to him that the cars kept crashing into things. He answered that Google's car crashes were due to third party human driver error.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> *Reading comprehension
> 
> I'm the one who said, rather facetiously, to him that the cars kept crashing into things. He answered that Google's car crashes were due to third party human driver error.


Whatever, I don't believe you, I don't believe you would make those comments, and they make no sense. "Yes, the CEO does say silly things", yeah, that's what an Uber employee is going to say. Nope, not buying any of it.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Whatever, I don't believe you, I don't believe you would make those comments, and they make no sense. "Yes, the CEO does say silly things", yeah, that's what an Uber employee is going to say. Nope, not buying any of it.


I don't believe _you_ actually exist. Please prove it.


----------



## Transportador

autofill said:


> Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".
> 
> Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.
> 
> Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
> - Gas
> - Vehicle maintenance
> - Vehicle cleaning
> - Insurance
> - Vehicle wear and tear
> 
> The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


Don't forget they have to build/own a huge fleet of vehicles at a tremendous cost. I can't see how this works from a business case. They currently owns nothing in terms of real assets. And I wouldn't count those Uber geeks as assets since they will be phased out overtime as the software design is done. And if they spend most of their $60 billions to build cars, they are more stupid than I ever thought.


----------



## RockinEZ

For those of you that have been involved in product development, how many project that your company started were completed. 
For the Fortune 20 I worked for we dropped nine out of ten projects in phase 1 of development. 

Phase 2 is hardware. I think Goober is years away from Phase 2 dev on the self crashing car project. 

Just because they say they are doing something, doesn't mean they will not cancel that project as they run into R&D and regulatory problems. 

I am not holding my breath for a self crashing car anytime soon. 

BMW and Mercedes will produce one before Uber. 
Once those start arriving on the market, then Uber may have a chance.


----------



## Transportador

In the year 2084 ... things did not go so well for Johnny cab LOL


----------



## Hackenstein

RockinEZ said:


> For those of you that have been involved in product development, how many project that your company started were completed.
> For the Fortune 20 I worked for we dropped nine out of ten projects in phase 1 of development.
> 
> Phase 2 is hardware. I think Goober is years away from Phase 2 dev on the self crashing car project.
> 
> Just because they say they are doing something, doesn't mean they will not cancel that project as they run into R&D and regulatory problems.
> 
> I am not holding my breath for a self crashing car anytime soon.
> 
> BMW and Mercedes will produce one before Uber.
> Once those start arriving on the market, then Uber may have a chance.


GM says five years. Seriously do not get how the US economy survives it.


----------



## KGB7

Drug cartels will love these cars. 

Just toss bags heavy enough to simulate an average person's weight, buckle the seat belt and the way you go. Or just.load up the trunk.
It will cut cost by 1,000% by not using a human to deliver it.


----------



## autofill

Transportador said:


> Don't forget they have to build/own a huge fleet of vehicles at a tremendous cost. I can't see how this works from a business case. They currently owns nothing in terms of real assets. And I wouldn't count those Uber geeks as assets since they will be phased out overtime as the software design is done. And if they spend most of their $60 billions to build cars, they are more stupid than I ever thought.


Exactly! Once Uber and Lyft start to own a fleet of cars, they are now a transportation company.


----------



## RockinEZ

Transportador said:


> Don't forget they have to build/own a huge fleet of vehicles at a tremendous cost. I can't see how this works from a business case. They currently owns nothing in terms of real assets. And I wouldn't count those Uber geeks as assets since they will be phased out overtime as the software design is done. And if they spend most of their $60 billions to build cars, they are more stupid than I ever thought.


You forget Uber does not have $60 billion dollars. That is a fantasy evaluation for going public.

In reality Uber is bleeding millions of dollars per year. They made their first profitable rides in L.A. last quarter. They are making thirteen cents profit off of L.A. rides.

Uber has no money. They exist on venture capital.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

autofill said:


> Exactly! Once Uber and Lyft start to own a fleet of cars, they are now a transportation company.


lol I'm still amazed that they have managed to deny that as long as they have! They are taxi companies with smartphone apps, and they can only claim otherwise for so long.


----------



## KGB7

RockinEZ said:


> You forget Uber does not have $60 billion dollars. That is a fantasy evaluation for going public.
> 
> In reality Uber is bleeding millions of dollars per year. They made their first profitable rides in L.A. last quarter. They are making thirteen cents profit off of L.A. rides.
> 
> Uber has no money. They exist on venture capital.


And they won't be buying a million cars over night even if they had the money.

Plus Tesla can't build cars at the rate of Ford or Toyota.


----------



## RockinEZ

KGB7 said:


> And they won't be buying a million cars over night even if they had the money.
> 
> Plus Tesla can't build cars at the rate of Ford or Toyota.


The new Tesla is priced under $40k, and thousands have put down deposits on a car that is in the design stage.

Don't underestimate the ability of Tesla to scale up in a hurry. I suspect they already have plans in place.

Remember who actually runs Tesla. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

Elon Musk is the real deal.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

KGB7 said:


> And they won't be buying a million cars over night even if they had the money. Plus Tesla can't build cars at the rate of Ford or Toyota.


I think they will build a fleet pretty quickly, regardless of which manufacturer they choose. Once these hit the market all manufacturers will have driverless models in short order.



RockinEZ said:


> Elon Musk is the real deal.


Absolutely. If he says cars are going to be driverless, they will be driverless.


----------



## autofill

Even if driverless cars are perfect in every way imaginable, navigating to pick up and drop off pax will be their biggest issue.


----------



## observer

autofill said:


> Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".
> 
> Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.
> 
> Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
> - Gas
> - Vehicle maintenance
> - Vehicle cleaning
> - Insurance
> - Vehicle wear and tear
> 
> The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


Assuming the costs are higher, Uber will just raise the fare. Uber is in business to make money (eventually), not lose money.


----------



## RockinEZ

Elon Musk can always compete with SpaceX TNC to Europe in 35 minutes. 

Their rockets can take off and land on a ship now. Pretty impressive. 
Why not L.A. to Paris SpaceX Pool rides?

Better get lots of barf bags.


----------



## KGB7

observer said:


> Assuming the costs are higher, Uber will just raise the fare. Uber is in business to make money (eventually), not lose money.


Don't have to raise fares. With SDCars, Uber collects 100% commission instead of 20-25%. Minus daily cleaning fees.


----------



## observer

KGB7 said:


> Don't have to raise fares. With SDCars, Uber collects 100% commission instead of 20-25%. Minus daily cleaning fees.


