# Driver-less cars could be out sooner than expected



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


----------



## MR5STAR (May 18, 2015)

Lol this is the last thing i'm worried about. Worry about something that actually could happen in the next 25 years like yellowstone errupting.


----------



## Jose_A (Jul 5, 2015)

Uber is absolutely delusional. There's no way their company has a snowball's chance in hell to make a profit off this. One reason they had so much potential is because they as a company didn't own any vehicles or have to worry about maintenance. Driverless cars in DC is a very distant fantasy.


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

The first time one of those driver less cars goes off of a closed and half demolished freeway exit ramp will be the end of driver less cars.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla)..


Uber is failing to convince the various state legislatures and the U.S. Department of Labor or Congress to enact laws that permit Uber to (mis)treat its workforce as independent contractors, Uber will lose its financial edge over traditional livery services very soon. This is a desperate move in order to survive.


----------



## wkramer (Oct 5, 2015)

Uber will never, ever have driverless cars unless they can figure out how to have someone else pay for them. They would not be in business today if they did not have their drivers picking up the most expensive part of their business model, the cars being driven.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

MR5STAR said:


> Lol this is the last thing i'm worried about. Worry about something that actually could happen in the next 25 years like yellowstone errupting.


Or maybe not

http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=384


----------



## Jose_A (Jul 5, 2015)

Uber will probably be destroyed by all the lawsuits by then or at least have completely new management.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

My point in bringing all this up is that technology is already here! They're doing trial runs as we speak. Right now it's simply a matter of making sure that it is completely safe. I don't trust anything Travis says at this point because if he actually told us they were going to start using driver-less cars by next year most of us would quit beforehand. The 2030 guesstimate is a number that I think he threw out there to put people at ease. How many employers do you know that will actually give you an advanced notice before they let you go?


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

wkramer said:


> Uber will never, ever have driverless cars unless they can figure out how to have someone else pay for them. They would not be in business today if they did not have their drivers picking up the most expensive part of their business model, the cars being driven.


This is exactly the crux of it. UBER would have to own and operate the robot cars ( which they can't do because that would make them a transportation company), or they would need to find willing fleet owners ( which is also unlikely because of the costs of operating those fleets.)
It's a pipe dream. It's irrelevant whether the technology is possible. The costs of operating and insurance make the the thing just a dumb idea.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

stuber said:


> This is exactly the crux of it. UBER would have to own and operate the robot cars ( which they can't do because that would make them a transportation company), or they would need to find willing fleet owners ( which is also unlikely because of the costs of operating those fleets.)
> It's a pipe dream. It's irrelevant whether the technology is possible. The costs of operating and insurance make the the thing just a dumb idea.


Well correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Google invested in Uber? Google has that technology, and could easily set that partnership up with Uber. Uber still gets to claim they are a tech company, and Google gets a new revenue stream. Plus Google actually has the resources to make it happen.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Well correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Google invested in Uber? Google has that technology, and could easily set that partnership up with Uber. Uber still gets to claim they are a tech company, and Google gets a new revenue stream. Plus Google actually has the resources to make it happen.


Good point. If anyone could afford it, it would be a Google or Apple. Either of those companies could handle the liability risks. Self insured no doubt. Google could pay out billions in claims and barely even notice. So good retort.

But I don't believe UBER will find large numbers of smaller companies to provide the fleets. Mom and pop companies each owning a handful of robots is certainly out of the question. It costs too much.

Then the question becomes: does Google want the risk if there isn't gigantic financial return? Can the cheap prices that UBER has established support the kind of ROI that Google will demand?


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

stuber said:


> Good point. If anyone could afford it, it would be a Google or Apple. Either of those companies could handle the liability risks. Self insured no doubt. Google could pay out billions in claims and barely even notice. So good retort.
> 
> But I don't believe UBER will find large numbers of smaller companies to provide the fleets. Mom and pop companies each owning a handful of robots is certainly out of the question. It costs too much.
> 
> Then the question becomes: does Google want the risk if there isn't gigantic financial return? Can the cheap prices that UBER has established support the kind of ROI that Google will demand?


The game would be to kill off your competitors taxis, buses etc, and have everyone else (who doesn't really need one) sell their cars, then they would raise prices. Definitely a long-term play, and possibly quite lucrative if all this plays out accordingly. Google & Uber would essentially rule the public transportation (and data mining) industry.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

We already have brainless drivers, why not have driverless cars. Any nit that would sign up to be an Uber slave is just that, brainless.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Willzuber said:


> We already have brainless drivers, why not have driverless cars. Any nit that would sign up to be an Uber slave is just that, brainless.


Is this guy being serious?


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Is this guy being serious?


You'll figure it out.


----------



## Ub-urs (Mar 5, 2015)

UberLo I said it before...The technology is here but far away from being practical and mainstream, Also, Uber is not ready to invest in these vehicles, pay for for their own fuel and pay for real insurance. Think about everything that you have to pay for today just to make a few pennies per ride, do you think Uber is willing to take on that burden? Once (if) Uber puts the cab companies out of business, then they may raise their rates and finally declare themselves as a transportation company, but that is far away from happening.

