# The reaction to self-driving Ubers



## SelenaL

I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too. 

How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


----------



## Skyhakw2472

http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-self-driving-car-photos-2016-5

Looks like it is more of a reality than a pipe dream. Already testing in Pittsburgh, let's see how that plays out.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

It's hard to imagine they will have this going in the next 5 years or so. Can't imagine what the vandalism will be like or throwing up in it for the next passenger, and if I saw an empty one I would be tempted to walk in front of it to get it to stop, put a cone or something in front of it, put another cone behind it and let it sit there unable to move.

I would think that the capital costs would kill them.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

Please keep in mind self driving cars does not equal driverless cars. Sure, we may see self driving cars (like an autopilot) become more prevalent in the next 5 years or so, but true driverless cars are a long way off.

That being said, true driverless cars will be much safer, greatly reduce congestion and eliminate the need for traffic lights. They will also eliminate the need to own a vehicle.


----------



## volksie

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


I loved the PRE-OWNED Ford Fusion with 1990's Speakers on the roof! "Jesus Loves You, Get your Ice Cream"!

Uber will be so late for self-driving cars. With a valuation of $26 billion mid 2018, Travis will be scratching out the skid marks in his dirty underwear, wondering why he's so hated.


----------



## toi

The passengers can take their rating stars and ....


----------



## RamzFanz

I would say most drivers I discuss this with are in denial. They don't seem to know much about the technology or how advanced it is.

My opinion on SDCs is: _The world can't just keep killing 1.2M people a year so a driver can keep his gig and I wouldn't want them to._

SDCs are inevitable, coming sooner than many drivers will admit, and will displace TNC drivers first. I hope they are using these next few years preparing for the change.


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

RamzFanz said:


> I would say most drivers I discuss this with are in denial. They don't seem to know much about the technology or how advanced it is.
> 
> My opinion on SDCs is: _The world can't just keep killing 1.2M people a year so a driver can keep his gig and I wouldn't want them to._
> 
> SDCs are inevitable, coming sooner than many drivers will admit, and will displace TNC drivers first. I hope they are using these next few years preparing for the change.


You are correct, SDC's are not far off... it's the driverless cars that are going to take a little longer. It's one thing to program a car to go from a to b along major roads, but when it comes to all the all the idiosycrasies, it will take a while to program perfectly. And you can't start putting paying customers in a driverless vehicle until its working perfectly.


----------



## Simon

Been telling drivers, learn a skill because this aint it.


----------



## RamzFanz

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> You are correct, SDC's are not far off... it's the driverless cars that are going to take a little longer. It's one thing to program a car to go from a to b along major roads, but when it comes to all the all the idiosycrasies, it will take a while to program perfectly. And you can't start putting paying customers in a driverless vehicle until its working perfectly.


Perfection isn't required. We have a legal system to deal with inevitable imperfection, intent, insurance, and most importantly, liability or the lack thereof. We don't require perfection in anything and that's not going to change suddenly. Unless there is dishonesty or negligence, accidents are accidents, and they have prescribed consequences.

I don't agree with your timeline. While SDCs will come first, driverless will come en masse first because that's where the money is. Driverless SDC TNC. GM, Uber, Lyft, and others are betting their entire future on it.

What is a while to you? Google started working on it in 2007. They are saying 2020. That's awhile, yes? Bearing in mind, real world data driven simulator miles are just as valid as road miles to a computer, there will be tens or hundreds of millions of miles by 2020.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Who is going to own these self-driving cars?

Uber? Does Uber want the liability exposure?

A dummy corporation? What happens when someone sues the dummy corporation, secures a judgment and seizes the assets?

Allright, so you have a dummy corporation that owns the cars, leases them to another dummy corporation that contracts with Uber. Lawyers these days, sue everyone: the person who owns the car, the person who operates the car, the service with which the car was under contract at the time of the occurrence, the list goes on.

Do you have fifty dummy corporations that own ten cars apiece that lease them to ten other corporations that contract with Uber?

"My, what a tangled web we weave....................................", never mind an expensive one. I wonder if Sir Walter Scott ever thought of that. It has been some time since I read _*Marmion*_.


----------



## Hackenstein

Another Uber Driver said:


> Who is going to own these self-driving cars?
> 
> Uber? Does Uber want the liability exposure?
> 
> A dummy corporation? What happens when someone sues the dummy corporation, secures a judgment and seizes the assets?
> 
> Allright, so you have a dummy corporation that owns the cars, leases them to another dummy corporation that contracts with Uber. Lawyers these days, sue everyone: the person who owns the car, the person who operates the car, the service with which the car was under contract at the time of the occurrence, the list goes on.
> 
> Do you have fifty dummy corporations that own ten cars apiece that lease them to ten other corporations that contract with Uber?
> 
> "My, what a tangled web we weave....................................", never mind an expensive one. I wonder if Sir Walter Scott ever thought of that. It has been some time since I read _*Marmion*_.


They write their own laws and have an army of lawyers. This industry is done, I'll be looking for a tall building or a nice bridge.

Don't really want to share a word with a bunch of Travis Kalanicks anyway. Who would.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> Who is going to own these self-driving cars?
> 
> Uber? Does Uber want the liability exposure?
> 
> A dummy corporation? What happens when someone sues the dummy corporation, secures a judgment and seizes the assets?
> 
> Allright, so you have a dummy corporation that owns the cars, leases them to another dummy corporation that contracts with Uber. Lawyers these days, sue everyone: the person who owns the car, the person who operates the car, the service with which the car was under contract at the time of the occurrence, the list goes on.
> 
> Do you have fifty dummy corporations that own ten cars apiece that lease them to ten other corporations that contract with Uber?
> 
> "My, what a tangled web we weave....................................", never mind an expensive one. I wonder if Sir Walter Scott ever thought of that. It has been some time since I read _*Marmion*_.


Instead of asking long ago answered questions as if they are some (imaginary) roadblock, you could educate yourself on the subject.

The laws and courts haven't changed. Insurance still exists. People don't get to just sue and seize assets in an accident. Stay calm, it's not complicated, and try to read something on the subject.

Did you really think the largest auto and technology companies in the world neglected these questions? Do your scenarios fabricated out of thin air without any basis in reality even help your point?

Definitions of terms you should learn: Partnerships. Liability. Culpability. Intent. Negligence. Insurance.

OK, so, who will own them? Anyone who wants to.

Why would anyone need a dummy corporation? That doesn't even make sense. It's called insurance, and when your product is safer than the other, it costs less. It's purchased by every business in the chain from material suppliers, part manufacturers, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle owners, and TNC provider. Sue away. Name everyone. Best of luck. The companies you aspire to sue have been dealing with lawsuits since their inceptions and are still here with their assets.


----------



## Fireguy50

http://uberpeople.net/threads/meet-your-soon-to-be-replacement.79244/


----------



## Fireguy50

I've had a drunk guy jump out as I was stopping at a red light because he saw TACO BELL. Rest of the passenger's laughed.

Would these cars lock the passenger's inside, or how would it handle an intoxicated person getting out at 3MPH for tacos?


----------



## Hackenstein

Fireguy50 said:


> I've had a drunk guy jump out as I was stopping at a red light because he saw TACO BELL. Rest of the passenger's laughed.
> 
> Would these cars lock the passenger's inside, or how would it handle an intoxicated person getting out at 3MPH for tacos?


The liability would be entirely on the passenger.

This business is toast, none of these people care in the slightest what happens to you.


----------



## Undermensch

Disgusted Driver said:


> It's hard to imagine they will have this going in the next 5 years or so. Can't imagine what the vandalism will be like or throwing up in it for the next passenger, and if I saw an empty one I would be tempted to walk in front of it to get it to stop, put a cone or something in front of it, put another cone behind it and let it sit there unable to move.
> 
> I would think that the capital costs would kill them.


I think the model has already been established for this: ZipCar.

With ZipCar the new driver shows up at a car that was left by the prior driver in a parking spot. If the car was vandalized this new driver reports it. If someone barfed in the car and left it, the new driver reports it. Same thing with self driving taxis: the next rider reports the issue if it's not already known.

Regarding putting cones in front of the car: that is hilarious... but it will also be (if it isn't already) illegal and as the car is filming everything it'll make it easier to find you than other pranks you could pull.

I do have a related similar concern for self driving cars though: car jackings / robbery / rape, etc. All that some thugs would have to do is walk out in front of a self driving car and it would have to stop. Once stopped, threaten the people within with a weapon to get them to open the doors (or smash a window), then do whatever it is that thugs do. If it was a human driving they could (not all do, as evidenced by the fact that this already happens today) calculate the risk, realize that the thugs were in the wrong, and mow down a few of them to get away, if necessary. I'm sure that the initial self driving cars won't be able to handle the situation in that way, until a few people get killed... then that feature will have to be added to the software.


----------



## Undermensch

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


I'm not worried about this at all. In fact, it presents a great opportunity: owning fleets of self-driving cars.

Uber is currently a company that has primarily operating expenses (if they do zero rides their expenses fall very quickly, they do not have billions of assets to dispose of if their business shrinks). Uber might want to transition to a capital intensive business model where they own the cars themselves, but that's essentially being a bank and other companies are better at being banks. GE and GM both got into the financing business to enable their core business and both of them eventually divested that business as they realized they should stick to their core business. I expect that if Uber builds up a fleet of 1 million cars they will quickly realize it's not as profitable as simply operating the technology side of things and letting others own the fleets of cars.

As a current driver, I could easily make way more money if I was able to simply utilize my credit rating and available capital to build out a fleet of 10+ self-driving cars. There is a risk in this in that if too many others did the same I might end up with more cars than I need, but I should be able to sell them without losing too much money if that's the case (as cars will still be in demand, both for individuals to purchase and by others operating fleets of shared vehicles).

So I say: bring it on!

I realize that many other drivers do not have the capital or credit to enter this new business model and I feel for their impending loss, but I'm excited for what it means for me.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> OK, so, who will own them? Anyone who wants to.


The questions posed were just that. Sometimes, people pose questions because they want answers. You have provided an answer to one question. I will refrain from commenting on that answer, for now, at least. If you know the answers to the other questions, or know where I can find them, please provide same. If you do not know, please either state that or make no statement.

As for your other comments, there is no call for them or their tone.


----------



## Stygge

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


Self driving cars can never replace uber drivers. Driving is only a small part of the drivers job. Taxi is about the worst application for this technology. They haven't yet created driverless trucks and trains which would be a much simpler application.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Stygge said:


> They haven't yet created driverless trains


There have been isolated incidents of industrial railroads' using "remote controlled" locomotives since the 1960s. All of them have been diesel-electric, in this country, at least.. I suppose that it could have been done with steam locomotives, but it would have been difficult.

I have yet to see a driverless truck. The closest thing to it would be Amazondotcom's drones. I suppose that someone could equip drones with
anti-collision devices.


----------



## Fireguy50

Undermensch said:


> I do have a related similar concern for self driving cars though: car jackings / robbery / rape, etc. All that some thugs would have to do is walk out in front of a self driving car and it would have to stop. Once stopped, threaten the people within with a weapon to get them to open the doors (or smash a window), then do whatever it is that thugs do. If it was a human driving they could (not all do, as evidenced by the fact that this already happens today) calculate the risk, realize that the thugs were in the wrong, and mow down a few of them to get away, if necessary. I'm sure that the initial self driving cars won't be able to handle the situation in that way, until a few people get killed... then that feature will have to be added to the software.