True, but I don't think that the drivers percentage would offset all the costs of maintaining and replacing the cars. I think they would increase the fares, or increase the surge whenever they wanted.


----------



## RockinEZ

observer said:


> True, but I don't think that the drivers percentage would offset all the costs of maintaining and replacing the cars. I think they would increase the fares, or increase the surge whenever they wanted.


It is up to an auto mfg to produce a vehicle that would be a high volume seller.

It must be standardized. Parts will need to be available for a decade or more.

The interior must be quickly changed out after a body fluids or vandalism incident.

Who would not want a piece of that? A high volume SKU that will need to be reproduced without design changes for a decade or more, so no retooling every design year.

You also get to sell the replacement parts that will be necessary to keep a self crashing vehicle on the road for the life of Checker Cab or more.

If we don't make them here. The Koreans sure as hell will.


----------



## RockinEZ

KGB7 said:


> And they won't be buying a million cars over night even if they had the money.
> 
> Plus Tesla can't build cars at the rate of Ford or Toyota.


Never underestimate the value of greed in a deal.

When a self crashing vehicle is approved and released, I believe there will be multiple competitors for that contract. Financing will not be a problem. Greed will take care of that.

They don't need to build like Ford or Toyota, the demand will be much less.
There will not be design changes every 12 months.

The parts mfg deal would be very profitable.

It is not if, it is when.
I think we have 5 years until we see a released production vehicle.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Cars on the ground kill more people per capita than airplanes, and your point is?


You don't seem to realise flying safety is a result of automation. In many planes, a pilot can literally just sit there for 99% of the trip. Soon it will be 100%. Then there won't be pilots and they'll be far safer still.

If planes were cars driven by humans, it would be the same as a 737 falling out of the sky every day. We would never tolerate that and we won't tolerate it with cars once we have a safer option.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> One of the absurd things about the OP's story is the time to product release.
> You can't release any computer based product with more than two moving parts in 4 years.
> 
> Those of you that have worked in R&D will understand 2020 release is not possible for a government regulated product.
> 
> You can't even release a rectal thermometer in that time.


Uhhhh, wow. Dude, Google cars have been in R&D for 9 years and live road testing for 2 years already. They aren't just starting to try and get them built and approved, this is the end game. BMW just announced a 2021 release for theirs.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> It's just not profitable to have a driverless car parked standby 24/7 within 4-5 minutes of every pax's pickup location. The cost of a parking spot alone is expensive.


Do you park 24/7?


----------



## RamzFanz

Transportador said:


> Don't forget they have to build/own a huge fleet of vehicles at a tremendous cost. I can't see how this works from a business case. They currently owns nothing in terms of real assets. And I wouldn't count those Uber geeks as assets since they will be phased out overtime as the software design is done. And if they spend most of their $60 billions to build cars, they are more stupid than I ever thought.


This isn't so. GM bought $500M worth of Lyft, acquired all of sidecar's assets, and bought an SDC development company. They can put the cars out there as Lyft cars at their cost which is not a major expense for them. Lyft would have to invest nothing but profit sharing.

Uber will eventually also partner with a car manufacturer. It's just a matter of time. My bet is Ford, but there are dozens who probably would. Since Uber is the big boy, they may partner with several and get SDCs at no cost to them.


----------



## tohunt4me




----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Exactly! Once Uber and Lyft start to own a fleet of cars, they are now a transportation company.


The assumption that Uber and Lyft have to own the cars is a fallacy. Individuals, local companies, or car manufacturers could own them and contract with the TNC to provide the ride, just like now.

For example, I could own an SDC and let it go Uber when I'm not using it.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> You forget Uber does not have $60 billion dollars. That is a fantasy evaluation for going public.
> 
> In reality Uber is bleeding millions of dollars per year. They made their first profitable rides in L.A. last quarter. They are making thirteen cents profit off of L.A. rides.
> 
> Uber has no money. They exist on venture capital.


They expand off of venture capital. They don't "lose" money, they spend money on expansion. If they wanted to be profitable, they could do so today.


----------



## RamzFanz

Mountainsoloist said:


> lol I'm still amazed that they have managed to deny that as long as they have! They are taxi companies with smartphone apps, and they can only claim otherwise for so long.


Are you stuck in 2015? Most states now have laws making TNCs legal.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> The new Tesla is priced under $40k, and thousands have put down deposits on a car that is in the design stage.
> 
> Don't underestimate the ability of Tesla to scale up in a hurry. I suspect they already have plans in place.
> 
> Remember who actually runs Tesla.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
> 
> Elon Musk is the real deal.


You mean hundreds of thousands. And yes, Tesla is already scaling up in a huge way. By the way, they say 2 years for their SDC and can only be helped by this huge scale up.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Even if driverless cars are perfect in every way imaginable, navigating to pick up and drop off pax will be their biggest issue.


The pick up is on the pax. The safe and legal drop off spots only need to be figured out once.


----------



## RamzFanz

observer said:


> True, but I don't think that the drivers percentage would offset all the costs of maintaining and replacing the cars. I think they would increase the fares, or increase the surge whenever they wanted.


Your math doesn't work. Maintenance is a fraction of the fare and even less for an electric vehicle. There would be almost no downtime for repairs either. Almost everything on an electric car can be hot swapped in minutes.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> It would take an act of congress to mandate driverless cars for everyone, and I gaurantee the american people will never let that happen.


Urban centers will ban human driven cars. You will be able to self drive outside of their limits and be forced to self drive inside, IMO. Eventually, human driving will be a rural or closed course recreation.



RockinEZ said:


> You also get to sell the replacement parts that will be necessary to keep a self crashing vehicle on the road for the life of Checker Cab or more.


Funny, self crashing.

No, you won't need to last as long as a checker because they will be so much more profitable. Regardless, they will mostly be electric for TNC and their lifespan can be much longer with cheaper maintenance.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> I think we have 5 years until we see a released production vehicle.


No major auto manufacturer or major tech company in the world agrees with this.

BMW just announce their SDC will be in showrooms in 2021.


----------



## KGB7

RamzFanz said:


> Your math doesn't work. Maintenance is a fraction of the fare and even less for an electric vehicle. There would be almost no downtime for repairs either. Almost everything on an electric car can be hot swapped in minutes.


This isn't a toy car. Light bulbs take at least 5min. Everything else at least half hour.

And it's not a fraction of a fare. An average fare is $6.
To swap a light bulb is about $40. Parts plus labor.


----------



## KGB7

RamzFanz said:


> No major auto manufacturer or major tech company in the world agrees with this.
> 
> BMW just announce their SDC will be in showrooms in 2021.