BTW, if Uber is seeking financing for such endeavor, they would not be discussing it with an investment banker. Especially one that would go around giving out secrets like your PAX.


----------



## Willzuber (Aug 28, 2015)

If Uber ever goes public, I am buying. There are so many willing to work as slaves for the company.


----------



## denverxdriver (Sep 26, 2015)

So I wonder if you can drink and drive if your car is autonomous?


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Ub-urs said:


> UberLo I said it before...The technology is here but far away from being practical and mainstream, Also, Uber is not ready to invest in these vehicles, pay for for their own fuel and pay for real insurance. Think about everything that you have to pay for today just to make a few pennies per ride, do you think Uber is willing to take on that burden? Once (if) Uber puts the cab companies out of business, then they may raise their rates and finally declare themselves as a transportation company, but that is far away from happening.
> 
> BTW, if Uber is seeking financing for such endeavor, they would not be discussing it with an investment banker. Especially one that would go around giving out secrets like your PAX.


But if Uber were to partner with a company like Google, Apple, or Tesla then they could continue on with business as usual with most of the burden being shifted to companies with more resources. Look, I'm sure that guy was some low level exec, but it didn't really sound like he was making the whole story up. Why would he just for small talk? I think Uber is definitely trying to get their own fleet, but will partner with another company in the meantime until they are able to do so.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

I'm simply saying don't be completely surprised if they roll out with these cars sooner than what most of us are anticipating. Look I understand with investments in any given market, timing is everything. Well the market is hotter than ever right now! The race to the finish line is right now, with all these major corporations trying to be the first to put them on the road.


----------



## William1964 (Jul 28, 2015)

The government frowns on drone usage do you really think they're going to allow driverless cars?


----------



## Bob Reynolds (Dec 20, 2014)

UberLo said:


> But if Uber were to partner with a company like Google, Apple, or Tesla then they could continue on with business as usual with most of the burden being shifted to companies with more resources. Look, I'm sure that guy was some low level exec, but it didn't really sound like he was making the whole story up. Why would he just for small talk? I think Uber is definitely trying to get their own fleet, but will partner with another company in the meantime until they are able to do so.


Nobody is going to partner with Uber to do this for a number of reasons.

1. Tesla doesn't have the money to do this.
2. Google doesn't need Uber. They could do this on their own if they decided to go in this direction. They could call it GoogleRide.
3. Apple is gonna do something else.

It appears that Uber is finally being told no by the investment bankers. That means no more money until they get their business under control.


----------



## UBERBUS_LA (Jul 9, 2015)

Uber is DB, not stupid.Why should they invest in driver-less car?
Now they have 20-30% commission
1. car with driver
2. insurance
3. gas
4. maintenance
They have20-30% commission.
on other hand they need to pay for everything above mentioned with driver-less car.
I don't know what will happen when there are not enough car to meet the demand.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Well correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Google invested in Uber? Google has that technology, and could easily set that partnership up with Uber. Uber still gets to claim they are a tech company, and Google gets a new revenue stream. Plus Google actually has the resources to make it happen.


Google invested a "small" amount of money in Uber. Google is currently experimenting with rideshare in Israel. Israel is BTW where Waze (a Google company) originated.

Uber and Google had a falling out, that is why Uber is financing development of their own driverless technology and mapping company.

Google and Uber are now frenemies.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...h-uber-over-ridesharing-and-self-driving-cars


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Bob Reynolds said:


> Nobody is going to partner with Uber to do this for a number of reasons.
> 
> 1. Tesla doesn't have the money to do this.
> 2. Google doesn't need Uber. They could do this on their own if they decided to go in this direction. They could call it GoogleRide.
> ...


As far as Tesla and rideshare,

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/08/07/tesla-ride-sharing-earnings-update/


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Apple will undoubtedly wait until it has its autonomous car fully developed and as near bug free as possible.


----------



## Adbam (Jun 25, 2015)

Lol every time I see these threads I have to shoot them down "sigh" here I go again.....

Uber is a technology company and not a transportation company. If they have those cars they would have to change that.

What stops a cabbie from thowing a rock at a normal uber....the guy that's inside that can chase the cabbie and call the cops.

How does a driverless car clean throw up?

Do you know that people would easily steal those uber rides at parties.
People put the pins at the Wrong location all the time how does a robot car fix that

People would knife the seats, pee in them

How does a robot car go thru the drive thru, help the elderly, load luggage?

I can keep on going. Robo cars can work when you own your own. But won't work in taxi or rideshare

Can robot cars change a tire

Travis k ceo of uber puts all tax burden on drivers but he can't tax a robot

Robot cars will have to obey traffic laws right? You can't program them to break laws uber would be sued. So how are they going to make all the illegal turns and stop illegally in the street down town to p/u pax

Anyone that thinks that rideshare or taxis will work without humans lives in a make belive world where there are always places to park, people are always nice and courteous, thinks GPS directions are always right and roads are perfect.
They live in a make belive upper class world that everything is handed to them. They need to actually drive a cab or a ride share for a couple of months and then they might really realize the true problems.