Evasive driving tactics in an emergency situation are not something I could see possible in my lifetime. That's like AI deciding whether to hit a bad guy straight on, drive around him on a sidewalk, or backup into traffic from a gunman, and do a J turn to escape!
These are going to be just Jurassic Park, vehicles following at rail, can't run from a T-Rex


----------



## Undermensch

Fireguy50 said:


> Evasive driving tactics in an emergency situation are not something I could see possible in my lifetime. That's like AI deciding whether to hit a bad guy straight on, drive around him on a sidewalk, or backup into traffic from a gunman, and do a J turn to escape!
> These are going to be just Jurassic Park, vehicles following at rail, can't run from a T-Rex


You may be correct. But you may also be surprised.

Any field in technology, once it has tens to hundreds of billions of revenue per year, tends to undergo rapid advancement as the level of R&D funding goes through the roof both at the business building the products and in academia.

Recent examples would be efficiency and distance gains in electric cars. When the Prius came on the scene in 2000 there was no automotive scale supply chain for that sort of thing and no expertise in hitting high efficiency at low cost per unit. Advance 15 years and we've got electric cars that do 200-300 miles per charge and they cost less than double what a gasoline car costs (which has benefitted from 100 more years of similar investment) which was as unthinkable in 2000.

Same thing with smart phones, computers, etc.

AI is in its infancy today. It's not intelligence at all. It's still simply algorithms. There will come a point, within 10-20 years, where it will pivot to actual thought instead of algorithms that try to simulate the outcome of thought.


----------



## volksie

Hackenstein said:


> The liability would be entirely on the passenger.
> 
> This business is toast, none of these people care in the slightest what happens to you.


Funny! Nor do we care what happens to them (Uber/Lyft). It's a curiosity industry. Once we've satisfied our curiosity we move on. Simple...


----------



## volksie

Well, the OP hasn't returned and that really bugs me. May I suggest that everyone delete their responses by days end?


----------



## Disgusted Driver

Undermensch said:


> You may be correct. But you may also be surprised.
> 
> Any field in technology, once it has tens to hundreds of billions of revenue per year, tends to undergo rapid advancement as the level of R&D funding goes through the roof both at the business building the products and in academia.
> 
> Recent examples would be efficiency and distance gains in electric cars. When the Prius came on the scene in 2000 there was no automotive scale supply chain for that sort of thing and no expertise in hitting high efficiency at low cost per unit. Advance 15 years and we've got electric cars that do 200-300 miles per charge and they cost less than double what a gasoline car costs (which has benefitted from 100 more years of similar investment) which was as unthinkable in 2000.
> 
> Same thing with smart phones, computers, etc.
> 
> AI is in its infancy today. It's not intelligence at all. It's still simply algorithms. There will come a point, within 10-20 years, where it will pivot to actual thought instead of algorithms that try to simulate the outcome of thought.


There's no doubt it will come to pass, the question is how and in what form.

In the easiest case, we could do it tomorrow: All cars are driverless and all roads have a control wire under them.

The most difficult case: mixed driver and driverless, complete environment detection and recognition.

There are a lot of tradeoffs involved so for cars to operate autonomously anywhere within our current environment is going to take a good bit of doing. They will get fooled and have spectacular failures. We will not be very forgiving of those. While we lose 30K or so people a year to traffic accidents, we still feel safer driving than flying. We will not be very forgiving of accidents in these things. Then there's the cost. Currently they are about 150K each, it might work at 50K apiece. It will take time but they will get the cost down.

My personal opinion, 5 years not likely but 15-20 is certainly possible. At that point, why do you need a car, it becomes a utility like water or electric. We can probably make do with 40% of the vehicles currently registered since even at peak times many are parked. Then something like really cheap Uber pool to get people to work becomes possible. What's important to consider is the huge capital requirements and logistics involved but with good computer algorithms, some amazing things can occur.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Ubers quest for self driving cars is what is going to be their downfall. They already have a business model that exploits the resources of the drivers and limits their liabilities. Now they want change their role. They'll have to buy a fleet of cars, design the driverless technology and most importantly assume all the liability.


----------



## Tequila Jake

There is a difference between a driverless car and a self-driving car. Cars have been incrementally developing self-driving type capabilities since the automatic transmission, the throttle cable and later cruise control.

A truly driverless car is probably within 5 years of reality from a technology standpoint. It's probably more like 10 years before it makes sense economically and has acceptance by a critical mass of passengers.

There seems to be a focus on electric cars as well. GM/Lyft is looking at the Chevy Bolt which only has a 200 mile range. That might work in the City of San Francisco but it's not going to work in more spread out cities like Phoenix or Houston, or the LA/Orange County area.

In Phoenix, the freeways are mostly 65mph speed limits and many surface streets are 40-45mph. Depending on the specific routes that day, electric cars may get 3-6 hours of service before needing a 9 hour recharge. That won't make economic sense.

However, what if magically all the technical, social, and economic issues were solved tomorrow and the driverless Ubermobile becomes available the day after tomorrow? No worries, I'll find something else to do!


----------



## Old Rocker

IMHO

It's all market speak to get VCs to invest in Uber instead of Google.

Read the Wikipedia article about autonomous cars to see what they can and can't do (currently).

There's simply too much chaos (as in chaos theory) in the system (as in humans driving vehicles in the real world) to allow autonomous cars to operate effectively with our current technology.

Edit to add... Autonomous cars add something like $20-30 to the cost of a vehicle. Uber is going to buy and maintain these vehicles at the cost of billions a year? Surely, paying drivers 24 cents a mile is a cheaper alternative.


----------



## UberXTampa

A driver will have to be sitting in the car at all times in this new model. not only you just made the car more expensive but also you made it harder for the owner of the car to make money under current rates and rates regime (= drop rates as soon as drivers learn how to make money). 

Uber corporate culture will never allow drivers to make good money. this too will turn into their next generation scamming of teh populace in hope that they will make more money.. instead, with a bigger investment buried, they will add to the billions of TK.


----------



## tohunt4me

There will be flaming driverless cars all over America !


----------



## Old Rocker

UberXTampa said:


> A driver will have to be sitting in the car at all times in this new model. not only you just made the car more expensive but also you made it harder for the owner of the car to make money under current rates and rates regime (= drop rates as soon as drivers learn how to make money).
> 
> Uber corporate culture will never allow drivers to make good money. this too will turn into their next generation scamming of teh populace in hope that they will make more money.. instead, with a bigger investment buried, they will add to the billions of TK.


Knowing what I know about Uber, I can't see them investing HUGE! $$$ into real capital investments which depreciate and add significant risk and liability overhead to their balance sheet.


----------



## Old Rocker

tohunt4me said:


> There will be flaming driverless cars all over America !


Hackers gonna be hackin'


----------



## Undermensch

Stygge said:


> Self driving cars can never replace uber drivers. Driving is only a small part of the drivers job. Taxi is about the worst application for this technology. They haven't yet created driverless trucks and trains which would be a much simpler application.


They haven't created driverless trains? Oh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway

Not to mention nearly any train system at a major airport for travel between terminals...

They also said maglev trains would never exist for commercial purposes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

And that electric cars would never exist at practical prices:

http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html

The future never waits for people to realize it has arrived.


----------



## Undermensch

Disgusted Driver said:


> There's no doubt it will come to pass, the question is how and in what form.
> 
> In the easiest case, we could do it tomorrow: All cars are driverless and all roads have a control wire under them.
> 
> The most difficult case: mixed driver and driverless, complete environment detection and recognition.
> 
> There are a lot of tradeoffs involved so for cars to operate autonomously anywhere within our current environment is going to take a good bit of doing. They will get fooled and have spectacular failures. We will not be very forgiving of those. While we lose 30K or so people a year to traffic accidents, we still feel safer driving than flying. We will not be very forgiving of accidents in these things. Then there's the cost. Currently they are about 150K each, it might work at 50K apiece. It will take time but they will get the cost down.
> 
> My personal opinion, 5 years not likely but 15-20 is certainly possible. At that point, why do you need a car, it becomes a utility like water or electric. We can probably make do with 40% of the vehicles currently registered since even at peak times many are parked. Then something like really cheap Uber pool to get people to work becomes possible. What's important to consider is the huge capital requirements and logistics involved but with good computer algorithms, some amazing things can occur.


I agree it will be a transition period.

However, I think that accidents / failures and forgiveness of the population won't be driving factors in the rate of adoption.

I think that, like many things, the unstoppable driving force towards automation will be insurance costs. If the accident rate is lower, insurance for self-driving cars will be lower (read: equal to todays rates) while the insurance cost for human driven cars will skyrocket (they'll probably jack it up to be 5x higher, maybe more), at which point concern over specific decisions in particular accidents won't really be a deciding factor, people will use self driving cars because the accident rate is lower but ultimately because it costs them substantially less.


----------



## Old Rocker

Undermensch said:


> They haven't created driverless trains? Oh?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Metro
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Light_Railway
> 
> Not to mention nearly any train system at a major airport for travel between terminals...
> 
> They also said maglev trains would never exist for commercial purposes:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
> 
> And that electric cars would never exist at practical prices:
> 
> http://www.chevrolet.com/bolt-ev-electric-vehicle.html
> 
> The future never waits for people to realize it has arrived.


With all respect, those are just strawman arguments. You can't say a particular technology will succeed simply because other technologies succeeded.

Driving a train between two points on rails without any other traffic with an operator watching via closed circuit video is not the same as an autonomous car successfully navigating eight lane bumper to bumper traffic in say LA or Houston.

Just to pick at one point, for example, the Copenhagen driverless light rail portion is either all underground or elevated. The driverless portion doesn't transverse surface streets like our light rail in Houston does. AFAIK.


----------



## Lando74

Getting from point A to point B is the easy part, and they haven't even perfected that yet after years of research. Then throw in all the variables of dealing with pax who can't figure out exactly where they are or sometimes even where they're going, messes, lost items, having too many pax for a ride, lost items, weather, emergency detours, drive thru's, break downs, etc. Can these things even detect when there's too much water covering a road and know it's unsafe to drive through? What happens when a tire gets punctured on a freeway? Can it cope with safely pulling aside? What do pax do in that situation? What if debris hits the windshield and it shatters? Will it know and stop or keep driving? What if the pax has a medical emergency 5 minutes into a 45 minute trip and they're unable to call for help? How in the hell can they possibly code for all this?? However unlikely any of these variables are, they are all possible. A human driver can react and adapt to any situation, a computer can't. My guess is they'll have self driving cars and pay $5/hr for someone to sit behind the wheel "just in case."


----------



## UberBlackDriverLA

RamzFanz said:


> Perfection isn't required. We have a legal system to deal with inevitable imperfection, intent, insurance, and most importantly, liability or the lack thereof. We don't require perfection in anything and that's not going to change suddenly. Unless there is dishonesty or negligence, accidents are accidents, and they have prescribed consequences.
> 
> I don't agree with your timeline. While SDCs will come first, driverless will come en masse first because that's where the money is. Driverless SDC TNC. GM, Uber, Lyft, and others are betting their entire future on it.
> 
> What is a while to you? Google started working on it in 2007. They are saying 2020. That's awhile, yes? Bearing in mind, real world data driven simulator miles are just as valid as road miles to a computer, there will be tens or hundreds of millions of miles by 2020.


Perfection may not be needed, but near perfection is needed. And I'm not referring to safety issues as much as I am the logistics issues.

Guessing a date when fleets of driverless cars will be out there is merely opinion. However, driverless vehicles WILL be the end of Uber. Why would any car manufacturer sell cars to Uber when they can keep the cash cow to themselves?