That's 5 years.

2016 - 2021= -5.


----------



## KGB7

RamzFanz said:


> You mean hundreds of thousands. And yes, Tesla is already scaling up in a huge way. By the way, they say 2 years for their SDC and can only be helped by this huge scale up.


Scale up won't make SDC come on roads any faster.

It's the hardware and software that's needs to be made.
Current hardware and software is not up to the task just yet, to deal with all road hazards, with out a $100,000 computers in the trunk taking up space.


----------



## elelegido

KGB7 said:


> That's 5 years.
> 
> 2016 - 2021=5.


LOL


----------



## KGB7

elelegido said:


> LOL


Fudge....

I just noticed my mistake.....lol

Fixed it.


----------



## autofill

Regardless, cab drivers can easily road block all SDC from reaching their pax. Gonna be a lot of delayed pickups if any at all, lol.


----------



## RockinEZ

autofill said:


> Regardless, cab drivers can easily road block all SDC from reaching their pax. Gonna be a lot of delayed pickups if any at all, lol.


If Self Crashing Cars become a reality, what makes you think the taxi industry would not collapse, or adopt Self Crashing Cars themselves?

Something would have to give. 
Taxis have been such a terrible experience for so many, folks will bail to any other transportation that is private, or semi private.


----------



## autofill

RockinEZ said:


> If Self Crashing Cars become a reality, what makes you think the taxi industry would not collapse, or adopt Self Crashing Cars themselves?
> 
> Something would have to give.
> Taxis have been such a terrible experience for so many, folks will bail to any other transportation that is private, or semi private.


You been watching way too much of The Jetsons.


----------



## RockinEZ

autofill said:


> You been watching way too much of The Jetsons.


Do you believe the Self Crashing Car will become a reality?
I do, not next Tuesday, but I don't think the technical issues are that great at this time.

I took the free AI (artificial intelligence) from MIT online. AI is very close to being ready for a car.

Remember this started over 20 years ago in San Diego when someone had a fleet of cars driving up and down I-15.

People have been working on the pieces for a long time. Now someone has to put it all together in an inexpensive safe package.

When you see a self crashing BMW or Mercedes on the road, you will know Goober is close to getting what they want.

There is also a chance that this is all another of TKs scams to separate the money from the investors.

He pays himself and his Sr. Management staff very well. 
That may be the only goal here, the rest could be smoke and mirrors.


----------



## UberReallySucks

RockinEZ said:


> You forget Uber does not have $60 billion dollars. That is a fantasy evaluation for going public.
> 
> In reality Uber is bleeding millions of dollars per year. They made their first profitable rides in L.A. last quarter. They are making thirteen cents profit off of L.A. rides.
> 
> Uber has no money. They exist on venture capital.


_And their biggest bet; China is quickly fading away thanks to DIDI
And having no money if true is entirely 100% their fault._


----------



## UberReallySucks

RockinEZ said:


> Do you believe the Self Crashing Car will become a reality?
> I do, not next Tuesday, but I don't think the technical issues are that great at this time.
> 
> I took the free AI (artificial intelligence) from MIT online. AI is very close to being ready for a car.
> 
> Remember this started over 20 years ago in San Diego when someone had a fleet of cars driving up and down I-15.
> 
> People have been working on the pieces for a long time. Now someone has to put it all together in an inexpensive safe package.
> 
> When you see a self crashing BMW or Mercedes on the road, you will know Goober is close to getting what they want.
> 
> There is also a chance that this is all another of TKs scams to separate the money from the investors.
> 
> He pays himself and his Sr. Management staff very well.
> That may be the only goal here, the rest could be smoke and mirrors.


_An how are these self driving car gonna help with oversized luggage at the airport with these all poor ladies who can pack it but not carry it? Now a free service that the self entitled have gotten used to thanks to the uber sheep and their quest for stars._


----------



## Mountainsoloist

RockinEZ said:


> Elon Musk can always compete with SpaceX TNC to Europe in 35 minutes.


I think he will throw some competition into the ring. He is one of a select few people I know of who appears to care about the world and not simply his bottom line. Also, his ideas are that of true innovation. I imagine the Hyperloop, self driving Teslas, reusable rockets with Mars missions, and whatever he thinks of next will keep companies like Uber on their toes.



RamzFanz said:


> Are you stuck in 2015? Most states now have laws making TNCs legal.


No, I'm stuck in the nineties. And guess what, they had Uber then too. It's called a taxi. No matter how hard you fight it, Uber is just an updated cab company. It's a taxi company with an app.



RamzFanz said:


> You mean hundreds of thousands. And yes, Tesla is already scaling up in a huge way. By the way, they say 2 years for their SDC and can only be helped by this huge scale up.


Self driving Teslas are coming soon. One of the car companies will come out with their driverless car, and everyone else will follow suit. Driverless cars aren't just the future, they're already here.



RamzFanz said:


> The pick up is on the pax. The safe and legal drop off spots only need to be figured out once.


Well said. The data sharing capability of self driving cars will probably eliminate these problems really quickly. I don't think this will be an issue.



RamzFanz said:


> Your math doesn't work. Maintenance is a fraction of the fare and even less for an electric vehicle. There would be almost no downtime for repairs either. Almost everything on an electric car can be hot swapped in minutes.


While I have not tried to calculate maintenance costs for Uber if they go this route, I guarantee they have. Uber lives and breathes data. While they have their rates too low for me to drive my personal car profitably after maintenance, I don't think they would even consider owning fleets if they hadn't already found it more profitable than their current arrangement.



RamzFanz said:


> Eventually, human driving will be a rural or closed course recreation.


This thought is probably the only thing that could destroy the success of driverless cars. Provided nobody tries to outlaw human driving, I think it will stay legal but it will become rare. It will end up being a hobby for the wealthy who can afford to keep human drive cars on the road and an upscale option for hipsters who want to do it the old fashioned way. With no legislation and a substantially better product we will put today's cars in the same place we put our CD collections and payphones.

On the other hand, if we constantly talk about banning human driving, Americans will hoard manual cars. There is one thing we value more than safety, efficiency, clean emissions, and every other benefit of self driving cars: Freedom!



RockinEZ said:


> If Self Crashing Cars become a reality, what makes you think the taxi industry would not collapse, or adopt Self Crashing Cars themselves?


I agree. Perhaps they will even make Uber buy medallions, or Uber will market their platform to the medallion holding taxi companies so that it can continue to call itself a technology company.