It will be a game for all the taxi drivers that lost their jobs out there let's go [email protected] up some robot ubers. Puncture tires, hit the sensors on the top, stick gum on the cameras. It would be so easy to do on Halloween everyone's wearing masks.

Especially peeing in an uber the cameras inside wouldn't even see it or hear it. Next guy gets in wtf.

Passed out blacked out drunk guy that was fine when he got in but is out cold in the back after getting to the house. How will they Handle this? Uber eject button? I'm sure taxi drivers and uber drivers have saved pax lives before for what ever reason. People will die in those cars and robot car will sit there.

What if a guy doesn't want to get out says. **** you robouber is it gonna drive to the police station.

10 people will try to pile in those things. People will ask robot uber to open trunk and pile people in there.....I can keep on going. They will spend so much money on those things and they will get torn up in less than a year.


----------



## UBERBUS_LA (Jul 9, 2015)

I like it -"It will be a game for all the taxi drivers that lost their jobs out there let's go [email protected] up some robot ubers. "


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UBERBUS_LA said:


> Uber is DB, not stupid.Why should they invest in driver-less car?
> Now they have 20-30% commission
> *They will get 100% of whatever fare they want to charge.*
> 1. car with driver
> ...


----------



## UBERBUS_LA (Jul 9, 2015)

*Moderator *Would you drive for ride-share when driver-less cars are out there?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UBERBUS_LA said:


> *Moderator *Would you drive for ride-share when driver-less cars are out there?


I don't drive for them NOW. It doesn't make much sense to risk so much to make someone else rich and in the process make so little myself.

If things are bad now, wait till they have driverless cars.


----------



## UberRidiculous (May 19, 2015)

Adbam said:


> Lol every time I see these threads I have to shoot them down "sigh" here I go again.....
> 
> Uber is a technology company and not a transportation company. If they have those cars they would have to change that.
> 
> ...


Yep yep yep!  These assholes are blinded by the glare off their white picket fences.


----------



## KMANDERSON (Jul 19, 2015)

MR5STAR said:


> Lol this is the last thing i'm worried about. Worry about something that actually could happen in the next 25 years like yellowstone errupting.


If you driving for uber in 10 years which probably be when driveless cars come out you got bigger issues then uber


----------



## ocbob2 (Aug 18, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


I wonder where these cars go when there isn't a pax to pick up? Do they go to a holding yard or park at Bank of America taking up spaces like we currently do?


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Driverless cars will put all drivers out of business.

30 years from now.

I'm not worried, I will be retired or dead by then.


----------



## JLA (Mar 26, 2015)

Willzuber said:


> If Uber ever goes public, I am buying. There are so many willing to work as slaves for the company.


Better yet if you want to work for them as a robotics engineer they're currently hiring in Pittsburgh.
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...ted-uber-staffing-up-pittsburgh-robotics.html


Adbam said:


> Lol every time I see these threads I have to shoot them down "sigh" here I go again.....
> 
> Uber is a technology company and not a transportation company. If they have those cars they would have to change that.
> 
> ...


Tell that to Travis then who's already hiring robotic engineers in PA.


----------



## JMBF831 (Aug 13, 2015)

JLA said:


> Better yet if you want to work for them as a robotics engineer they're currently hiring in Pittsburgh.
> http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...ted-uber-staffing-up-pittsburgh-robotics.html
> 
> Tell that to Travis then who's already hiring robotic engineers in PA.


Just because someone has a vision doesn't mean it's going to work...


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

JLA said:


> Better yet if you want to work for them as a robotics engineer they're currently hiring in Pittsburgh.
> http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsbur...ted-uber-staffing-up-pittsburgh-robotics.html
> 
> Tell that to Travis then who's already hiring robotic engineers in PA.


If Uber started hiring time travel engineers, would you think time travel will be a thing in the near future?


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

observer said:


> Google invested a "small" amount of money in Uber. Google is currently experimenting with rideshare in Israel. Israel is BTW where Waze (a Google company) originated.
> 
> Uber and Google had a falling out, that is why Uber is financing development of their own driverless technology and mapping company.
> 
> Google and Uber are now frenemies.


Frenemies or not, business is still business. Google created a social media platform after Facebook, and see how well that went. Also, Google created their own phone, and it's nowhere near as popular as the iphone. Google would be better off partnering with a company like Uber or Lyft seeing as they're not always the best at marketing their plethora of offerings. The partnership makes too much sense not to.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Frenemies or not, business is still business. Google created a social media platform after Facebook, and see how well that went. Also, Google created their own phone, and it's nowhere near as popular as the iphone. Google would be better off partnering with a company like Uber or Lyft seeing as they're not always the best at marketing their plethora of offerings. The partnership makes too much sense not to.


We'll see how things shake out in the future. I think that this TNC concept is in for a huge competition free for all.

Many companies have entered and many more will enter.

Uber has just been the trailblazer.


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

I happen to know someone that works with the driverless cars program at Google. They arent coming out anytime soon he said it's going to be at least 10 years before anything really happens.