----------



## Old Rocker

A far better system, IMHO, is to use the current driver enhancement technology available today (automatic distance keeping and braking, for example) and set up special lanes where the cars connect to a central network and drive themselves under supervision of the network.

Europe already has "road trains" (not the same as the behemoth loads pulled in places like Australia), where the lead truck drives and the follow on trucks connect electronically and automatically follow the lead truck, allowing the drivers in the follow on trucks to relax, take a nap, whatever. A convoy, if you will, without CB radios.


----------



## Old Rocker

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Perfection may not be needed, but near perfection is needed. And I'm not referring to safety issues as much as I am the logistics issues.
> 
> Guessing a date when fleets of driverless cars will be out there is merely opinion. However, driverless vehicles WILL be the end of Uber. Why would any car manufacturer sell cars to Uber when they can keep the cash cow to themselves?


Good point, but Uber will own the patents and technology. But that's why you make a good point, Uber won't be on the hook for the capital investment if they license the technology to driverless car dispatching agencies.


----------



## backstreets-trans

Here's another thought people. Say they perfect driverless technology in 20 years but what if someone finally comes up with a flying car. Who gives a crap about a car that can drive itself when I can fly to my destination in half the time. You get a four propeller drone to carry someone now we're talking about a true breakthrough.


----------



## Old Rocker

backstreets-trans said:


> Here's another thought people. Say they perfect driverless technology in 20 years but what if someone finally comes up with a flying car. Who gives a crap about a car that can drive itself when I can fly to my destination in half the time. You get a four propeller drone to carry someone now we're talking about a true breakthrough.


Rocket jet packs!


----------



## RamzFanz

backstreets-trans said:


> Here's another thought people. Say they perfect driverless technology in 20 years but what if someone finally comes up with a flying car. Who gives a crap about a car that can drive itself when I can fly to my destination in half the time. You get a four propeller drone to carry someone now we're talking about a true breakthrough.


Driverless is already live, so no, not 20 years.

We could do self flying car today if we wanted to, there is no demand.


----------



## Fireguy50

Lando74 said:


> Then throw in all the variables of dealing with pax who can't figure out exactly where they are or sometimes or even where they are going


Drivers get to the pickup quickly and either make contact and adjust the location (or collect the no show fee)
Can you imagine these cars trying to navigate 2am bar traffic, jaywalkers, DUI Police stops in the area, and then spend 2 minutes trying to calculate distance to curb for parking.
While drunk PAX are trying to get into the vehicle before it's parked, it will be so confused in that environment.

I'll post a short video of the most roudy bar in the area, and we can all laugh at the number of obstacles and unknowns that would upset these vehicles.

Best case scenario, these will be like solar panels or wind turbines. And only work in optimal conditions. You need both to maximize performance during calm sunny days and cloudy windy days. They can't work in the other environment.


----------



## Oscar Levant

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


I doubt they will totally replace drivers, just as automated restaurants haven't totally replaced waiters and bartenders.

People will always want humans to serve them, though some might not care about it.


----------



## villetta

Disgusted Driver said:


> if I saw an empty one I would be tempted to walk in front of it to get it to stop, put a cone or something in front of it, put another cone behind it and let it sit there unable to move.


That's the problem with programming geeks, they don't consider that real humans can easily outsmart the machine... I love the cones... devious


----------



## Fireguy50

villetta said:


> That's the problem with programming geeks, they don't consider that real humans can easily outsmart the machine... I love the cones... devious


And PAX will quickly learn how to cheat the system for free rides. Deactivate the security cameras, take all the waters and snacks, enter a destination off a boat launch, etc


----------



## Lando74

Undermensch said:


> There will come a point, within 10-20 years, where it will pivot to actual thought instead of algorithms that try to simulate the outcome of thought.


They've been saying that about many, many things for decades. Point to one technology that's advanced at an incredible pace then point to another and say it'll happen there as well. It doesn't really work like that. AI, cure for cancer, body parts grown in labs, flying cars, virtual reality, putting a man on Mars, etc. Every year they say all those things are just around the corner.


----------



## YouWishYouKnewMe

They'll keep testing for at least 10 years more and I really dgaf


----------



## Old Rocker

I've been waiting for anatomically correct pleasure androids since I was twelve...


----------



## Old Rocker

Tangentially related...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tech...tselling-historian/ar-BBth8eb?ocid=spartandhp


----------



## RamzFanz

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Perfection may not be needed, but near perfection is needed. And I'm not referring to safety issues as much as I am the logistics issues.
> 
> Guessing a date when fleets of driverless cars will be out there is merely opinion. However, driverless vehicles WILL be the end of Uber. Why would any car manufacturer sell cars to Uber when they can keep the cash cow to themselves?


If I were betting it would be that a manufacturer will partner or be bought out by Uber for the same reasons GM bought $500M of Lyft. Uber dominates the market and someone will partner or sell them SDCs. There's not a chance Uber loses out because of SDCs.


----------



## Schweisshund

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


I think it is a fantastic idea. I am counting down to when Skynet becomes self aware.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fireguy50 said:


> Drivers get to the pickup quickly and either make contact and adjust the location (or collect the no show fee)
> Can you imagine these cars trying to navigate 2am bar traffic, jaywalkers, DUI Police stops in the area, and then spend 2 minutes trying to calculate distance to curb for parking.
> While drunk PAX are trying to get into the vehicle before it's parked, it will be so confused in that environment.
> 
> I'll post a short video of the most roudy bar in the area, and we can all laugh at the number of obstacles and unknowns that would upset these vehicles.
> 
> Best case scenario, these will be like solar panels or wind turbines. And only work in optimal conditions. You need both to maximize performance during calm sunny days and cloudy windy days. They can't work in the other environment.


Why would they spend 2 minutes calculating the distance to the curb when they can calculate a distance trillions of times a second? These discussions always seem like people aren't even aware they already have millions of miles of testing.

This is a Ted Talk about how they see and deal with situations you claim they can't.


----------



## ChattaBilly

Fireguy50 said:


> And PAX will quickly learn how to cheat the system for free rides. Deactivate the security cameras, take all the waters and snacks, enter a destination off a boat launch, etc


Why do you give someone waters and snacks? That sounds so dated. Just take them where they want to go and be done with it.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> automated restaurants haven't totally replaced waiters and bartenders.


When was it? The 1930s? They put in all of these "automated restaurants" in New York City. They called them "automats", in fact. My mother worked in one for her first job (in the 1940s). There are how many left? One?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

ChattaBilly said:


> Why do you give someone waters and snacks?


If the TNCs or some dummy corporation linked to them own the vehicles, they might. Then again, they might not once they realise what it costs them. I will pass over, for now, at least, the TNCs' double standards when it comes to them versus their drivers.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> When was it? The 1930s? They put in all of these "automated restaurants" in New York City. They called them "automats", in fact. My mother worked in one for her first job (in the 1940s). There are how many left? One?


You mean back when we called an operator to make a phone call, had elevator operators, doormen, and bank tellers?

Now days I go into my bank exactly never. I deposit the rare check using my phone but get most payments direct deposited, get my cash at the grocery store or ATM, and use auto payments for all of my bills. Doors open automatically, I operate elevators myself, and I dial my own phone calls.

I went on a trip recently. I shined my shoes with at an auto shoe shiner, got my ticket at a touchscreen, and rode on a driverless tram to my gate. On my trip I went to a sporting event using the web to buy my ticket. The stadium still had a few ticket booths, but no one was using them, they were using automated kiosks.

Remember when there used to be two garbage men riding on the back of the truck? Now the truck has that big robot like arm that grabs the garbage can. I used to leave them beer and cash at Christmas but I honestly don't miss them at all.

I check out my own groceries, pump my own gas, and use an auto car wash. All things people used to do. The car wash I go to still has a single attendant, but the system reads a barcode on my windshield and the gate opens. The attendant waves at me sometimes but usually just keeps browsing the internet or reads their book.

The automat died because fast food, delivery, and declining food quality pushed it out, not because people rejected the automation.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> You mean back when we called an operator to make a phone call
> 
> doormen, and bank tellers?
> 
> Now days I go into my bank exactly never. I deposit the rare check using my phone but
> 
> get most payments direct deposited,
> 
> get my cash at the grocery store or ATM,
> 
> use auto payments for all of my bills.
> 
> Doors open automatically,
> 
> I operate elevators myself,
> 
> I dial my own phone calls.
> 
> got my ticket at a touchscreen,
> 
> rode on a driverless tram to my gate.
> 
> On my trip I went to a sporting event using the web to buy my ticket.
> 
> The stadium still had a few ticket booths, but no one was using them, they were using automated kiosks.
> 
> Remember when there used to be two garbage men riding on the back of the truck?
> 
> I check out my own groceries,
> 
> pump my own gas,
> 
> auto car wash.


You missed my point, but, that might have been deliberate, on your part. Still, I shall pass over that, for now, at least.

The last place in the United States that you needed to get an operator to make a telephone call was Santa Catalina. It was some time around 1983 that GTE did something about that.

There are still doormen and bank tellers, here. The last time that I was in St. Louis, the hotels still had them. I do not know about now. I never have been to a bank in St. Louis, at least I do not remember ever being in one. If I were, it was many years back.

I still go to mine if I must deposit a check. I do not quite trust that telephone business--security and all that.........................perhaps not that important a concern to you, but, that _*ain't nobody's business but yo' own*_.

As do I, Uber, Lyft and both my credit card processors do it that way. In fact, I am almost at the point where I would prefer that my cab customers not pay me in cash.

I do not have much use for ATMs; never have had. I get mine from the occasional cab customer who pays in cash. Perhaps I should qualify my statement immediately above to "I would prefer that most......................"

I do not quite trust the automated bill pay. Lack of control, security, you know, Perhaps not a concern to you, but to me.........................

Some doors do open automatically. Some do not. If the doorman wants to open it, fine. If he does not, I can open it. I had to learn to do things for myself when I was a child. My parents insisted on it.

They have those touchscreens here at the airports and Union Station. I will pass over my foul experiences with "touchscreen technology", for now, at least. I usually make the train or aeroplane reservations on line. I suppose that you could do that even for the Big Doggie, but I avoid that. In fact, the last time that I rode the Dogs, you could still smoke on them. If pressed for a definition of "cruel and unusual punishment", five hours in the back of a "Hound would fit it.

National and Friendship do not have trams. Dulles has something like one, but it requires a human being to operate it. They are supposed to put something else in there, but I do not know how it works. I have not used Dulles in some time; Friendship and National work much better for me.

Usually I buy my Nationals tickets on line and they mail them to me. If it is too close to game time, I have them held at the WILL CALL window. They have the ticket machines at Nationals Park, but not many use them. Most people prefer the ticket windows. There are long lines, there, at game time. If you get there early, they are not too bad, though. In fact, the Nationals draw the Mets then the Cardinals this week. We are going to the Mets and GF has expressed an interest in the Cardinals as well. I do prefer going to see the older teams, so the Cardinals would be allright. .......not a Nationals fan, mind you, just like the game.

We still have two garbagemen riding on the City trucks, here. The City does most of the gar-BAH-hay collecting, here. The same is for the recyclable trucks. I do not know about St. Louis. There are some parts of Arlington (Virginia suburb) where there is the arm that you describe picks up the cans, but that is on the recyclable trucks. In other parts of Arlington, both the garbage and recyclable trucks have the men riding on them.