UberReallySucks said:


> _An how are these self driving car gonna help with oversized luggage at the airport with these all poor ladies who can pack it but not carry it? Now a free service that the self entitled have gotten used to thanks to the uber sheep and their quest for stars._


I think several of the taxi companies (which includes Uber) may elect to keep some human driven taxis around for that kind of thing. I just hope the old lady remembers to move her slider off "robot pool" to "human select."


----------



## RockinEZ

UberReallySucks said:


> _And their biggest bet; China is quickly fading away thanks to DIDI
> And having no money if true is entirely 100% their fault._


The Chinese government is not going to let Uber make money, when Chinese people are capable of providing the same service.


----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> This isn't a toy car. Light bulbs take at least 5min. Everything else at least half hour.
> 
> And it's not a fraction of a fare. An average fare is $6.
> To swap a light bulb is about $40. Parts plus labor.


No, that's what a third party charges you for unique parts where everyone is marking it up down the line and where doing your car is in line with others. In a fleet scenario with no human controls, universal parts, and parts in stock, it can take minutes to swap anything. It's all about engineering and forethought. Watch a NASCAR pit crew. And that is one hell of a complicated machine compared to a high end golf cart.

Average fare is $6? You must Uber really poorly if that's your average fare. Mine is over $15.


----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> That's 5 years.
> 
> 2016 - 2021= -5.


Fair point using my example, but that's also late to the game.


----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> Scale up won't make SDC come on roads any faster.
> 
> It's the hardware and software that's needs to be made.
> Current hardware and software is not up to the task just yet, to deal with all road hazards, with out a $100,000 computers in the trunk taking up space.


You have no grasp of computer power vs cost. The entire electronics package, including a supercomputer, to make a SDC, will be about $5,000. Current hardware and software has millions of miles of live road testing all over the world. It doesn't "need to be made", it already has been. This is the end game. They are tweaking, not creating.

Anyone who doubts Google or Elon Musk is on a fool's errand. You do realise he just landed a sideways plummeting rocket upright on a tiny autonomous barge, no?


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> The Chinese government is not going to let Uber make money, when Chinese people are capable of providing the same service.


Apple just invested a billion into DIDI to introduce SDCs to China.


----------



## RamzFanz

Mountainsoloist said:


> No, I'm stuck in the nineties. And guess what, they had Uber then too. It's called a taxi. No matter how hard you fight it, Uber is just an updated cab company. It's a taxi company with an app.


It's a fight that is all but over. TNCs have their own laws. Taxis and taxi commissions are all but done for. When the car doesn't cheat, discriminate, or flood the roads, they will have no purpose, real or imagined.



Mountainsoloist said:


> On the other hand, if we constantly talk about banning human driving, Americans will hoard manual cars. There is one thing we value more than safety, efficiency, clean emissions, and every other benefit of self driving cars: Freedom!


I am a freedom loving SOB and I espouse that constantly. A SDC imposes nothing on my freedoms. I can go where I want when I want. I'm not free to just go fly a plane myself either, even though we used to be able to, but I've never considered that an imposition on my rights.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> Regardless, cab drivers can easily road block all SDC from reaching their pax. Gonna be a lot of delayed pickups if any at all, lol.


And they will get ticketed and boycotted. Problem solved. No one gives a shit what taxi drivers think.


----------



## RamzFanz

autofill said:


> You been watching way too much of The Jetsons.


You've read too few books.


----------



## RamzFanz

UberReallySucks said:


> _An how are these self driving car gonna help with oversized luggage at the airport with these all poor ladies who can pack it but not carry it? Now a free service that the self entitled have gotten used to thanks to the uber sheep and their quest for stars._


Attendants at the airports and hotels. No driver doesn't mean someone can't call a car with an assistant onboard.

Man, I thought that was a great roadblock, but then it turned out to be simple.


----------



## Mountainsoloist

RamzFanz said:


> Anyone who doubts Google or Elon Musk is on a fool's errand. You do realize he just landed a sideways plummeting rocket upright on a tiny autonomous barge, no?


I couldn't agree more.



RamzFanz said:


> It's a fight that is all but over. TNCs have their own laws. Taxis and taxi commissions are all but done for. When the car doesn't cheat, discriminate, or flood the roads, they will have no purpose, real or imagined.


I certainly agree that official taxi companies and app based taxi companies (also known as ridesharing or TNCs) will continue to duke it out in the meantime. I also agree that the distinction won't matter once they all go autonomous, which is not that far off. These companies are only using human drivers as an interim solution until they can roll out driverless taxis.



RamzFanz said:


> I am a freedom loving SOB and I espouse that constantly. A SDC imposes nothing on my freedoms. I can go where I want when I want. I'm not free to just go fly a plane myself either, even though we used to be able to, but I've never considered that an imposition on my rights.


President Obama is a man who stands up for his values and speaks openly about divisive political issues. Even his most subtle mentions of gun control in America have indirectly set record numbers for gun sales. He is often credited as the most successful gun salesman in history, although that was not likely the result he intended. Self driving cars could end up on a very similar path if we push to ban human driving.

Also, you can go fly a plane by yourself. Yes you need a licence, but you also need a licence to drive your car.


----------



## RamzFanz

Mountainsoloist said:


> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> I certainly agree that official taxi companies and app based taxi companies (also known as ridesharing or TNCs) will continue to duke it out in the meantime. I also agree that the distinction won't matter once they all go autonomous, which is not that far off. These companies are only using human drivers as an interim solution until they can roll out driverless taxis.
> 
> President Obama is a man who stands up for his values and speaks openly about divisive political issues. Even his most subtle mentions of gun control in America have indirectly set record numbers for gun sales. He is often credited as the most successful gun salesman in history, although that was not likely the result he intended. Self driving cars could end up on a very similar path if we push to ban human driving.
> 
> Also, you can go fly a plane by yourself. Yes you need a licence, but you also need a licence to drive your car.


Taxi companies are all but dead. Sure they could adapt but they are lowly and not tech savvy or they already would have. They will BlockBuster. GM, Apple, Uber, Lyft, and Google are all getting into the SDC TNC game. Taxis have no chance.

I won't need a license to ride in an SDC, so I'm actually more free from bureaucracy and laws.

It will make no difference what human drivers think. There is no amendment protecting their right to drive a car. Or fly a plane. Or ride around in the middle of the road in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck (do you get that reference?).


----------



## UberReallySucks

RamzFanz said:


> Attendants at the airports and hotels. No driver doesn't mean someone can't call a car with an assistant onboard.
> 
> Man, I thought that was a great roadblock, but then it turned out to be simple.