----------



## Realityshark (Sep 22, 2014)

I can only imagine what will happen to those cars if / when they hit the road. Ex-Uber drivers will have a blast ****ing them up.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Jose_A said:


> Driverless cars in DC is a very distant fantasy.


Have to disagree with you there...
DC has had driverless cars for decades.
Have you ever tried to get through Dupont Circle at 8AM or 5PM?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> I happen to know someone that works with the driverless cars program at Google. They arent coming out anytime soon he said it's going to be at least 10 years before anything really happens.


People keep forgetting that developing the cars is the easy part.
Developing a roadway system on which they can operate safely in all weather conditions is complex, expensive and will take decades to build out.

If all a driverless car can do is travel a set route 
(on a road that is equipped for driverless cars), 
then they are no better than taking a bus, and worse than taking a train.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Doesn't seem to me that the original poster is presenting his opinion, only his conversation with someone associated with this peripherally. Whatever our bias or incredulity around driverless vehicles, you cannot deny that things are happening in circles we're not privy to, that several companies have jumped on board and are racing each other to market, and there are a few vehicles out on the road already with some companies "planning" to hit public roads in 2-3 years. Case in point:

China's Self-Driving Bus Shows Autonomous Tech's Real Potential
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/chinas-self-driving-bus-shows-autonomous-techs-real-potential/

"


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

To be clear, I think it is to our detriment to wave this off as far fetched or too far in the future to matter. We all agree on the impact economically: loss of jobs. Cab drivers, delivery, truck drivers, bus drivers, etc. I don't think there will be a 1 to 1 exchange of drivers for gas pumpers/car cleaners. -_-

I think we should all take this seriously and push for legislation prohibiting robotic technology that replaces rather than enhances workers. Doesn't matter if the tech rolls out tomorrow or 30 years from now, we lose nothing by protecting ourselves while its still on the horizon.

Or would we rather scramble to get a strike together after several rate drops and a consumer base addicted to the product?


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Preset routes, like those of buses, trolleys, shuttles and trains, make perfect sense for automated driverless vehicles.
Backroad suburban driving where there are no lights, no road lines and roads are often covered for weeks at time by snow, or invisible at night in the rain... well, not so much.

I suspect we'll see pizza delivery by drone before we see driverless cars doing that job.

Still, the potential for safer busing and trucking - and shuttles is absolutely fascinating.
Of course, in cities, those driverless buses will probably require an armed guard on them to prevent vandalism and passenger muggings...


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Preset routes, like those of buses, trolleys, shuttles and trains, make perfect sense for automated driverless vehicles.
> Backroad suburban driving where there are no lights, no road lines and roads are often covered for weeks at time by snow, or invisible at night in the rain... well, not so much.
> 
> I suspect we'll see pizza delivery by drone before we see driverless cars doing that job.
> ...


You're applying human limitations. Uber's driverless cars employs an array of sonar, radar, lasers, and cameras. No light is no problem. Actually safer in a driverless car since it CAN see. The things can even pick up hand signals by cyclists. -_-

Let's not pretend that the engineers behind this are idiots. Adverse road conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc) would be one of the FIRST things they tackle. No roads? No problem.. lets take a look at what thousands of drivers have done on this very road. Where is this data coming from? You ever turn on the GPS on your phone then later log on to your Google account.. and pull up a map of all the routes you drove since? Google logs all of our driving routes. I happen to think there isn't a community of drivers updating traffic conditions on WAZE or Google Maps and its simply pulling that data from our androids.

There is a reason ppl like Elon Musk are saying the cars will hit the roads much sooner than ppl realize and dropping estimates of 2-3 years.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Ubermon said:


> You're applying human limitations. Uber's driverless cars employs an array of sonar, radar, lasers, and cameras. No light is no problem. Actually safer in a driverless car since it CAN see. The things can even pick up hand signals by cyclists. -_-
> 
> Let's not pretend that the engineers behind this are idiots. Adverse road conditions (rain, snow, ice, etc) would be one of the FIRST things they tackle. No roads? No problem.. lets take a look at what thousands of drivers have done on this very road. Where is this data coming from? You ever turn on the GPS on your phone then later log on to your Google account.. and pull up a map of all the routes you drove since? Google logs all of our driving routes. I happen to think there isn't a community of drivers updating traffic conditions on WAZE or Google Maps and its simply pulling that data from our androids.
> 
> There is a reason ppl like Elon Musk are saying the cars will hit the roads much sooner than ppl realize and dropping estimates of 2-3 years.


" CEO Elon Musk said that the company could push another update - autopilot - to its Model S fleet as soon as June [2014].