I mostly use the auto-zap at the grocery or the Crummy Variety Store, where available, simply because I do not want to wait in the lines where the human being checks out your purchases. This is the whole point of the auto-zap. Still, the auto-zap has its troubles, and legion they are. I prefer the human being but hate the wait. There is one grocery store here that has a zapper that you can carry with you through the store. You zap each item as you put it into your cart, then plug the thing into the auto-zapper and it totals up the whole business. I have yet to try it.

Usually I pump my own gasolene. That is illegal in New Jersey and Oregon(?).

The auto-wash is fine if all that you are doing is washing the exterior. I find it easier to go to the full service and have them vacuum and wash the windows. I do keep track for tax purposes. I suppose that you could use the gasolene station vacuum and buy a bottle of Windex (@) and a roll of paper towels, which I have, anyhow. The gasolene station vacuum does not render a receipt, but the CVSA does for the paper towels and Windex(@).


----------



## Hackenstein

Another Uber Driver said:


> When was it? The 1930s? They put in all of these "automated restaurants" in New York City. They called them "automats", in fact. My mother worked in one for her first job (in the 1940s). There are how many left? One?


It wasn't exactly automated, they had people constantly restocking the food. The only automated part (I think) was whatever moved the next item in place. They went out of business due to fast food restaurants which were cheaper etc. Remember going to one as a kid they were cool.


----------



## Fireguy50

RamzFanz said:


> Why would they spend 2 minutes calculating the distance to the curb when they can calculate a distance trillions of times a second? These discussions always seem like people aren't even aware they already have millions of miles of testing.


They have no testing in real world college campus bar scene conditions. Streets crowded with jaywalkers, rowdy drunks pushing each other off the curb, Police stops in the middle of the road, PAX trying to get in our out before the vehicle is completely stopped, the wrong PAX or not even Uber user's trying to get in the vehicle.
All their testing is sunny weather ideal traffic conditions.
Even in the examples shown in the TED video, the vehicle would just freeze up for minutes waiting for a clear lane or parking space. Google's ideal situation would require every vehicle and traffic light to cross communicate, take decades to roll out that infrastructure.


ChattaBilly said:


> Why do you give someone waters and snacks? That sounds so dated. Just take them where they want to go and be done with it.


We're talking about Uber corporate fleet vehicles, they would more than likely have all the supplies they encouraged us to have.


----------



## UberXTampa

backstreets-trans said:


> Here's another thought people. Say they perfect driverless technology in 20 years but what if someone finally comes up with a flying car. Who gives a crap about a car that can drive itself when I can fly to my destination in half the time. You get a four propeller drone to carry someone now we're talking about a true breakthrough.


Flying cars!? Nowhere in the world will be a safe place... Terrorists' wet dream.. probably it will be prevented from happening.


----------



## Old Rocker

Flying cars. Remember the movie The Fifth Element.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fireguy50 said:


> They have no testing in real world college campus bar scene conditions. Streets crowded with jaywalkers, rowdy drunks pushing each other off the curb, Police stops in the middle of the road, PAX trying to get in our out before the vehicle is completely stopped, the wrong PAX or not even Uber user's trying to get in the vehicle.
> All their testing is sunny weather ideal traffic conditions.
> Even in the examples shown in the TED video, the vehicle would just freeze up for minutes waiting for a clear lane or parking space. Google's ideal situation would require every vehicle and traffic light to cross communicate, take decades to roll out that infrastructure.
> 
> We're talking about Uber corporate fleet vehicles, they would more than likely have all the supplies they encouraged us to have.


You go ahead and believe all that nonsense if it makes you feel better but none of it is true. The car can track and react to pedestrians jaywalking enmass and already has. At no time does it freeze up. That's just silly.

SDCs have already been testing in snow and rain so, so far, you're batting zero.


----------



## Fireguy50

RamzFanz said:


> You go ahead and believe all that nonsense if it makes you feel better but none of it is true. The car can track and react to pedestrians jaywalking enmass and already has. At no time does it freeze up. That's just silly.
> 
> SDCs have already been testing in snow and rain so, so far, you're batting zero.


They showed in the TED talk it just sat there waiting for the lone cyclist that ran the red light. Now add a few hundred college students jaywalking after last call at 2am and the vehicle will passively just sit there waiting for a never ending group of pedestrians walking around the streets from every angle.

It takes a human to aggressively navigate through that crowd. The students have no fear or respect, and will continue to walk in front of passive drivers to no end.


----------



## Fireguy50

Old Rocker said:


> Flying cars. Remember the movie The Fifth Element.


Still waiting on the Back to the Future II 2015 lifestyle. Self drying clothes, self lacing shoes, hoverboards, dehydrated pizza, flying cars, etc.

Almost every car commercial advertises the driving experience. This whole idea is going to be accepted like Segway's


----------



## Old Rocker

Have Uber, Google, or Tesla held any public demonstrations of their tech in action while throwing problems at the vehicle to see how it reacts to jaywalkers, bouncing balls, hand signals, crazy traffic, etc?

The Wiki article I excerpted specifically stated that SDC can't follow police hand signals and haven't been tested in snow or heavy rain.


----------



## Old Rocker

Fireguy50 said:


> Still waiting on the Back to the Future II 2015 lifestyle. Self drying clothes, self lacing shoes, hoverboards, dehydrated pizza, flying cars, etc.
> 
> Almost every car commercial advertises the driving experience. This whole idea is going to be accepted like Segway's


What's a Segway?


----------



## Fireguy50

Old Rocker said:


> What's a Segway?


They're for DC tourists and mall cops
They look ridiculous, so regular people don't want them


----------



## Old Rocker

Fireguy50 said:


> They're for DC tourists and mall cops
> They look ridiculous, so regular people don't want them


They're banned in several European countries and, I believe, San Francisco sidewalks.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> You mean back when we called an operator to make a phone call, had elevator operators, doormen, and bank tellers?
> 
> Now days I go into my bank exactly never. I deposit the rare check using my phone but get most payments direct deposited, get my cash at the grocery store or ATM, and use auto payments for all of my bills. Doors open automatically, I operate elevators myself, and I dial my own phone calls.
> 
> I went on a trip recently. I shined my shoes with at an auto shoe shiner, got my ticket at a touchscreen, and rode on a driverless tram to my gate. On my trip I went to a sporting event using the web to buy my ticket. The stadium still had a few ticket booths, but no one was using them, they were using automated kiosks.
> 
> Remember when there used to be two garbage men riding on the back of the truck? Now the truck has that big robot like arm that grabs the garbage can. I used to leave them beer and cash at Christmas but I honestly don't miss them at all.
> 
> I check out my own groceries, pump my own gas, and use an auto car wash. All things people used to do. The car wash I go to still has a single attendant, but the system reads a barcode on my windshield and the gate opens. The attendant waves at me sometimes but usually just keeps browsing the internet or reads their book.
> 
> The automat died because fast food, delivery, and declining food quality pushed it out, not because people rejected the automation.


If you were suggesting that an elevator getting rid of a job for an elevator operator is applicable to a robot serving a drink you are misunderstanding the point.

In some Fields human interaction isn't that important but in others such as somebody give you a haircut , somebody driving you somewhere somebody , serving you a drink , human interaction is going to be valued by a lot of people and robots won't totally replace these jobs, and, in my view, nowhere near it.


----------



## UberXTampa

Old Rocker said:


> Have Uber, Google, or Tesla held any public demonstrations of their tech in action while throwing problems at the vehicle to see how it reacts to jaywalkers, bouncing balls, hand signals, crazy traffic, etc?
> 
> The Wiki article I excerpted specifically stated that SDC can't follow police hand signals and haven't been tested in snow or heavy rain.


They should test every driverless car right at this intersection:


----------



## AceManShow

Skyhakw2472 said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/uber-self-driving-car-photos-2016-5
> 
> Looks like it is more of a reality than a pipe dream. Already testing in Pittsburgh, let's see how that plays out.


----------



## AceManShow

Disgusted Driver said:


> It's hard to imagine they will have this going in the next 5 years or so. Can't imagine what the vandalism will be like or throwing up in it for the next passenger, and if I saw an empty one I would be tempted to walk in front of it to get it to stop, put a cone or something in front of it, put another cone behind it and let it sit there unable to move.
> 
> I would think that the capital costs would kill them.


Capital costs?

Google + Uber + GM + Lyft + Tesla = $$$$$ Have Gazillions of dollars.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Fireguy50 said:


> They're for DC tourists





Old Rocker said:


> They're banned in, I believe, San Francisco sidewalks.


In Washington they use the bicycle lanes.


----------



## Old Rocker

Try this Uber SDC!


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> If you were suggesting that an elevator getting rid of a job for an elevator operator is applicable to a robot serving a drink you are misunderstanding the point.
> 
> In some Fields human interaction isn't that important but in others such as somebody give you a haircut , somebody driving you somewhere somebody , serving you a drink , human interaction is going to be valued by a lot of people and robots won't totally replace these jobs, and, in my view, nowhere near it.


Maybe in the past. Today people have everyone they know in their pocket. I've been on subways, trains, and buses and I don't see any interaction. Lots of glowing faces.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> Maybe in the past. Today people have everyone they know in their pocket. I've been on subways, trains, and buses and I don't see any interaction. Lots of glowing faces.


Apples and oranges. There are still no robot bartenders, waiters, and they could easily be replaced, and i doubt SDC are going to significantly replace drivers. but to some degree, yes, there will always be people that will do them because they will be cheap. If they are not cheap, I doubt they will be popular. That being said, I don't think Uber is going to find out that they are that cheap to operate, just because there is no driver in the car. If they lower the price, how are they making more money? And now they have the cost of the vehicle, and a fleet of them, wharehousing, technicians, administrative staff, in every major city? How are they going to be cheaper than paying drivers ? Things always cost more than you project they cost ( having been in a few businesses myself ).


----------



## maui

UberBlackDriverLA said:


> Please keep in mind self driving cars does not equal driverless cars. Sure, we may see self driving cars (like an autopilot) become more prevalent in the next 5 years or so, but true driverless cars are a long way off.
> 
> That being said, true driverless cars will be much safer, greatly reduce congestion and eliminate the need for traffic lights. They will also eliminate the need to own a vehicle.


Self driving cars will be awesome... for terrorists. Request a trip. Plant a bomb, exit, bomb is set to go off 3 hours later... you are nice a cozy when it goes off and close to impossible to trace back.

Good times.

Also, when the self-driving car does hit and kill the child chasing a ball, etc... Who goes to jail?


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I'd like to what happens if one of these self-driver cars hits a pot-hole that wasn't programmed into system.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> I don't think Uber is going to find out that they are that cheap to operate, just because there is no driver in the car. If they lower the price, how are they making more money? And now they have the cost of the vehicle, and a fleet of them, wharehousing, technicians, administrative staff, in every major city? How are they going to be cheaper than paying drivers ?


I would wonder if Uber or Lyft would want to own the vehicles and the concomitant costs. myself. That would give rise to the question, though, "Why are Uber and Lyft putting so much effort into these self driving cars?"

There are possibilities.

1. You have no driver in the car who is crying about not earning enough to pay his bills.

2. You need not pay for a firm to respond to the drivers' e-Mails.

3. You need not staff these offices in these larger cities to deal with drivers.

That is only a short list. There are other advantages. Still, that does not necessarily address the costs concomitant with owning fleets of cars, never mind the liability exposure. You could go the dummy corporation-upon-dummy corporation route, but, that becomes tangled, time-consuming and expensive.