Oh so you mean they would actually have to tip someone ... haha


----------



## KGB7

RamzFanz said:


> You have no grasp of computer power vs cost. The entire electronics package, including a supercomputer, to make a SDC, will be about $5,000. Current hardware and software has millions of miles of live road testing all over the world. It doesn't "need to be made", it already has been. This is the end game. They are tweaking, not creating.
> 
> Anyone who doubts Google or Elon Musk is on a fool's errand. You do realise he just landed a sideways plummeting rocket upright on a tiny autonomous barge, no?


Look in the trunk of Google self driving car. That's a whole lot more then $5k in hardware.


----------



## KGB7

RamzFanz said:


> No, that's what a third party charges you for unique parts where everyone is marking it up down the line and where doing your car is in line with others. In a fleet scenario with no human controls, universal parts, and parts in stock, it can take minutes to swap anything. It's all about engineering and forethought. Watch a NASCAR pit crew. And that is one hell of a complicated machine compared to a high end golf cart.
> 
> Average fare is $6? You must Uber really poorly if that's your average fare. Mine is over $15.


You have never worked as a mechanic. And no one is going to hire a nascar pit crew to service these cars.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> You have no grasp of computer power vs cost. The entire electronics package, including a supercomputer, to make a SDC, will be about $5,000. Current hardware and software has millions of miles of live road testing all over the world. It doesn't "need to be made", it already has been. This is the end game. They are tweaking, not creating.
> 
> Anyone who doubts Google or Elon Musk is on a fool's errand. You do realise he just landed a sideways plummeting rocket upright on a tiny autonomous barge, no?


This one is total Crap with a capital C RamzFanz.

You have probably not been involved in designing and manufacturing anything, right?
Some of us made a life of it.

No freaking super computer, just a bunch of very small very dumb surface mount computers connected by CANBUS

Almost all the hardware is out there. A design just has to be finalized, tested, and approved.

I did this kind of stuff for the last 15 years.


----------



## KGB7

RockinEZ said:


> This one is total Crap with a capital C RamzFanz.
> 
> You have probably not been involved in designing and manufacturing anything, right?
> Some of us made a life of it.
> 
> No freaking super computer, just a bunch of very small very dumb surface mount computers connected by CANBUS
> 
> Almost all the hardware is out there. A design just has to be finalized, tested, and approved.
> 
> I did this kind of stuff for the last 15 years.


Mechanic in military for 8 years and network engineer for decade as a civilian.

I agree with you.

Cars aren't made of Legos.


----------



## Activist1

KGB7 said:


> Mechanic in military for 8 years and network engineer for decade as a civilian.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> Cars aren't made of Legos.


LOL. Agree


----------



## Mountainsoloist

RamzFanz said:


> Taxi companies are all but dead. Sure they could adapt but they are lowly and not tech savvy or they already would have. They will be BlockBuster. GM, Apple, Uber, Lyft, and Google are all getting into the SDC TNC game. Taxis have no chance.


This point is purely a matter of semantics. I'm simply saying that they are all taxis, despite calling themselves TNCs, rideshare, or technology companies.



RamzFanz said:


> I won't need a license to ride in an SDC, so I'm actually more free from bureaucracy and laws.


True. I think SDC will give freedom of mobility to many older, underage, disabled, and DUI offenders who cannot currently drive.



RamzFanz said:


> It will make no difference what human drivers think. There is no amendment protecting their right to drive a car. Or fly a plane. Or ride around in the middle of the road in an electric wheelchair chasing a duck (do you get that reference?).


Their thoughts do matter. There isn't an amendment for it, but that could change if this becomes a public debate. This single issue has the potential to derail driverless progress in America.

The woman chasing the duck is a perfect example of how SDCs are meant to interact with others on the road. They are made to operate safely on the road alongside human drivers. There will be greater safety and efficiency as more of the cars on the road go driverless, which will happen over time. A government mandate will have the opposite effect.



UberReallySucks said:


> Oh so you mean they would actually have to tip someone ... haha


Haha I love it!



RockinEZ said:


> No freaking super computer, just a bunch of very small very dumb surface mount computers connected by CANBUS. Almost all the hardware is out there. A design just has to be finalized, tested, and approved.


Well said. This is going to happen soon. There are probably a few companies that are only waiting for a stamp of approval from a government agency.



KGB7 said:


> Look in the trunk of Google self driving car. That's a whole lot more then $5k in hardware.


The latest figure is $75,000 for the car including all the sensors and computers. Currently several of the individual sensors preferred by the manufacturers cost more than $5,000. They have found some cheaper alternatives, but they are still banking on the cost of the preferred equipment to come down in the future.



KGB7 said:


> Cars aren't made of Legos.


Good one KGB!


----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> Look in the trunk of Google self driving car. That's a whole lot more then $5k in hardware.


I not winging it. That's the expected costs. The originals were far far more expensive but now that manufacturers are gearing up to mass sell items that were rarely ordered before in comparison, prices have plummeted. A FLIR that used to be in the tens of thousands can now be ordered in bulk for $500.

Now add back the costs of steering wheels, accelerators, brakes, parking brakes, dashboards, etc.


----------



## tohunt4me




----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> You have never worked as a mechanic. And no one is going to hire a nascar pit crew to service these cars.


Don't be intentionally obtuse. I was comparing how a NASCAR pit crew works, not saying they would be the same. A well engineered electric SDC will be easily repaired for anything in minutes. Nothing in the passenger compartment. No internal combustible engine to take apart, just pull in, pull part, replace, and it's back on the road. You could easily design to remove an Electric motor with one bolt. Same with tires, sensor, whatever.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> This one is total Crap with a capital C RamzFanz.
> 
> You have probably not been involved in designing and manufacturing anything, right?
> Some of us made a life of it.
> 
> No freaking super computer, just a bunch of very small very dumb surface mount computers connected by CANBUS
> 
> Almost all the hardware is out there. A design just has to be finalized, tested, and approved.
> 
> I did this kind of stuff for the last 15 years.


I'm using the term loosely to convey the concept that the processing power of the Google car is far superior to what most people are used to. If I recall they use are using the Terga X series and are rumored to be migrating to the Nvidia Drive PX 2 GPU system.

The Drive PX 2 is capable of 8 trillion single-precision floating point calculations per second, or 24 trillion deep learning operations per second, so yes, it is referred to as comparable to a supercomputer.

In comparison to a desktop computer, say an intel i7 CPU, it's 60 times more powerful.