"While Musk said cars would be technically capable of getting from place to place without a driver having to do anything, initially this feature limited to use on highways, *as neighborhoods pose safety issues given their many obstacles and variables.* Eventually, drivers could also summon their cars or let the vehicles park themselves." [emphasis added] - http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/tesla-plans-launch-autopilot-feature-summer

----------------------------
No doubt the technology is very cool and can do many tasks better than a human.
But the practical application of these vehicles as a substitute for the kind of normal everyday driving we do is a ways off, imo.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Something I think you all should take a look at. Google already has a fleet of vehicles on the road.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> " CEO Elon Musk said that the company could push another update - autopilot - to its Model S fleet as soon as June [2014].
> 
> "While Musk said cars would be technically capable of getting from place to place without a driver having to do anything, initially this feature limited to use on highways, *as neighborhoods pose safety issues given their many obstacles and variables.* Eventually, drivers could also summon their cars or let the vehicles park themselves." [emphasis added] - http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/tesla-plans-launch-autopilot-feature-summer
> 
> ...


He made that prediction earlier this year for June 2015. It was pushed to October:
http://www.cio.com/article/2987156/...eslas-autopilot-mode-expected-in-october.html

And the bit about obstacles pertains to the current Tesla cars post update, not driverless cars in general. I'm not sure if current Tesla cars have all hardware needed to be completely autonomous.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

One thing I am fairly sure of:
I'll see driver-less cars on 'some' roads and routes long
before I can ever get the jet-pack I was promised 50 years ago.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


They would have to find an insurance company that would underwrite. Good luck!! Hahaha!!! Can you imagine the insurance premium on cars that are controlled by electronics?? You don't think the insurance companies have forgotten about Toyota's gas pedal? The insurance premium would probably cost 10x the amount of the car. Not to mention, do you think any state or city would allow these cars to roam aimlessly around? Not going to happen anytime soon. If they try the bullshit of what they did in the past and just implementing without authorization, I don't think any government would release them from impound.

This is different than releasing an app upgrade. There are checks and balances required by law. This is allot different than human beings behind the wheel. One solar flare, one death, this project is in the scrap heap. It could be decades government lets these vehicles roam the streets unattended.

The cars would require FCC authorization as well. Can you imagine with one of Ubers none tested upgrades. They'd probably take down a plane theyre so inept.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Something I think you all should take a look at. Google already has a fleet of vehicles on the road.


Yep in mountain view. They aren't doing so well cohabitating on the road with cars with drivers. Peeps not going to give up their freedom willingly of driving a car, and self-Driving cars will stop for no reason at all and cause accidents. The self driving car has to be able to cohabitate with cars driven by people, if they can't they wont be released in the general public. Regardless if it is the cars with drivers that cause the issue.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> *They would have to find an insurance company that would underwrite. Good luck!! Hahaha!!! Can you imagine the insurance premium on cars that are controlled by electronics?? You don't think the insurance companies have forgotten about Toyota's gas pedal? The insurance premium would probably cost 10x the amount of the car.* Not to mention, do you think any state or city would allow these cars to roam aimlessly around? Not going to happen anytime soon. If they try the bullshit of what they did in the past and just implementing without authorization, I don't think any government would release them from impound.
> 
> This is different than releasing an app upgrade. There are checks and balances required by law. This is allot different than human beings behind the wheel. One solar flare, one death, this project is in the scrap heap. It could be decades government lets these vehicles roam the streets unattended.
> 
> The cars would require FCC authorization as well. Can you imagine with one of Ubers none tested upgrades. They'd probably take down a plane theyre so inept.


I know all of that, but as stated previously by another poster, a company like Google has enough resources to self-insure their own vehicles. If that indeed does happen, all talks of insurance coverage, and liability concerns go out the window at that point. That is why it would totally make sense for Uber and Google to partner up (in the mean time). Uber may not have their own cars until 2030, but that doesn't mean there won't be any self-driving cars on the road before then. Google has been testing vehicles already on the road, and Uber has the platform. Google would have to invest massive amounts of dollars now just to create and market their own. Why waste time (and resources) doing all that when they're already invested in Uber? They could either partner up or just simply buy them (or Lyft) out. Uber is already having trouble finding financing for their own operation, so it looks like this might be the only play if they plan on being around for the long haul. Just a matter of time in my opinion.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> They would have to find an insurance company that would underwrite. Good luck!! Hahaha!!! Can you imagine the insurance premium on cars that are controlled by electronics?? You don't think the insurance companies have forgotten about Toyota's gas pedal? The insurance premium would probably cost 10x the amount of the car. Not to mention, do you think any state or city would allow these cars to roam aimlessly around? Not going to happen anytime soon. If they try the bullshit of what they did in the past and just implementing without authorization, I don't think any government would release them from impound.
> 
> This is different than releasing an app upgrade. There are checks and balances required by law. This is allot different than human beings behind the wheel. One solar flare, one death, this project is in the scrap heap. It could be decades government lets these vehicles roam the streets unattended.
> 
> The cars would require FCC authorization as well. Can you imagine with one of Ubers none tested upgrades. They'd probably take down a plane theyre so inept.


*If cars don't need drivers, do drivers need insurance?*
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/if-cars-dont-need-drivers-do-drivers-need-insurance
"Today, 90 percent of car crashes in the United States are due to driver error. But that percentage could plummet as autonomous and semi-autonomous technology makes driving safer."