The answer is that neither Uber nor Lyft still own the cars. They continue to contract with operators. They drive down the rates so low that single vehicle operation does not pay (they are almost there, as it is). In order for this to pay, a contractor will need to operate at least, say, five vehicles. If they have no driver, the owner can hold his regular job, or, stay on the golf course during the day and the ballpark at night, and still earn his living. The cars can run all day, every day. Neither Uber nor Lyft care about oversaturation, as the more vehicles, the shorter wait time for the user and the fewer surges for the user, thus, the happier the user. The operator can contract with garages and crane services. You can program the vehicle to proceed to the shop to deal with a minor problem, end the trip immediately then proceed to the shop for a major problem, or, if it does totally break down, summon a crane.

That does eliminate much of the liability exposure to the TNCs. If the courts, legislators or regulators do eliminate the "contract shield" that the TNCs currently employ before the driverless car is practical, the TNCs will be on the hook, regardless.

The downside is that if the contractors become unhappy with TNC #1, they could form a cartel, go to TNC #2 and tell its management that if TNC #2 would give Cartel A a better deal, Cartel A would bring its thousand cars over to TNC #2. The result would be that the cartels of operators would push around the TNCs. To be sure, the TNCs could form guilds, as well. Uber and Lyft did work together to fight the Austin referendum. Still, Uber and Lyft have made efforts in the past, the ethics of which were questionable, to snag the other TNC's drivers. I suspect that any TNC guild would not hold together as well as would an Operator Cartel.



maui said:


> when the self-driving car does hit and kill the child chasing a ball, etc... Who goes to jail?


You can program the car to detect an object that is flying across its path or is on a trajectory to do that. Thus, you can program the car to take appropriate action. Likely, this will result in a number of false alarms which the passenger will, at the time, find annoying, but, at the end of the day will not consider it worth a fuss. This applies to most cases, at least. There always will be the [Standard Oil of New Jersey] Bee, or two, but most consumers will not consider it worth making any major changes to their habits over that.

There are the cases where the child steps from out of nowhere into the path of the moving vehicle and it is mechanically and physically impossible for the vehicle to avoid striking the child. That happens with manned vehicles. I suspect that the parents sue and it takes the same course that it takes now. The only time that anyone goes to jail over that now is if the driver is Under The Influence, it reckless or hits the child deliberately. If it is your usual collision, the insurance steps in.

One thing that is not available, however, is actuarial figures to rate the liability policies on driverless cars. I suspect that initially, the insurers will rate the policies rather high. As actuarial figures become available, the Underwriting Departments will adjust the rates appropriately. For this reason, I suspect that initially, they will be slow to appear in any quantity, as the cost of insurance will be prohibitive for many operators. If, indeed, they prove to be at least as safe, or even more safe than manned vehicles, the rates will adjust and more people will get into the game.

It is not a matter of "if" the Johnny Cab will become a reality. It is a matter of "when".


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> I would wonder if Uber or Lyft would want to own the vehicles and the concomitant costs. myself. That would give rise to the question, though, "Why are Uber and Lyft putting so much effort into these self driving cars?"
> 
> There are possibilities.
> 
> 1. You have no driver in the car who is crying about not earning enough to pay his bills.
> 
> 2. You need not pay for a firm to respond to the drivers' e-Mails.
> 
> 3. You need not staff these offices in these larger cities to deal with drivers.
> 
> That is only a short list. There are other advantages. Still, that does not necessarily address the costs concomitant with owning fleets of cars, never mind the liability exposure. You could go the dummy corporation-upon-dummy corporation route, but, that becomes tangled, time-consuming and expensive.
> 
> The answer is that neither Uber nor Lyft still own the cars. They continue to contract with operators. They drive down the rates so low that single vehicle operation does not pay (they are almost there, as it is). In order for this to pay, a contractor will need to operate at least, say, five vehicles. If they have no driver, the owner can hold his regular job, or, stay on the golf course during the day and the ballpark at night, and still earn his living. The cars can run all day, every day. Neither Uber nor Lyft care about oversaturation, as the more vehicles, the shorter wait time for the user and the fewer surges for the user, thus, the happier the user. The operator can contract with garages and crane services. You can program the vehicle to proceed to the shop to deal with a minor problem, end the trip immediately then proceed to the shop for a major problem, or, if it does totally break down, summon a crane.
> 
> That does eliminate much of the liability exposure to the TNCs. If the courts, legislators or regulators do eliminate the "contract shield" that the TNCs currently employ before the driverless car is practical, the TNCs will be on the hook, regardless.
> 
> The downside is that if the contractors become unhappy with TNC #1, they could form a cartel, go to TNC #2 and tell its management that if TNC #2 would give Cartel A a better deal, Cartel A would bring its thousand cars over to TNC #2. The result would be that the cartels of operators would push around the TNCs. To be sure, the TNCs could form guilds, as well. Uber and Lyft did work together to fight the Austin referendum. Still, Uber and Lyft have made efforts in the past, the ethics of which were questionable, to snag the other TNC's drivers. I suspect that any TNC guild would not hold together as well as would an Operator Cartel.
> 
> You can program the car to detect an object that is flying across its path or is on a trajectory to do that. Thus, you can program the car to take appropriate action. Likely, this will result in a number of false alarms which the passenger will, at the time, find annoying, but, at the end of the day will not consider it worth a fuss. This applies to most cases, at least. There always will be the [Standard Oil of New Jersey] Bee, or two, but most consumers will not consider it worth making any major changes to their habits over that.
> 
> There are the cases where the child steps from out of nowhere into the path of the moving vehicle and it is mechanically and physically impossible for the vehicle to avoid striking the child. That happens with manned vehicles. I suspect that the parents sue and it takes the same course that it takes now. The only time that anyone goes to jail over that now is if the driver is Under The Influence, it reckless or hits the child deliberately. If it is your usual collision, the insurance steps in.
> 
> One thing that is not available, however, is actuarial figures to rate the liability policies on driverless cars. I suspect that initially, the insurers will rate the policies rather high. As actuarial figures become available, the Underwriting Departments will adjust the rates appropriately. For this reason, I suspect that initially, they will be slow to appear in any quantity, as the cost of insurance will be prohibitive for many operators. If, indeed, they prove to be at least as safe, or even more safe than manned vehicles, the rates will adjust and more people will get into the game.
> 
> It is not a matter of "if" the Johnny Cab will become a reality. It is a matter of "when".


But it's also a matter of "if" people will want them. The verdict is not in on that one.

California passed a law the requires an attendant in the SDC which kinda defeats the whole purpose of it. 
how many other states will follow suit?


----------



## Disgusted Driver

It will come, it will take a long time but it will come. 

Many of you are not seeing the efficiencies for example: 

Finding "your" Uber at 2 AM. Why would you need to? As long as you ordered one, it doesn't matter so much which one you get into as long as it's in the general area. Also, in a better position to communicate with your phone and guide you.

This isn't just about ride share, it's about car share, cars as a utility. You need about 40% of the cars and the Car utility manages them. You don't need parking everywhere and you have plenty of cars to take people home at 2AM, if they are the only thing on the road, you reduce traffic and cruising dramatically. The consumer pays a monthly fee plus a per mileage charge much like water.

Again, it will take a long time but you are fooling yourself if you think it won't. The DARPA challenge took a long time for people to successfully navigate but that got this off to a start. Anyone thought that chess would be taken over by a computer or for that matter that Jeopardy could be won by a computer?


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> But it's also a matter of "if" people will want them.
> 
> The verdict is not in on that one.
> 
> California passed a law the requires an attendant in the SDC which kinda defeats the whole purpose of it.


There is that. I have stated that I would not want to ride in one. Still, there are people who would use one. Further, let us assume that the Good Lord does not call me until I am past ninety. So hear I am, at ninety, in a home. The home has to send me to the doctor for some tests. The home has an account with some sort of transportation provider. This provider uses SDCs. This means that _*I don't gitt no choice about what I ride in to no doctor*_.

While I am not aware of any studies on the subject of who would or would not use a SDC (Original Poster loves studies, perhaps he knows of one), I do suspect that as they work out the bugs on the SDCs, they will prove safer and more people will use them as it is shown that they are safe.

Recall that they had to work out numerous bugs on aeroplanes. If you consider the leading causes of aircraft destruction in the First World War, you will find airframe failure and engine failure were at or near the top. Enemy bullets were pretty far down the list. These days, anti-aircraft missiles are the leading causes of aircraft destruction in combat. AA was notoriously inaccurate 1914-1918. Pilot error is probably at or near the top of the causes of civilian aircraft destruction, these days. As Original Poster has pointed out, fatalities and injuries on railroads and airlines pale in comparison to fatalities and injuries on the streets and roads. In fact, the fatalities and injuries in some battles and wars pale in comparison to those on the streets and roads.

The cars that they are testing in Holland require someone to have his hands on the wheel at all times. I do not know if the busses there require an attendant, or not. The trams with no motorman are a different animal, as the tracks guide them. There is the possibility of two, or more or them colliding on the tracks, but, systems that warn of impending collisions already are in place in cars. It is no great leap to program the warning to tell the onboard computer to apply the brakes and take the thing out of gear.

These things are in their developmental stages, thus, they require something to re-assure people that there will be no damage as a result of technological failures or shortcomings. Once they prove themselves, the municipalities will remove the constraints. If they do not prove themselves, it is back to the drawing board to try to come up with something that will prove safe, or, at least more safe than what we have now. Is there any municipality that still requires that a flagman precede a gasolene powered automobile?


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

RamzFanz said:


> ...Driverless SDC TNC. GM, Uber, Lyft, and others are betting their entire future on it..


GM previously, "bet it's future", on a lot of dopey ideas. One recalls they went bankrupt recently and were subsequently a beneficiary of the most massive taxpayer funded bailout in U.S. history. The other lead by a sociopathic CEO. Not sure that's the horse I'd be backing.

Although the cone thing would be hilarious. I'd insert a rod with a red paper "stop sign" in the top. See how long the thing sat there.

Can you imagine how simple it would be to steal one? Just winch it up into the back of a signal proofed trailer. Poof, gone in 60 seconds. The precious metals and electronic components would be hugely profitable. Now unless they build them with rocket launchers or automatic weapons...maybe a laser weapon. Idk.


----------



## WeirdBob

RamzFanz said:


> Maybe in the past. Today people have everyone they know in their pocket. I've been on subways, trains, and buses and I don't see any interaction. Lots of glowing faces.


This is one of the saddest things I have ever read. If it weren't for the tragic loss of life, I would be rooting for the EMP that is going to shut down this overly-connected yet disconnecting technology.

Speaking of which... what happens to SDC when the Internet goes on break for a few months/years?


----------



## Old Rocker

WeirdBob said:


> This is one of the saddest things I have ever read. If it weren't for the tragic loss of life, I would be rooting for the EMP that is going to shut down this overly-connected yet disconnecting technology.
> 
> Speaking of which... what happens to SDC when the Internet goes on break for a few months/years?


The zombies take over.

Which is why nearly every Texan owns a hand gun, a shotgun and an AR-15. (Well, not every Texan.)


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

Old Rocker said:


> The zombies take over.
> 
> Which is why nearly every Texan owns a hand gun, a shotgun and an AR-15. (Well, not every Texan.)


You mean, not every Texan bothers with owning a handgun of course. With a good shotgun and an AR the handgun would be useless dead weight. Carry double loads for the two primaries and a good edge weapon as the close range. No need for extra ammo plus you can use it for skinning roadkill. Win win!