Did you ever work with a system that could process and identify 2800 images a second, processing data from FLIRs and radars, while communicating with the outside world and driving a car? Is that "very dumb" in your world?

My background? I engineered and programmed automation and communication systems as did my 22 employees. Retired.


----------



## RamzFanz

KGB7 said:


> Mechanic in military for 8 years and network engineer for decade as a civilian.
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> Cars aren't made of Legos.


In the context of a SDC TNC in an urban environment, they probably could be built out of legos if they wanted. These are golf carts with self driving capabilities and a nicer body style. A well engineered Google car could be stripped to nothing and reassembled inside of an hour. The car itself doesn't need to be complicated and the parts could be easily accessed and replaced. All of them. It's all about engineering for efficiency.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> I'm using the term loosely to convey the concept that the processing power of the Google car is far superior to what most people are used to. If I recall they use are using the Terga X series and are rumored to be migrating to the Nvidia Drive PX 2 GPU system.
> 
> The Drive PX 2 is capable of 8 trillion single-precision floating point calculations per second, or 24 trillion deep learning operations per second, so yes, it is referred to as comparable to a supercomputer.
> 
> In comparison to a desktop computer, say an intel i7 CPU, it's 60 times more powerful.
> 
> Did you ever work with a system that could process and identify 2800 images a second, processing data from FLIRs and radars, while communicating with the outside world and driving a car? Is that "very dumb" in your world?
> 
> My background? I engineered and programmed automation and communication systems as did my 22 employees. Retired.


We have something in common, computer hardware. 
I disagree about your definition of a supercomputer, but I understand you have some idea of what a self crashing car will take to be autonomous.

This is not going to be a give away by any means, but it is so desirable to so many people that it will happen unless the comet hits the earth.

The question is when. 
Cost is less of an issue in the first generation self crashing cars. Just like everything else the cost will go down with higher numbers and newer technology..

Like I said earlier, it ain't going to happen next Tuesday, but it will happen.

I think the real roadblock will be regulatory. 
Working with government agencies is a pain in the butt.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> In the context of a SDC TNC in an urban environment, they probably could be built out of legos if they wanted. These are golf carts with self driving capabilities and a nicer body style. A well engineered Google car could be stripped to nothing and reassembled inside of an hour. The car itself doesn't need to be complicated and the parts could be easily accessed and replaced. All of them. It's all about engineering for efficiency.


If they keep the same platform for a decade, and if it was designed to repair, it could be a lot less expensive to repair than current cars. Will they do that first gen? Na.

But later on I can see a platform designed to be stable for a decade with the ability to swap out the sensors and processing systems as they improve significantly.

The main hardware platform would sure be less expensive if a single design could be maintained for several years.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> We have something in common, computer hardware.
> I disagree about your definition of a supercomputer, but I understand you have some idea of what a self crashing car will take to be autonomous.
> 
> This is not going to be a give away by any means, but it is so desirable to so many people that it will happen unless the comet hits the earth.
> 
> The question is when.
> Cost is less of an issue in the first generation self crashing cars. Just like everything else the cost will go down with higher numbers and newer technology..
> 
> Like I said earlier, it ain't going to happen next Tuesday, but it will happen.
> 
> I think the real roadblock will be regulatory.
> Working with government agencies is a pain in the butt.


The Netherlands already have self driving cars on the road, so you are correct, not next Tuesday.

I'm not implying all levels of self driving cars are around the corner, but the small urban 2 seater TNC electric versions are going to be on the road in full operation before 2021. They also won't be expensive in relation to their profit production. Unfortunately, Uber is not trustworthy, or I'd sign on as an independent operator of SDCs.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> The Netherlands already have self driving cars on the road, so you are correct, not next Tuesday.
> 
> I'm not implying all levels of self driving cars are around the corner, but the small urban 2 seater TNC electric versions are going to on the road in full operation before 2021. They also won't be expensive in relation to their profit production. Unfortunately, Uber is not trustworthy, or I'd sign on as an independent operator of SDCs.


SDCs are coming Uber or not.
The real question is are they suitable for Uber? There are several threads here indicating that some of our pax have never been in a hired car before, and just don't know how to act.

Four drunk punks from Pacific Beach are only going to behave if they are sedated.
They are going to tear the car apart.

Are self crashing cars suitable for TNC work?
I suspect we will find out.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RockinEZ said:


> SDCs are coming Uber or not.
> The real question is are they suitable for Uber? There are several threads here indicating that some of our pax have never been in a hired car before, and just don't know how to act.
> 
> Four drunk punks from Pacific Beach are only going to behave if they are sedated.
> They are going to tear the car apart.
> 
> Are self crashing cars suitable for TNC work?
> I suspect we will find out.


Have to wait & watch the reality. Whether Uber will stock all these cars with goodies & bottled water. Also if the cars will have Entertainment system. Right now the riders don't respect us the owner & our property & we are in the car. Uber does not even want us to have cameras & will have to pay taxes as now the cars are their property & assets. Let wait & watch what the riders will do to those cars & their behaviour.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> SDCs are coming Uber or not.
> The real question is are they suitable for Uber? There are several threads here indicating that some of our pax have never been in a hired car before, and just don't know how to act.
> 
> Four drunk punks from Pacific Beach are only going to behave if they are sedated.
> They are going to tear the car apart.
> 
> Are self crashing cars suitable for TNC work?
> I suspect we will find out.


Just as the drivers often enjoy cleaning fees, so will SDC TNCs. Wreck it all you want, they will slide the interior out, slide a new one in, and charge the pax accordingly. Back on the road in 10 minutes if they engineer it correctly.

So here's what I would do:

Design the body attachment to the chassis with 4 mechanical locks. Pull in, unlock, lift off body with a wench, unhooking a single electrical harness to allow body off, every single part other than undercarriage is now accessible. Every single attachment is the same bolt so one tool removes anything above the tires. With an electric vehicle, this is more than possible. Technician swaps parts, body and interior pass through cleaning machine, and when tech is done, interior slides back in and body is dropped on. Back on the road, clean and sanitised.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Have to wait & watch the reality. Whether Uber will stock all these cars with goodies & bottled water. Also if the cars will have Entertainment system. Right now the riders don't respect us the owner & our property & we are in the car. Uber does not even want us to have cameras & will have to pay taxes as now the cars are their property & assets. Let wait & watch what the riders will do to those cars & their behaviour.


Initially they will probably be striped down glorified golf carts. Down the road I would expect they will have paid entertainment systems or free with ads.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> Initially they will probably be striped down glorified golf carts. Down the road I would expect they will have paid entertainment systems or free with ads.