Here's my question:
If I buy a driver-less car for personal use and it is controlled by say, Tesla or Google's technology, can I send my 12 year old kid off to school in it?
*If there is no driver in the car - who needs a driver's license?*


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> *If cars don't need drivers, do drivers need insurance?*
> http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/if-cars-dont-need-drivers-do-drivers-need-insurance
> "Today, 90 percent of car crashes in the United States are due to driver error. But that percentage could plummet as autonomous and semi-autonomous technology makes driving safer."
> 
> ...


Valid point. Guess the insurance comes with the car


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Google has enough resources to self-insure their own vehicles


Not going to happen while they are a public company with investors and shareholders.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

UberLo said:


> I know all of that, but as stated previously by another poster, a company like Google has enough resources to self-insure their own vehicles. If that indeed does happen, all talks of insurance coverage, and liability concerns go out the window at that point. That is why it would totally make sense for Uber and Google to partner up (in the mean time). Uber may not have their own cars until 2030, but that doesn't mean their won't be any self-driving cars on the road before then. Google has been testing vehicles already on the road, and Uber has the platform. Google would have to invest massive amounts of dollars now just to create and market their own. Why waste time (and resources) doing all that when they're already invested in Uber? They could either partner up or just simply buy them (or Lyft) out. Uber is already having trouble finding financing for their own operation, so it looks like this might be the only play if they plan on being around for the long haul. Just a matter of time in my opinion.


Thanks for keeping me inline. Only read the first post. I don't think google even needs uber at this point. As they are leaps and bounds in front of uber.

Only thing uber has is the passenger and driver data. Google could probably buy that from uber.

Uber hAs nothing to offer as they are just an app.

As for the insurance, Google will have to have a bond on file for liability insurance. I am sure this won't be an issue as they have a ton of liquid.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Not going to happen while they are a public company with investors and shareholders.


I was just speaking hypothetically. Google needs to find new revenue streams as their old business model of search engine advertising is dying out. Whatever it takes to get it done they will make sure to take care of it. Shareholders will make sure of that.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I'm trying to picture a car with "auto-pilot"delivering a "suicide" car bomb...
the driver speeds towards its target and then the car stops within inches...
driver backs-up, tries again - same result... over and over.

Same scenario with the wife-scorned who tries to run over her cheating husband in the driveway.
Hey, these things really could save lives!

The price we'll pay is that we won't be able to 'push' our friend's disabled car off the street by matching bumpers anymore.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> Uber hAs nothing to offer as they are just an app.


I wouldn't say that.

They bought the entire Carnegie-Melon autonomous car research center.
They bought the top lobbyists in the country.
They raided the Taxi & Limo boards for some of the most powerful and influential politicians in the industry.
They have an enormous asset in the data they have archived over the last 4 years.
And they have these mints in really cool black wrappers with the Uber logo.
I'd say they have a lot of valuable assets.


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


POST # 1/UberLo: Bostonian Bison
Thanks You for this
Thread-Started based upon Firsthand
Information. Funny that the Investment
Banker used the ineffectual "******"
versus T.K.'s preferred descriptor of
"@$$hole". His observation of "Travis
Mania" helps confirm This Bison's Diag-
nosis of his being on an Extended Hypo-
nanic Episode that will Crash and Burn
upon his Swift Removal upon Regulatory/
Accountancy Revelations of the "Cooked
Crooked Books" just prior to/after the
BallyhooBullsh☆t IPO. He will take his
own life, unless Someone Vengeant does
it First.

Let us Pray for the Swift Demise of the
"Champion of Open Schadenfreude."


----------



## Casuale Haberdasher (Dec 7, 2014)

MR5STAR said:


> Lol this is the last thing i'm worried about. Worry about something that actually could happen in the next 25 years like yellowstone errupting.


POST # 2/MR5STAR: EXCELLENT!
That would piss the
Bison off to NO END! 
Casuale Haberdasher 's money is on
an Extinction Level asteroid escaping
detection until "it's too late".


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Google needs to find new revenue streams as their old business model of search engine advertising is dying out.


Google hasn't been just a search engine advertising company for a very long time...
Their revenues indicate that they are doing just fine in everything they do, 
even considering the money they toss into experiments, acquisitions and research.

GOOGLE REVENUES

2011: $37.9 Bil
2012: $46.0 Bil
2013: $55.5 Bil
2014: $66.0 Bil


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

I wonder if as riders we'll still get to 'rate' our driver-less car... and send in comments.
**** _"Terrible attitude, but longitude and latitude were acceptable"_

Will the cars get deactivated if their rating falls below 4.6?


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Google hasn't been just a search engine advertising company for a very long time...
> Their revenues indicate that they are doing just fine in everything they do,
> even considering the money they toss into experiments, acquisitions and research.





Michael - Cleveland said:


> GOOGLE REVENUES
> 
> 2011: $37.9 Bil
> 2012: $46.0 Bil
> ...




