# Lyft testing driverless cars in S.F.



## hangarcat (Nov 2, 2014)

Self-driving Chevy Bolts are on the streets of San Francisco

http://flip.it/mHK3Q


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Testing.


----------



## grams777 (Jun 13, 2014)

Lyft and uber can't even get the pin locations right. I wonder how they plan on dealing with issues like a pickup in the middle of a highway. Or the pax calls and is on the other side of the street. Or a pax wants to follow a certain route. Wrong person in the car. Cleanup car between rides. Etc.


----------



## Adieu (Feb 21, 2016)

OR:

Drunk ******** playing at who can confuse the AI to cause vehicle the most damage via well-placed pin/destination and/or timely and exploitative destonation change input

We all know the "just drive thru this there wall" glitches navigation offers up, including some that come up every time & for super-popular destinations...

PS either that or the Long Beach accident-seekers could be looking at sudden windfall profits


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Did you notice how there's a person inside that car? How exactly is this better than just having a driver? How is this supposed to be cheaper ? Are they really going to have self driving cars with us inside and expect to pay us less ?


----------



## Older Chauffeur (Oct 16, 2014)

hangarcat said:


> Self-driving Chevy Bolts are on the streets of San Francisco
> 
> http://flip.it/mHK3Q


Your thread title is misleading. From the linked article: "could be ferrying Lyft passengers around without drivers sometime in the next year."
The problem Lyft will have is that CA law requires a person behind the wheel ready to take over operating the vehicle if necessary. I doubt that the state will change the law as early as next year. When Gov. Brown signed the law he said, "You won't need a driver's license in 2040."


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Did you notice how there's a person inside that car? How exactly is this better than just having a driver? How is this supposed to be cheaper ? Are they really going to have self driving cars with us inside and expect to pay us less ?


There is a new law in California requiring a driver in driverless cars, just like pilots are required in jets though they could be flown without them.


----------



## Amsoil Uber Connect (Jan 14, 2015)

They have a lot of work to do, as the maps can't even take one the front of an Airport. ONT / JWA.


----------



## ubershiza (Jan 19, 2015)

Oscar Levant said:


> There is a new law in California requiring a driver in driverless cars, just like pilots are required in jets though they could be flown without them.


 What is the guaranteed hourly wage for a crash test dummy?


----------



## Schweisshund (Feb 28, 2016)

lol @ Wendy's with cutting labor costs by using robots. The single guy running the kiosk will probably get the $15 an hour minimum wage.

It's all part of Professor Goodfellow's G.E.E.C. prerogative.


----------



## hangarcat (Nov 2, 2014)

Older Chauffeur said:


> Your thread title is misleading. From the linked article: "could be ferrying Lyft passengers around without drivers sometime in the next year."
> The problem Lyft will have is that CA law requires a person behind the wheel ready to take over operating the vehicle if necessary. I doubt that the state will change the law as early as next year. When Gov. Brown signed the law he said, "You won't need a driver's license in 2040."


You are correct, I apologize.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

grams777 said:


> Lyft and uber can't even get the pin locations right. I wonder how they plan on dealing with issues like a pickup in the middle of a highway. Or the pax calls and is on the other side of the street. Or a pax wants to follow a certain route. Wrong person in the car. Cleanup car between rides. Etc.


It is a curious thing how they will do it, but it's not like there aren't answers. These are not roadblocks.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Adieu said:


> OR:
> 
> Drunk ******** playing at who can confuse the AI to cause vehicle the most damage via well-placed pin/destination and/or timely and exploitative destonation change input
> 
> ...


I'm sure people will play games with the cars. They already do. So far, the car has won every time, but people are clever.

SDCs don't use gps for navigation decisions. They know a wall is there as well as you do or better. Once one car documents a wall, or any stationary object, every car in the fleet also knows instantly.

The answer about the game playing, damaging the car, and fake accidents is that the car records everything. People aren't going to mess with them for long when they realise they have to pay and can go to jail.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Did you notice how there's a person inside that car? How exactly is this better than just having a driver? How is this supposed to be cheaper ? Are they really going to have self driving cars with us inside and expect to pay us less ?


This is testing. There will be no drivers when SDCs go live except, perhaps, at first for a small period of time while they build public confidence in demonstration rides.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Older Chauffeur said:


> Your thread title is misleading. From the linked article: "could be ferrying Lyft passengers around without drivers sometime in the next year."
> The problem Lyft will have is that CA law requires a person behind the wheel ready to take over operating the vehicle if necessary. I doubt that the state will change the law as early as next year. When Gov. Brown signed the law he said, "You won't need a driver's license in 2040."


They will just go elsewhere. CA will come around when they are the only state without them.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Amsoil Uber Connect said:


> They have a lot of work to do, as the maps can't even take one the front of an Airport. ONT / JWA.


They make their own maps as they drive. They don't use GPS for navigating decisions.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

RamzFanz said:


> They make their own maps as they drive. They don't use GPS for navigating decisions.


But passengers still use GPS for their locations. It doesn't take passengers playing games to screw with the locations. It just takes not understanding how everything works. I've had several occasions when the passenger hailed a ride on the app and dropped the pin at their current location in the middle of the casino. I had to cancel one of those when the pax couldn't figure out how to get out of the casino in a reasonable amount of time. (I think he ended up in a parking garage but I wasn't going to chase him so I cancelled).


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

I'm not sure how the Chevy Bolt is such an ideal car for rideshare/taxi. 200 miles of range and then it takes 9 hours for a full recharge.

200 miles might be sufficient in a fairly compact area like SF (assuming no rides to SJ, etc) but a 200 mile range is certainly not going to work in someplace like Phoenix or Houston. At least it can't work economically. Most surface streets are 40-45 mph and even if traffic and lights make it 30, that's less than 7 hours of service before you have to shut down for 9 hours.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

You would have to be a moron to get in a driverless car. Anything could go wrong.


----------



## Tequila Jake (Jan 28, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> You would have to be a moron to get in a driverless car. Anything could go wrong.


I think there's a difference between a driverless car and a self-driven car.

Anything could go wrong but in controlled situations, a driverless car can be safer than a human-driven car. I remember one of the first times I rode in a driverless car. I believe it was back in about 1965 on the Matterhorn ride at Disneyland.

It seems technology has advanced a bit since then.


----------