Just like an elevator in Las Vegas.


----------



## RockinEZ

RamzFanz said:


> Just as the drivers often enjoy cleaning fees, so will SDC TNCs. Wreck it all you want, they will slide the interior out, slide a new one in, and charge the pax accordingly. Back on the road in 10 minutes if they engineer it correctly.
> 
> So here's what I would do:
> 
> Design the body attachment to the chassis with 4 mechanical locks. Pull in, unlock, lift off body with a wench, unhooking a single electrical harness to allow body off, every single part other than undercarriage is now accessible. Every single attachment is the same bolt so one tool removes anything above the tires. With an electric vehicle, this is more than possible. Technician swaps parts, body and interior pass through cleaning machine, and when tech is done, interior slides back in and body is dropped on. Back on the road, clean and sanitised.


I agree. The real savings is not to make changes to the design unless absolutely necessary. The sensor pack and the electronics should be in upgradable modules, but the mechanical part of the car should stay the same.

I did process engineering and it can cost thousands to change out a single part, just in engineering change orders. Not the hardware, just the paperwork.


----------



## tradedate

elelegido said:


> we said goodbye,* I one starred him for being an Uber employee as is customary*, and then went on with my shift.


You get a "like" from me, just for this part. Too funny. So many ways this could be applied.

_I decked him for being a Trump supporter, as is customary....
I wedgied him for being a Star Wars fan, as is customary...._


----------



## Activist1

RamzFanz said:


> I'm using the term loosely to convey the concept that the processing power of the Google car is far superior to what most people are used to. If I recall they use are using the Terga X series and are rumored to be migrating to the Nvidia Drive PX 2 GPU system.
> 
> The Drive PX 2 is capable of 8 trillion single-precision floating point calculations per second, or 24 trillion deep learning operations per second, so yes, it is referred to as comparable to a supercomputer.
> 
> In comparison to a desktop computer, say an intel i7 CPU, it's 60 times more powerful.
> 
> Did you ever work with a system that could process and identify 2800 images a second, processing data from FLIRs and radars, while communicating with the outside world and driving a car? Is that "very dumb" in your world?
> 
> My background? I engineered and programmed automation and communication systems as did my 22 employees. Retired.


Um, this person definitely knows what he's talking about y'all

thanks for th update!


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> Really silly stuff you guys throw out there. Bad pin? Oh well, it's on the pax, fix it or go to the car. Busy area? Force pickups at designated pickup zones. Work with local businesses and governments to have Uber stops. Illegal drop off? Don't drop them there. Whew, that was hard.


Don't call people silly. Call Uber silly. 

Nothing is hard but it becomes hard when it has to be explained to persons & people wearing *BLINDERS.*
Fares getting nixed by Uber because rider complained that driver did not go/come straight to the pick-up spot i.e. *Front of the bar doors, on a busy through road.* * STOP* all Traffic, wait for Riders & block the flow of traffic. *Uber should spend money educating riders & not nix drivers bottom line to earn maximum profits. U*ber relies on _Feedback,_ but does not use it for _Improvement._ It _analyzes _feedback to screw Governments & Businesses & how it will be in Uber's best interest of not wanting to work with authorities. 

_Have noticed on a lot of posts. How passionate, defensive & positive you are with your feedback on Uber._ 
Answer or show me a post *Where Uber has cooperated & worked with local Authorities other than issuing threats, or have educated or send mass emails educating riders.*


----------



## Slavic Riga

autofill said:


> Currently Uber and Lyft aren't paying out 75%-80% of pax's fare. You have to realize the word "fare" to a pax means the total cost for their trip. Pax don't or never will say "my trip cost $5 in fare plus $1.85 booking fee".
> 
> Right now uber and Lyft only pays driver an average of 50%-55% of pax's total fare. Go take a look at your last week pay statement, add up how much uber make in commission and booking fee vs how much you made.
> 
> Even if you think they now paying out 75%-80% of fare, uber and Lyft will incur new cost by having driverless cars such as:
> - Gas
> - Vehicle maintenance
> - Vehicle cleaning
> - Insurance
> - Vehicle wear and tear
> 
> The costs to maintain a vehicle probably be much higher for uber and Lyft since they have to hire someone to do it vs us drivers doing it ourselves. Who's going to pump gas for driverless cars? Another added expense right there.


ROBOTS & use the word loosely, because its used all the time by people in computer world & software development.


----------



## RockinEZ

Activist1 said:


> Um, this person definitely knows what he's talking about y'all
> 
> thanks for th update!


Ya think so.... Supercomputer? 
A GPU is not a super computer. It is a very fast graphics processor used as a CPU. 
It is still a PC class processor at this point.

Link many together and you have a different story. 
There is some work being done on multiple CPU systems that use GPUs. 
There are a handful of GPU supercomputers.

None of them are needed for a self crashing car.


----------



## RockinEZ

tradedate said:


> You get a "like" from me, just for this part. Too funny. So many ways this could be applied.
> 
> _I decked him for being a Trump supporter, as is customary....
> I wedgied him for being a Star Wars fan, as is customary...._


You handing out "likes" like pax hand out 5 star ratings.... Interesting.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> lift off body with a wench


This is the 21st century. We call them women now


----------



## RockinEZ

elelegido said:


> This is the 21st century. We call them women now


Ta-ting!


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Don't call people silly. Call Uber silly.
> 
> Nothing is hard but it becomes hard when it has to be explained to persons & people wearing *BLINDERS.*
> Fares getting nixed by Uber because rider complained that driver did not go/come straight to the pick-up spot i.e. *Front of the bar doors, on a busy through road.* * STOP* all Traffic, wait for Riders & block the flow of traffic. *Uber should spend money educating riders & not nix drivers bottom line to earn maximum profits. U*ber relies on _Feedback,_ but does not use it for _Improvement._ It _analyzes _feedback to screw Governments & Businesses & how it will be in Uber's best interest of not wanting to work with authorities.
> 
> _Have noticed on a lot of posts. How passionate, defensive & positive you are with your feedback on Uber._
> Answer or show me a post *Where Uber has cooperated & worked with local Authorities other than issuing threats, or have educated or send mass emails educating riders.*


This is a discussion about self driving cars and how they will behave as a TNC.

Uber works with governments all the time. In my area they have arranged exclusive pick up and drop off spots for major events. Not sure what you're getting at.


----------



## Slavic Riga

B


RamzFanz said:


> This is a discussion about self driving cars and how they will behave as a TNC.
> 
> Uber works with governments all the time. In my area they have arranged exclusive pick up and drop off spots for major events. Not sure what you're getting at.