----------



## WeirdBob

Old Rocker said:


> The zombies take over.
> 
> Which is why nearly every Texan owns a hand gun, a shotgun and an AR-15. (Well, not every Texan.)


Seeing everyone's face stuck in their SmartPhones has convinced me that the zombies have already taken over.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Another Uber Driver said:


> There is that. I have stated that I would not want to ride in one. Still, there are people who would use one. Further, let us assume that the Good Lord does not call me until I am past ninety. So hear I am, at ninety, in a home. The home has to send me to the doctor for some tests. The home has an account with some sort of transportation provider. This provider uses SDCs. This means that _*I don't gitt no choice about what I ride in to no doctor*_.
> 
> While I am not aware of any studies on the subject of who would or would not use a SDC (Original Poster loves studies, perhaps he knows of one), I do suspect that as they work out the bugs on the SDCs, they will prove safer and more people will use them as it is shown that they are safe.
> 
> Recall that they had to work out numerous bugs on aeroplanes. If you consider the leading causes of aircraft destruction in the First World War, you will find airframe failure and engine failure were at or near the top. Enemy bullets were pretty far down the list. These days, anti-aircraft missiles are the leading causes of aircraft destruction in combat. AA was notoriously inaccurate 1914-1918. Pilot error is probably at or near the top of the causes of civilian aircraft destruction, these days. As Original Poster has pointed out, fatalities and injuries on railroads and airlines pale in comparison to fatalities and injuries on the streets and roads. In fact, the fatalities and injuries in some battles and wars pale in comparison to those on the streets and roads.
> 
> The cars that they are testing in Holland require someone to have his hands on the wheel at all times. I do not know if the busses there require an attendant, or not. The trams with no motorman are a different animal, as the tracks guide them. There is the possibility of two, or more or them colliding on the tracks, but, systems that warn of impending collisions already are in place in cars. It is no great leap to program the warning to tell the onboard computer to apply the brakes and take the thing out of gear.
> 
> These things are in their developmental stages, thus, they require something to re-assure people that there will be no damage as a result of technological failures or shortcomings. Once they prove themselves, the municipalities will remove the constraints. If they do not prove themselves, it is back to the drawing board to try to come up with something that will prove safe, or, at least more safe than what we have now. Is there any municipality that still requires that a flagman precede a gasolene powered automobile?


Many big cities have transport services that cater to the handicapped and are especially licensed for them , and are partially funded by the government, such as San Diego has LIFT (not Lyft). I really doubt corporations would put handicapped people and elderly people in vehicles that did not have drivers in them that would be insane. Handicapped and elderly people have special needs the assistance of a driver is often required.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Apples and oranges. There are still no robot bartenders, waiters, and they could easily be replaced, and i doubt SDC are going to significantly replace drivers. but to some degree, yes, there will always be people that will do them because they will be cheap. If they are not cheap, I doubt they will be popular. That being said, I don't think Uber is going to find out that they are that cheap to operate, just because there is no driver in the car. If they lower the price, how are they making more money? And now they have the cost of the vehicle, and a fleet of them, wharehousing, technicians, administrative staff, in every major city? How are they going to be cheaper than paying drivers ? Things always cost more than you project they cost ( having been in a few businesses myself ).


We'll see. I don't think you have a grasp on the market. I'm going with almost every major tech, auto, and TNC corporation in the world knowing what they are doing. Elon Musk just landed a rocket on an autonomous barge and pre sold hundreds of thousands of cars that aren't even in production. He knows a thing or two about new technologies, markets, and is pretty damned good at business.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Many big cities have transport services that cater to the handicapped and are especially licensed for them , and are partially funded by the government, such as San Diego has LIFT (not Lyft). I really doubt corporations would put handicapped people and elderly people in vehicles that did not have drivers in them that would be insane. Handicapped and elderly people have special needs the assistance of a driver is often required.


You don't need a driver to assist them. An assistant along for the ride will do.


----------



## Old Rocker

Oscar Levant said:


> Many big cities have transport services that cater to the handicapped and are especially licensed for them , and are partially funded by the government, such as San Diego has LIFT (not Lyft). I really doubt corporations would put handicapped people and elderly people in vehicles that did not have drivers in them that would be insane. Handicapped and elderly people have special needs the assistance of a driver is often required.


Houston requires, afaik, that 3% of the Uber "fleet" be handicapped accessible. I don't know how they monitor that.

I had a wheelchair bound pax just the other day with a bariatric wheelchair (one for heavier people). I did manage to get her wheelchair into the trunk of my smallish, mid-size car. I suggested to her to ping UberXL in the future to be sure the vehicle that arrived would accommodate her wheelchair.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> We'll see. I don't think you have a grasp on the market. I'm going with almost every major tech, auto, and TNC corporation in the world knowing what they are doing. Elon Musk just landed a rocket on an autonomous barge and pre sold hundreds of thousands of cars that aren't even in production. He knows a thing or two about new technologies, markets, and is pretty damned good at business.


I've been in this business 15 years far more than your average techie living in Ivory White towers. If Travis had consulted me before embarking on Uber I would have told him that he would be probably losing billions of dollars every year. guess what --that is now a fact. Forbes reported that last year Uber lost $1.7 billion. Years of experience in this business have revealed to me that large transportation companies rarely make money and if they make money it's hardly anything to write home about. You'd do better by parking your money in the index stock market and letting it ride. When it comes to SDCs there is a false assumption that because it is technological it will be Innovative and revolutionary , this is not necessarily a good assumption because of the concept of it being desired by people, this has to be thoroughly tested , and the question is has it? Also the problems inherent in self-driving cars will become Amplified when the whole system is implemented and after the flaws become revealed, if they're not corrected ( I predict there will be conceptual flaws that will not be correctable to a level where they become practical), will people want them then? This cannot be known until it is done and billions invested.

Remember the Segway how it was going to be revolutionary? I remember it , the inventor came on TV and said " I have invented something that will revolutionize short distance transportation " tons of money was invested and it was a major flop. Hey forgot to ask the all-important question-- is there a short distance Transportation problem? They alsoforgot one Minor Detail in the plan --to survey the market to see if such a thing would be really needed by people. When the rubber hit the road ( pun intended ) they discovered that people actually don't mind walking to and from here and there, after all. But I could have told them that , but nobody asked me. But the Segway found a niche market; Innercity tours , Segway Tours and rentals just as bicycles are rented at beaches etcetera. Hardly revolutionary but not the big money boon the investors had hoped for.

Have you heard of the Moller flying autonomous car? It's real , it works but no one's buying it. Again just because it's technology it's not necessarily going to fly.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> You don't need a driver to assist them. An assistant along for the ride will do.


Who will have to be hired which goes against the proposition these things are supposed to save money.


----------



## RamzFanz

Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> GM previously, "bet it's future", on a lot of dopey ideas. One recalls they went bankrupt recently and were subsequently a beneficiary of the most massive taxpayer funded bailout in U.S. history. The other lead by a sociopathic CEO. Not sure that's the horse I'd be backing.
> 
> Although the cone thing would be hilarious. I'd insert a rod with a red paper "stop sign" in the top. See how long the thing sat there.
> 
> Can you imagine how simple it would be to steal one? Just winch it up into the back of a signal proofed trailer. Poof, gone in 60 seconds. The precious metals and electronic components would be hugely profitable. Now unless they build them with rocket launchers or automatic weapons...maybe a laser weapon. Idk.


CEOs? I'm betting on Elon Musk. He says 2018. Are you betting against him?!

So easy to steal...just like any parked car? Are they rampantly being loaded into trucks now? Have you ever heard of insurance? We're getting way way out there on the predictions.

GM has had bumps, so has Apple, Google too. All companies do. You are not doubting GM, you are doubting just about every major tech, auto, and TNC company in the world. I'm going to think they know more than you on the subject. Call me crazy.


----------



## RamzFanz

WeirdBob said:


> This is one of the saddest things I have ever read. If it weren't for the tragic loss of life, I would be rooting for the EMP that is going to shut down this overly-connected yet disconnecting technology.
> 
> Speaking of which... what happens to SDC when the Internet goes on break for a few months/years?


SDCs are connected to the internet but they aren't reliant on it to function. They are self contained.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> I've been in this business 15 years far more than your average techie living in Ivory White towers. If Travis had consulted me before embarking on Uber I would have told him that he would be probably losing billions of dollars every year. guess what --that is now a fact. Forbes reported that last year Uber lost $1.7 billion. Years of experience in this business have revealed to me that large transportation companies rarely make money and if they make money it's hardly anything to write home about. You'd do better by parking your money in the index stock market and letting it ride. When it comes to SDCs there is a false assumption that because it is technological it will be Innovative and revolutionary , this is not necessarily a good assumption because of the concept of it being desired by people, this has to be thoroughly tested , and the question is has it? Also the problems inherent in self-driving cars will become Amplified when the whole system is implemented and after the flaws become revealed, if they're not corrected ( I predict there will be conceptual flaws that will not be correctable to a level where they become practical), will people want them then? This cannot be known until it is done and billions invested.
> 
> Remember the Segway how it was going to be revolutionary? I remember it , the inventor came on TV and said " I have invented something that will revolutionize short distance transportation " tons of money was invested and it was a major flop. Hey forgot to ask the all-important question-- is there a short distance Transportation problem? They alsoforgot one Minor Detail in the plan --to survey the market to see if such a thing would be really needed by people. When the rubber hit the road ( pun intended ) they discovered that people actually don't mind walking to and from here and there, after all. But I could have told them that , but nobody asked me. But the Segway found a niche market; Innercity tours , Segway Tours and rentals just as bicycles are rented at beaches etcetera. Hardly revolutionary but not the big money boon the investors had hoped for.
> 
> Have you heard of the Moller flying autonomous car? It's real , it works but no one's buying it. Again just because it's technology it's not necessarily going to fly.


You know full well he's not losing money, but if it makes you feel relevant, just keep repeating it.

Yes, it has been tested for willingness to adapt. Many many many times. The reactions? People loved it. Old, young, inbetween, all of the ones I've seen which, admittedly, could be cherry picking. Even the guy who said he'd never give up driving his sports car. Test rides, polls, the market is definitely there. 23% of respondents in a recent poll said they would _definitely_ ride in a SDC. That alone is a massive market. The majority were unsure.

The flaws you imagine are agenda driven. Almost nothing I hear from the naysayers is an actual roadblock and many have already been overcome. If it's your opinion or Elon Musk's, you'll lose every time.

No one has ever said "just because it's technology it's going to fly." Anyone can point to flops. But then you have to consider all of the technology that _didn't_ flop. Just the list of technology AND marketing geniuses involved and investing billions should indicate to the average nay sayer they are wrong. 100 million on the Segway and they may never get it all back. This isn't millions on a startup corporation with a gadget. These are the biggest and best in the world.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou

Undermensch said:


> I think the model has already been established for this: ZipCar.
> 
> With ZipCar the new driver shows up at a car that was left by the prior driver in a parking spot. If the car was vandalized this new driver reports it. If someone barfed in the car and left it, the new driver reports it. Same thing with self driving taxis: the next rider reports the issue if it's not already known.
> 
> Regarding putting cones in front of the car: that is hilarious... but it will also be (if it isn't already) illegal and as the car is filming everything it'll make it easier to find you than other pranks you could pull.
> 
> I do have a related similar concern for self driving cars though: car jackings / robbery / rape, etc. All that some thugs would have to do is walk out in front of a self driving car and it would have to stop. Once stopped, threaten the people within with a weapon to get them to open the doors (or smash a window), then do whatever it is that thugs do. If it was a human driving they could (not all do, as evidenced by the fact that this already happens today) calculate the risk, realize that the thugs were in the wrong, and mow down a few of them to get away, if necessary. I'm sure that the initial self driving cars won't be able to handle the situation in that way, until a few people get killed... then that feature will have to be added to the software.