*The bulk of Google's revenue during the second quarter comes from advertising revenues, reaching a total of $16.23 billion with $1.7 billion in other revenues added to make up the total of $17.7 billion listed above. The majority of Google's ad revenue also came from their own websites reaching a total of $12.4 billion and $3.62 billion coming from Google's network partner sites*. These figures translate to a 13 percent increase of Google's own site revenues from last year, a 2 percent increase of revenues from Google's network partner sites from last year, and a 4 percent and 1 percent increase respectively for those same figures from Q1 to Q2 of 2015. Paid clicks are up 18 percent over 2014 while they're up 7 percent over the previous quarter, and cost per clicks are down 11 percent over last year and down 4 percent over the last quarter. Google also reports a strong operating cash flow of $7 billion.

http://www.androidheadlines.com/201...15-earnings-with-17-7-billion-in-revenue.html


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Now also picturing a driver-less car at 2:30AM being asked to stop at the nearest Taco-Bell Drive Thru.

I think there's a comic strip syndication in here somewhere.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberLo said:


> *The bulk of Google's revenue during the second quarter comes from advertising revenues, reaching a total of $16.23 billion with $1.7 billion in other revenues added to make up the total of $17.7 billion listed above. The majority of Google's ad revenue also came from their own websites reaching a total of $12.4 billion and $3.62 billion coming from Google's network partner sites*. These figures translate to a 13 percent increase of Google's own site revenues from last year, a 2 percent increase of revenues from Google's network partner sites from last year, and a 4 percent and 1 percent increase respectively for those same figures from Q1 to Q2 of 2015. Paid clicks are up 18 percent over 2014 while they're up 7 percent over the previous quarter, and cost per clicks are down 11 percent over last year and down 4 percent over the last quarter. Google also reports a strong operating cash flow of $7 billion.
> 
> http://www.androidheadlines.com/201...15-earnings-with-17-7-billion-in-revenue.html


Yup...
and if you read the analyst reports for Google, they note that desktop ppc has leveled off and mobile advertising revenues are finally beginning to (pardon the expression) 'surge'.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Yup...
> and if you read the analyst reports for Google, they note that desktop ppc has leveled off and mobile advertising revenues are finally beginning to (pardon the expression) 'surge'.


What that simply means for those who don't understand is that Google is "evolving" from strictly just generating revenue from desktop search ads to mobile search ads. Keywords here still being "search", and "ad" revenue. Google is still facing stiff competition in that arena with Youtube and Facebook.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberLo said:


> What that simply means for those who don't understand is that Google is "evolving" from strictly just generating revenue from desktop search ads to mobile search ads. Keywords here still being "search", and "ad" revenue. Google is still facing stiff competition in that arena with Youtube and Facebook.


Google bought YouTube nine years ago.
They're probably not too worried about competition coming from that direction.

Since July 1 the share price of GOOG (Alphabet, Inc.) has gone from $522 to $642. (+20% in 90 days)
Seems that shareholders aren't too worried either.

Facebook is trying to give Google a run for its money with great new features for video postings and hyperlinks... but YouTube hasn't been sitting still either. There is still no browser that I am aware of that can use facebook as a default search engine.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> Google bought YouTube nine years ago.
> They're probably not too worried about competition coming from that direction.
> 
> Since July 1 the share price of GOOG (Alphabet, Inc.) has gone from $522 to $642. (+20% in 90 days)
> ...


You're totally right, I forgot that Google owns Youtube. Maybe that's part of the reason their earnings are so strong for the quarter. Also, Facebook (just like Youtube) isn't considered a search engine in the traditional sense, but it is one of the world leading sites in terms of actual search traffic. They also offer (like Youtube) hyper-targeted PPC, and Mobile ad solutions in addition to social gaming apps. They also own Instagram (another widely popular app) so you could say they've become almost like the Google of Social Media.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

UberLo said:


> You're totally right I forgot that Google owns Youtube. Maybe that's part of the reason their earnings are so strong for the quarter.


Facebook is still pretty laser focused on SM and 'connecting the world' (Go Zuck! hehe).
Google is a much more mature and diversified company...
especially with the move to create Alphabet as a holding company
(making room for 'bold' investments in future technologies while continuing to develop the cash cow search and advertising products).

It's all pretty interesting... and no one knows what the future holds,
but since FB is trading at 97 x earnings and Goog is holding steady at around 32 x earnings
imo, Goog is the safer bet from an investment perspective, while FB is a lot more speculative.

nice blog/article on the investment side of things here


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

I too had an uber investor in my car. That Chris Sacca guy. He was pretty cool but definitely came off intense and very opinionated. He was quite chatty and kept pushing me into conversation topics that made me feel stupid. He knew way more about this ride share stuff then me. I guess he just was hoping He could carry on a deep convo about uber and tech, but sorry man I just drive the cars. He did say uber would be bigger then Facebook and rival Google in size which I doubted and he was quick to tell me why I Was wrong.


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lag Monkey said:


> I too had an uber investor in my car. That Chris Sacca guy. He was pretty cool but definitely came off intense and very opinionated. He was quite chatty and kept pushing me into conversation topics that made me feel stupid. He knew way more about this ride share stuff then me. I guess he just was hoping He could carry on a deep convo about uber and tech, but sorry man I just drive the cars. He did say uber would be bigger then Facebook and rival Google in size which I doubted and he was quick to tell me why I Was wrong.