Have to differ with what you mentioned. Uber refuse to work with Govts in Austin, Houston, New York & many more. Your area does not cover the entire world. Its a small area, when it happens worldwide & statewide, a lot of us will be happy.


----------



## RamzFanz

RockinEZ said:


> Ya think so.... Supercomputer?
> A GPU is not a super computer. It is a very fast graphics processor used as a CPU.
> It is still a PC class processor at this point.
> 
> Link many together and you have a different story.
> There is some work being done on multiple CPU systems that use GPUs.
> There are a handful of GPU supercomputers.
> 
> None of them are needed for a self crashing car.


I used the term loosely as a comparison to what we are used to. In this class, it is among the very top. Far superior to what people typically assume the SDC will use. It's amazingly powerful.

But, yes, it is not technically a supercomputer and the SDC doesn't need a quadrillion calculations per second.


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> B
> 
> Have to differ with what you mentioned. Uber refuse to work with Govts in Austin, Houston, New York & many more. Your area does not cover the entire world. Its a small area, when it happens worldwide & statewide, a lot of us will be happy.


You asked me to show you where they worked with the government so I did.

A business owner who fights unnecessary government overregulation is well within its rights. In fact, in a republic with a free market system that has a long history of encroachment by corrupt government like they did with taxis, I would call it a duty to fight them. We aren't slaves and the government isn't our master.

The very last entity I want deciding anything for me is the government. They are not trustworthy or effective and overreach their authority constantly. If people want to use services that do fingerprint checks, which have not been shown to achieve any level of safety over commercial background checks, let a company do it and advertise it as a feature. Problem solved, no need for new unproven laws. Austin is now available for a TNC company to exploit the unfounded fear mongering by advertising their fingerprint checks. You should go do it. I'm sure Uber and Lyft have no idea about the economics of operating in that manner.

Right now, because of government encroachment, Austin has drunks on the road and completely unvetted TNC services over running the city. They broke a perfectly good system without any supportable reason and everyone is suffering.


----------



## tradedate

RockinEZ said:


> You handing out "likes" like pax hand out 5 star ratings.... Interesting.


Or like how drivers that don't know better hand out water and gum.


----------



## Slavic Riga

RamzFanz said:


> You asked me to show you where they worked with the government so I did.


Where, St. Louis, MO.
That is one city in whole of USA. What about other states & other countries.


RamzFanz said:


> A business owner who fights unnecessary government overregulation is well within its rights. In fact, in a republic with a free market system that has a long history of encroachment by corrupt government like they did with taxis, I would call it a duty to fight them. We aren't slaves and the government isn't our master.


This is not a Business owner this is a Corporation, that has devised ways of not paying *TAXES* and to be *TAXED.* 
Even though Govt. are corrupt, they are there to protect little peoples interests. *SLAVERY *was abolished by the Govt. but on its way back with Uber the Corporation. They want to create Rules which are favourable to them & not for others. Uber is creating *MONOPOLY *just like Taxis but in a different way by stating it is a Technology Company with an app not a Transportation Company.


RamzFanz said:


> The very last entity I want deciding anything for me is the government. They are not trustworthy or effective and overreach their authority constantly. If people want to use services that do fingerprint checks, which have not been shown to achieve any level of safety over commercial background checks, let a company do it and advertise it as a feature. Problem solved, no need for new unproven laws. Austin is now available for a TNC company to exploit the unfounded fear mongering by advertising their fingerprint checks. You should go do it. I'm sure Uber and Lyft have no idea about the economics of operating in that manner.


You are an individual. Talk about masses. Who selected the Govt.? People & Masses 
Uber is still operating, because the same entity i.e. the Govt. that you are against & do not want making decisions, have Politicians & lobbyists in the present Govt. as corrupt officials. These corrupt officials are aligned & do the bidding of Uber. As, their pockets have been greased. If these corrupt officials did not exist, Uber would be shred to pieces by to date.

Regarding finger printing your Govt. knows best how to protect its people. * Biggest problem Infiltration & go back to 9/11.* Nobody wants to mention it as, there is too much of _Political Correctness_ these days. For a few people & your convenience, a whole system should adhere to Uber. That's your thinking. 


RamzFanz said:


> Right now, because of government encroachment, Austin has drunks on the road and completely unvetted TNC services over running the city. They broke a perfectly good system without any supportable reason and everyone is suffering.


  City of Austin, TX nor nobody has broken a good system. The Corporations closed shop because they spend approx. $9 million on voting, *for a favorable result & LOST.* Result was not in their favour. There are new TNC's in the market. When new there are teething problems, over time they will improve & take-over. Uber/Lyft too had teething problems. 
*Lets re-evaluate & continue the Austin, TX, TNC's conversation in three to four weeks.*


----------



## RamzFanz

Slavic Riga said:


> Where, St. Louis, MO.
> That is one city in whole of USA. What about other states & other countries.


I'm afraid I'm not an expert on every Uber/city government relationship. You asked for one, you got one. You're welcome.



Slavic Riga said:


> your Govt. knows best how to protect its people.


Really? You sure? That just doesn't sound right to me. Have you had a glass of water in detroit lately?

They know nothing about protecting people because they are simply winging it and have no studies that show fingerprint checks reduce crime by transportation providers more than commercial background checks. Austin wants $40 a check, paid by YOU, and guess who will be paid, "private" companies. I wonder who owns those private companies. Follow the money and don't be duped by fear mongering.


----------



## RamzFanz

tradedate said:


> Or like how drivers that don't know better hand out water and gum.


It depends on the area. I give out water and candy and I know for a fact I get tipped because of it. Markets vary.


----------



## LEAFdriver

*Plan for self-driving cars' pitfall? Human brain *

*http://triblive.com/business/headlines/10817981-74/driving-self-driver*


----------



## heynow321

Exactly....as I said in another thread. There are reasons planes, ships, and trains are 100% automated. But hey, if more tards want to kill themselves in preventable wrecks that is fine with me.


----------



## RamzFanz

LEAFdriver said:


> *Plan for self-driving cars' pitfall? Human brain *
> 
> *http://triblive.com/business/headlines/10817981-74/driving-self-driver*


I stopped reading after the first paragraph.

If a human ever has to take over, it's not self driving. A self driving car would not require human controls. If the author can't even get that right, what does he have to offer on the subject? Besides, if it's twice as safe as human driven, its weaknesses and occasional errors won't mean anything. Sometimes seatbelts kill people, but we still use them.


----------