It's uber and Travis we are talking about here, of course they will have a "mow down pedestrian" mode and blame another uber driver for it.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> Who will have to be hired which goes against the proposition these things are supposed to save money.


If you have a nay-sayer mindset maybe. But then when you honestly consider the people needing assistance is a tiny fraction of the market and an assistant could be a minimum wage worker, it seems silly. I've been driving for 9 months and haven't seen one yet.


----------



## RamzFanz

maui said:


> Self driving cars will be awesome... for terrorists. Request a trip. Plant a bomb, exit, bomb is set to go off 3 hours later... you are nice a cozy when it goes off and close to impossible to trace back.
> 
> Good times.
> 
> Also, when the self-driving car does hit and kill the child chasing a ball, etc... Who goes to jail?


Very few things are impossible to trace back and in a SDC you will have excellent images remotely stored as the first lead. The FBI tracks down bombers all the time. There's nothing about an SDC planted bomb than any other kind.


----------



## RamzFanz

ChortlingCrison said:


> I'd like to what happens if one of these self-driver cars hits a pot-hole that wasn't programmed into system.


They can see and avoid potholes and have been for years. The SDC fleet builds it's own maps as they drive. One car sees a pothole, all cars are instantly aware of it.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> I would wonder if Uber or Lyft would want to own the vehicles and the concomitant costs. myself. That would give rise to the question, though, "Why are Uber and Lyft putting so much effort into these self driving cars?"
> 
> There are possibilities.
> 
> 1. You have no driver in the car who is crying about not earning enough to pay his bills.
> 
> 2. You need not pay for a firm to respond to the drivers' e-Mails.
> 
> 3. You need not staff these offices in these larger cities to deal with drivers.
> 
> That is only a short list. There are other advantages. Still, that does not necessarily address the costs concomitant with owning fleets of cars, never mind the liability exposure. You could go the dummy corporation-upon-dummy corporation route, but, that becomes tangled, time-consuming and expensive.
> 
> The answer is that neither Uber nor Lyft still own the cars. They continue to contract with operators. They drive down the rates so low that single vehicle operation does not pay (they are almost there, as it is). In order for this to pay, a contractor will need to operate at least, say, five vehicles. If they have no driver, the owner can hold his regular job, or, stay on the golf course during the day and the ballpark at night, and still earn his living. The cars can run all day, every day. Neither Uber nor Lyft care about oversaturation, as the more vehicles, the shorter wait time for the user and the fewer surges for the user, thus, the happier the user. The operator can contract with garages and crane services. You can program the vehicle to proceed to the shop to deal with a minor problem, end the trip immediately then proceed to the shop for a major problem, or, if it does totally break down, summon a crane.
> 
> That does eliminate much of the liability exposure to the TNCs. If the courts, legislators or regulators do eliminate the "contract shield" that the TNCs currently employ before the driverless car is practical, the TNCs will be on the hook, regardless.
> 
> The downside is that if the contractors become unhappy with TNC #1, they could form a cartel, go to TNC #2 and tell its management that if TNC #2 would give Cartel A a better deal, Cartel A would bring its thousand cars over to TNC #2. The result would be that the cartels of operators would push around the TNCs. To be sure, the TNCs could form guilds, as well. Uber and Lyft did work together to fight the Austin referendum. Still, Uber and Lyft have made efforts in the past, the ethics of which were questionable, to snag the other TNC's drivers. I suspect that any TNC guild would not hold together as well as would an Operator Cartel.
> 
> You can program the car to detect an object that is flying across its path or is on a trajectory to do that. Thus, you can program the car to take appropriate action. Likely, this will result in a number of false alarms which the passenger will, at the time, find annoying, but, at the end of the day will not consider it worth a fuss. This applies to most cases, at least. There always will be the [Standard Oil of New Jersey] Bee, or two, but most consumers will not consider it worth making any major changes to their habits over that.
> 
> There are the cases where the child steps from out of nowhere into the path of the moving vehicle and it is mechanically and physically impossible for the vehicle to avoid striking the child. That happens with manned vehicles. I suspect that the parents sue and it takes the same course that it takes now. The only time that anyone goes to jail over that now is if the driver is Under The Influence, it reckless or hits the child deliberately. If it is your usual collision, the insurance steps in.
> 
> One thing that is not available, however, is actuarial figures to rate the liability policies on driverless cars. I suspect that initially, the insurers will rate the policies rather high. As actuarial figures become available, the Underwriting Departments will adjust the rates appropriately. For this reason, I suspect that initially, they will be slow to appear in any quantity, as the cost of insurance will be prohibitive for many operators. If, indeed, they prove to be at least as safe, or even more safe than manned vehicles, the rates will adjust and more people will get into the game.
> 
> It is not a matter of "if" the Johnny Cab will become a reality. It is a matter of "when".


Na, GM partnered with Lyft for a reason, GM will own the fleet. Uber will probably do the same.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> I do not know if the busses there require an attendant, or not.


They did have a greeter at first to answer questions and such. No driving controls.


----------



## WeirdBob

RamzFanz said:


> SDCs are connected to the internet but they aren't reliant on it to function. They are self contained.


Limited route/purpose systems, perhaps. But preparing a safe route requires massive amounts of changeable 3-D data, coming from local wireless sources. My preference would be to have a completely private system, completely disconnected from "The Internet", but the cheapskates will not pay for that.

I've spent a huge amounts of time studying self-driving / autonomous vehicle technology while starting my LiDAR systems company. It is an amazing technology. When it is fully developed, it will be a far safer driver than any human. But it will not be able to operate independently from "shore knowledge" updates.


----------



## Undermensch

Oscar Levant said:


> I've been in this business 15 years far more than your average techie living in Ivory White towers. If Travis had consulted me before embarking on Uber I would have told him that he would be probably losing billions of dollars every year. guess what --that is now a fact. Forbes reported that last year Uber lost $1.7 billion. Years of experience in this business have revealed to me that large transportation companies rarely make money and if they make money it's hardly anything to write home about. You'd do better by parking your money in the index stock market and letting it ride. When it comes to SDCs there is a false assumption that because it is technological it will be Innovative and revolutionary , this is not necessarily a good assumption because of the concept of it being desired by people, this has to be thoroughly tested , and the question is has it? Also the problems inherent in self-driving cars will become Amplified when the whole system is implemented and after the flaws become revealed, if they're not corrected ( I predict there will be conceptual flaws that will not be correctable to a level where they become practical), will people want them then? This cannot be known until it is done and billions invested.
> 
> Remember the Segway how it was going to be revolutionary? I remember it , the inventor came on TV and said " I have invented something that will revolutionize short distance transportation " tons of money was invested and it was a major flop. Hey forgot to ask the all-important question-- is there a short distance Transportation problem? They alsoforgot one Minor Detail in the plan --to survey the market to see if such a thing would be really needed by people. When the rubber hit the road ( pun intended ) they discovered that people actually don't mind walking to and from here and there, after all. But I could have told them that , but nobody asked me. But the Segway found a niche market; Innercity tours , Segway Tours and rentals just as bicycles are rented at beaches etcetera. Hardly revolutionary but not the big money boon the investors had hoped for.
> 
> Have you heard of the Moller flying autonomous car? It's real , it works but no one's buying it. Again just because it's technology it's not necessarily going to fly.


Yes, and if Elon Musk had consulted Boeing or Lockheed about building rockets (let alone landing them vertically after launch) they would have told him he could never beat them on price or reliability. If he had consulted GM about building cars they would have told him he'd never last more than a year or two and never get a second model to market.

If ability to run a business and understand things differently than others was based on age and years of experience in a field then everyone in their 60s would be millionaires... obviously that's not the case. Many people have decades of experience and never pushed their field forward; in fact, that's true for almost everyone.


----------



## RamzFanz

WeirdBob said:


> Limited route/purpose systems, perhaps. But preparing a safe route requires massive amounts of changeable 3-D data, coming from local wireless sources. My preference would be to have a completely private system, completely disconnected from "The Internet", but the cheapskates will not pay for that.
> 
> I've spent a huge amounts of time studying self-driving / autonomous vehicle technology while starting my LiDAR systems company. It is an amazing technology. When it is fully developed, it will be a far safer driver than any human. But it will not be able to operate independently from "shore knowledge" updates.


The fleets create their own maps and all navigating decisions come from their own maps and sensors. No doubt it would limit their ability to share info, but it's really not necessary for operation. You know they will lose signal in some places just as we do with phones, they still operate.


----------



## Oscar Levant

Undermensch said:


> Yes, and if Elon Musk had consulted Boeing or Lockheed about building rockets (let alone landing them vertically after launch) they would have told him he could never beat them on price or reliability. If he had consulted GM about building cars they would have told him he'd never last more than a year or two and never get a second model to market.
> 
> If ability to run a business and understand things differently than others was based on age and years of experience in a field then everyone in their 60s would be millionaires... obviously that's not the case. Many people have decades of experience and never pushed their field forward; in fact, that's true for almost everyone.





RamzFanz said:


> You know full well he's not losing money, but if it makes you feel relevant, just keep repeating it.
> 
> Yes, it has been tested for willingness to adapt. Many many many times. The reactions? People loved it. Old, young, inbetween, all of the ones I've seen which, admittedly, could be cherry picking. Even the guy who said he'd never give up driving his sports car. Test rides, polls, the market is definitely there. 23% of respondents in a recent poll said they would _definitely_ ride in a SDC. That alone is a massive market. The majority were unsure.
> 
> The flaws you imagine are agenda driven. Almost nothing I hear from the naysayers is an actual roadblock and many have already been overcome. If it's your opinion or Elon Musk's, you'll lose every time.
> 
> No one has ever said "just because it's technology it's going to fly." Anyone can point to flops. But then you have to consider all of the technology that _didn't_ flop. Just the list of technology AND marketing geniuses involved and investing billions should indicate to the average nay sayer they are wrong. 100 million on the Segway and they may never get it all back. This isn't millions on a startup corporation with a gadget. These are the biggest and best in the world.


I know nothing of the sort I'm only reporting what was reported nothing more. Unless you personally have privy to profit loss statements you don't know either. historically large Transportation companies rarely make much money , that has been my experience. Seen a lot of them come and go.


----------



## Oscar Levant

RamzFanz said:


> If you have a nay-sayer mindset maybe. But then when you honestly consider the people needing assistance is a tiny fraction of the market and an assistant could be a minimum wage worker, it seems silly. I've been driving for 9 months and haven't seen one yet.


You totally missed the subject of conversation that was being addressed in my post which was in response to another post.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Oscar Levant said:


> I really doubt corporations would put handicapped people and elderly people in vehicles that did not have drivers in them that would be insane. Handicapped and elderly people have special needs the assistance of a driver is often required.


^^^^^^^^^He answered it for me, for the most part. \/ \/ \/ \/ \/ \/

In fact, for once, my experience agrees with his hypothesis. I have hauled more than a few elderly and handicapped who had a "companion" of some sort. The "companion" helped the person out of the building, into the car, gave the address, rode with the person, helped the person out of the car, paid, helped the person into the destination. All that I had to do was open the trunk, drive and make change. The "companion" did not even want me to out the folded up wheelchair into the trunk, unless the "companion" had problems fitting it. In fact, the whole thing might be more efficient if you have a driverless jitney, two "companions". As the below quoted poster stated elsewhere, these "assistants" do not receive much in the way of pay, as a rule.



RamzFanz said:


> You don't need a driver to assist them. An assistant along for the ride will do.





Old Rocker said:


> Houston requires, afaik, that 3% of the Uber "fleet" be handicapped accessible. I don't know how they monitor that.


Houston issues licences to the vehicles. If they do it anything like they do the taxicabs here, there is a code in the licence number or something else that indicates gasolene vehicle, altfuel, hybrid, pure electric, accessible. All that anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of computers need do is have it search for the code for accessible. It will show a list with the number of entries. A three dollar calculator will allow you to divide the total number of licences into the number of entries for accessible to arrive at a per-centage. If it equals or exceeds three per-cent, no problem. If it is less than three per-cent, Uber and Lyft receive nastygrams.



RamzFanz said:


> They can see and avoid potholes and have been for years. The SDC fleet builds it's own maps as they drive. One car sees a pothole, all cars are instantly aware of it.


I was not aware that the thing could see a pothole as it "drives", but, I will take your word for it. It is, indeed, plausible that it would. Even if the pothole surprises it, no doubt it would "realise" that it hit a pothole, that would register on the computer and the warning would go out to all of the other cars. When DPW fixes the pothole, it lets the operators know so that they can take out the pothole warning. It would work.



RamzFanz said:


> Na, GM partnered with Lyft for a reason, GM will own the fleet. Uber will probably do the same.


Do you mean the Uber will "partner" with Ford, Toyota or someone?

The builder likely will "sell" the cars to a dummy corporation which will, in turn, lease the cars to another dummy corporation which will operate them? I can not see GMs' (or any builder's) owning them outright. In addition to the liability exposure, you have the tax benefits that would be lost. Greyhound figured this out many years back. Greyhound does not own a single tyre on any of its busses---it leases all of them.

I just want to know, or, at least, provide a catalyst to some discussion about these things.



RamzFanz said:


> They did have a greeter at first to answer questions and such. No driving controls.


The thing is devoid of any controls? What happens if a situation arises that would require a human being to operate them? What happens in the shop? Can a human being at least plug an I-pad into a data port and control the thing through an application on the I-pad? ..............or do you know?

I am curious, that is all.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Dontmakemepullauonyou said:


> they will have a "mow down pedestrian mode" and blame another uber driver for it.


They would do well not to blame me for it. Odds are that if they tried to blame me, I would have proof that I was at a Nationals game, logged onto my Uber Taxi application or home fast asleep when it happened.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> You know they will lose signal in some places just as we do with phones, they still operate.


If they do lose the signal, the thing can detect that and trigger something that has it store whatever information and transmit it when the signal is restored. Many of the credit card terminals in the taxis here work in that way. If your signal is bad, it will accept the transaction but transmit the data when there is a signal. If the card is bad, the processor has to eat it and pay the driver, anyhow. It is part of the deal to get in on the processing oligopoly, here.


----------



## RamzFanz

Oscar Levant said:


> I know nothing of the sort I'm only reporting what was reported nothing more. Unless you personally have privy to profit loss statements you don't know either. historically large Transportation companies rarely make much money , that has been my experience. Seen a lot of them come and go.


I'm privy to the investor reports he put out that leaked in which showed the matured markets were profitable and the investments were going to expansion. If it's a ponzi scheme, it's going to be one for the history books.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> I was not aware that the thing could see a pothole as it "drives", but, I will take your word for it. It is, indeed, plausible that it would. Even if the pothole surprises it, no doubt it would "realise" that it hit a pothole, that would register on the computer and the warning would go out to all of the other cars. When DPW fixes the pothole, it lets the operators know so that they can take out the pothole warning. It would work.


Yep, the Google car can detect potholes, no idea about the dozens of others. It is also aware if other cars are avoiding something as I recall.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Do you mean the Uber will "partner" with Ford, Toyota or someone?
> 
> The builder likely will "sell" the cars to a dummy corporation which will, in turn, lease the cars to another dummy corporation which will operate them? I can not see GMs' (or any builder's) owning them outright. In addition to the liability exposure, you have the tax benefits that would be lost. Greyhound figured this out many years back. Greyhound does not own a single tyre on any of its busses---it leases all of them.
> 
> I just want to know, or, at least, provide a catalyst to some discussion about these things.


GM is talking like they will produce and own them but nothing's in stone. Sure, I could see them spinning off the liability and keeping the profit.



Another Uber Driver said:


> The thing is devoid of any controls? What happens if a situation arises that would require a human being to operate them? What happens in the shop? Can a human being at least plug an I-pad into a data port and control the thing through an application on the I-pad? ..............or do you know?
> 
> I am curious, that is all.


I don't know what they do if they find it necessary to control it. People are being pretty tight lipped about how they do things. But, yes, there are no manual controls in the WEpod. It's been running for quite some time on college campuses and now it's on the road. They still restrict its speed and route for now, but it's on public roads hauling passengers in traffic with no driver.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> I'm privy to the investor reports he put out that leaked in which showed the matured markets were profitable and the investments were going to expansion.


I read something similar somewhere, but I forget where, now. I have not, however, seen any P/L statements or audits. While I do know how to read those things (and this is coming from someone who has no background in Accounting), I do wonder if I would take the time. Anyone want to talk about TL;dr on one of those things for a company like that? In my case, at least, my definition of TL;dr, "Too _*LAZY*_; didn't read", would apply in Seven-No-Trump.



RamzFanz said:


> Yep, the Google car can detect potholes. It is also aware if *other cars* are avoiding something as I recall.
> 
> GM is talking like they will produce and own them but nothing's in stone. Sure, I could see them spinning off the liability and keeping the profit.
> 
> I don't know what they do if they find it necessary to control it. But, yes, there are no manual controls in the WEpod. It's been running for quite some time on college campuses and now it's on the road. They still restrict its speed and route for now, but it's on public roads hauling passengers in traffic with no driver.


(emphasis mine)

By "other cars", I am assuming that you mean other "Googlemobiles" or cars on the same computer program. It would make sense to have the vehicles in communication with each other. We used the cab radio to warn of various hazards. Most of the satellite/GPS/computer based taxi call assignment systems have a text function, so that drivers can advise and warn of hazards. The truck drivers use the Citizens' Band for that. It would save time and make for a more comfortable ride if the other SDCs learn of the hazard and start to avoid it before they approach it, or, in the case of something such as a fire or a demonstration (we get more than a few of the latter here, for obvious reasons), it could avoid the block altogether. In fact, if it were a majorly serious pothole, the driverless might want to avoid that block altogether. I would guess that most SDCs would not see a pothole until they are almost upon it, thus would swerve suddenly and cause alarm to the passenger. I would expect that then it would advise the other SDCs which would simply steer around it as they approached.

Are you stating that both Uber and Lyft are going to work with GM? I mentioned Ford or Toyota because as Lyft is working with GM, I assumed that Uber would choose someone else as Uber would not want to work with a competitor any more than it had to and that GM would not work with both.

I read about that bus on the English Language version of some Dutch website, but I forget what it is now. I mentioned it somewhere else either on this topic or one similar. I understand that it is restricted to twenty-five kilometers per hour, which is just about fifteen miles per hour. That is faster than I can walk and faster than I usually ride my bicycle. The speed restriction is understandable, as these things are still early in development and testing. People simply will be hesitant and leery about this new-fangled contraption, as they are about any new-fangled contraption. Did you not cite a poll of twenty-three per-cent who would use such a conveyance? While that does leave seventy-seven per-cent who would not, I would suspect that the number of "no" would diminish as these things proved safe and as they came more and more into use by providers.

My major disagreement with you on these things is not the "if"; it is merely the "when". There is a bit of disagreement on the "how", as well, but it is less than the "when". If nothing else, there are still too many variables and uncertainties on the "how". The last do diminish, though, as time passes.

There is one more factor of "convenience" where my experience comes into play, but that is the subject of another post.


----------



## Old Rocker

Pothole detection in Houston. LOL. Another Johnny Cab seizure.

Does not compute, does not compute.

Sorry, mixed metaphor.


----------



## Uberdancer

_*"...Cntl-Alt Delete..."*_

_"Turn off the machine. Wait 7 seconds. Turn it back on."_

_"I'm late!!!"_

_"Danger, Will Robinson!!! Danger!!!"_


----------



## tohunt4me

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


Google is not just invested in Uber.
I will feel the same way about being replaced by a machine ,THAT YOU WILL.( but it's o.k.,the United Nations says we can all eat bugs.research it reporter)


----------



## tohunt4me

tohunt4me said:


> Google is not just invested in Uber.
> I will feel the same way about being replaced by a machine ,THAT YOU WILL.( but it's o.k.,the United Nations says we can all eat bugs.research it reporter)
> View attachment 41759


One must lift his head from the feed bag long enough to admire the design of the slaughterhouse.

After all ,you will only get to see it once.


----------



## Manotas

toi said:


> The passengers can take their rating stars and ....


So the self driving cars will have a human pilot to take the wheel if needed. If the Pax isn't happy w/ the ride who gets the bad rating? The car or the dude sitting there not driving? Or is it Eewber?


----------



## Too Many Miles

SelenaL said:


> I'm a reporter with a site called the Daily Dot, and I'm interested in the driver response to Uber's recent news. As you might know, Uber is testing self-driving cars, and GM (an investor in Lyft) is testing them, too.
> 
> How do you feel, as a driver, about Uber testing cars that will eventually replace your jobs? Feel free to reply to this thread. Thank you for your time.


Greed, that is what drives Uber and Lyft into self driving cars, and inow the long run it is bad for everyone.
Companies want to replace human labor with robots, all to make more money, I we accept this we will be responsible for the consequences, but we will try to blame others.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-employment-idUSKCN0UW0NV


----------



## Jermin8r89

Too Many Miles said:


> Greed, that is what drives Uber and Lyft into self driving cars, and inow the long run it is bad for everyone.
> Companies want to replace human labor with robots, all to make more money, I we accept this we will be responsible for the consequences, but we will try to blame others.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-davos-meeting-employment-idUSKCN0UW0NV


Wow! Someone sees the real picture. All this does is put everyone on one system choices of things we can make these days is as best as it ever has for humanity but this is something new that we have come across as AI generation.

Now let's talk "safety" they keep throwing that around and I hate that word. Safety was seatbelts safety was driving school. Also what about the biggest thing of them all tobbaco? Still number 1 killer same with sugar and soda. Where's the big rush into getting rid of that? Why is this one thing the biggest thing going right now and smart phones as a matter of fact Japan is going back to flip phones lol biggest tech of all cuz smart phones are too expensive also Nokia making a come back with an android version flip phone for basics .

Now back to uber they don't need self driving as things r gonna be very complicated soon. What u gonna do about these new delievery services? Also yea uber and lyft they gonna want a designation point or someone else having ownership what about to fill up maintance ownership delivers how far will they go and how much also if u doing delivers then u gonna have to have a person in there. Also I know FedEx sometime this year is gonna be unavailing drone services somehow and that's got so so much hurtles to get threw too. There's way too much in our own society to have the take over of full autonomous in 10 years. I'm really interested how things go in 10 years as I also love driving scooters and motorcycles so what about that?


----------