But did he tip you?


----------



## Lag Monkey (Feb 6, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> But did he tip you?


He's a billionaire, literally I just googled to check and no he didn't. He did seem very passionate about uber and was convinced drivers were making bank so I'm sure he felt no obligation to. I was very pro uber and in the honey moon faze and telling him how much i was making adding to his allusion of driver earnings. Not even a year later I'm leading an all out war against uber. Oh how things change. I swear these uber guys think that we really are making good money at this, they probably think we make above min wage and are just complaining for more, truth is many drivers are below or at min wage and have zero benefits. That's definitely not a good deal


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

Lag Monkey said:


> He's a billionaire, literally I just googled to check and no he didn't. He did seem very passionate about uber and was convinced drivers were making bank so I'm sure he felt no obligation to. I was very pro uber and in the honey moon faze and telling him how much i was making adding to his allusion of driver earnings. Not even a year later I'm leading an all out war against uber. Oh how things change. I swear these uber guys think that we really are making good money at this, they probably think we make above min wage and are just complaining for more, truth is many drivers are below or at min wage and have zero benefits. That's definitely not a good deal


Yes... He's one of the Angel investors that funded Instagram, Twitter and Uber. 
His investment in Uber alone is worth more than $1bil. 
What a cool ride!


----------



## PoorBasterd (Mar 6, 2015)

Ahhhh, yes. I can see it already. A small percentage of very wealthy people living in well guarded, palatial mansions while the rest of us scramble for a space to sleep at night under a bridge or highway overpass. 

The future is not looking bright by any means.


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

These driverless cars operate around mountain view and other cities. They are monitoring them heavenly. Look driverless cars are a reality but not anytime soon. The software and hardware for that is going to possible triple the cost of the car. Do you guys know how long the driverless cars have been in testing? A long freaking time not to mention they BARELY started with the nobody in the car testing.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Volvo Will Accept Liability For Its Self-Driving Cars
OCT 9, 2015 @ 11:48 AM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorz...l-accept-liability-for-its-self-driving-cars/

Quote from article:


> Only a few days after unveiling the user interface for its coming IntelliSafe Auto Pilot self-driving system, Volvo's president and chief executive Håkan Samuelsson said the company would "accept full liability whenever one if its cars is in autonomous mode."


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

I probably should have posted this one first.

Volvo, Google, and Mercedes-Benz will accept liability in self-driving car accidents
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/a...elf-driving-car-accidents-news/#ixzz3o5v0IfUk



> A pair of automakers and one technology giant are now attempting to fast-track at least one part of the regulatory process: liability for an autonomous vehicle accident. Volvo, Google, and Mercedes-Benz have now all said that they will accept full liability if their self-driving vehicles cause a collision.


----------



## leadcuresuber (Oct 7, 2015)

Can you imagine the damage these driverless cars would cop without a driver to look after them ! I would say many of them would end up on their roofs with wheels up in air just for starters !


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

wkramer said:


> Uber will never, ever have driverless cars unless they can figure out how to have someone else pay for them. They would not be in business today if they did not have their drivers picking up the most expensive part of their business model, the cars being driven.


^^^
Partners would buy the driverless cars and then sit at home on the sofa tracking their cars on the flat screen while stuffing their faces.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

leadcuresuber said:


> Can you imagine the damage these driverless cars would cop without a driver to look after them ! I would say many of them would end up on their roofs with wheels up in air just for starters !


^^^
Yeah.... put that way by disgruntled cab drivers.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

sidewazzz said:


> These driverless cars operate around mountain view and other cities. They are monitoring them heavenly. Look driverless cars are a reality but not anytime soon. The software and hardware for that is going to possible triple the cost of the car. Do you guys know how long the driverless cars have been in testing? A long freaking time not to mention they BARELY started with the nobody in the car testing.


^^^
LOL @ "heavenly".
You mean monitoring them by satellite by any chance?


----------



## Micmac (Jul 31, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


Lemme tell ya something those cars are not fully automated they still need human driver . Fully automated will be ready 3020 you won't be here so chilax man


----------



## Oscar Levant (Aug 15, 2014)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


No way, the programming hurdles are astronomical. If they do get them out, they are going to backfire, there are so many situations I can think of that would require a human being behind the wheel, I just don't see this happening soon, unless the entire roads are regimented in some future way, and we are a long ways off to that.

And, they won't be cheaper. Imagine uber maintaining warehouses in every city, maintenance techs, admin personell, then payrolls, accounting, sheesh, no way is it going to be cheaper.

Then you have to get people to want them. I wouldn't climb into one, no way. They havent' perfected the damn GPS.


----------



## ATM (Oct 10, 2015)

Well.. to begin with 1) Google has 4 or 5 driverless car roving around S.F. 
2)The owner of Uber, clearly stated in Bloomberg 6mos ago that is his goal.
3) In 3-5yrs driverless well exist and within 5-10 the legal and moral issues will be resolved.
4) 5-10yr taxi drivers..or any drivers will be put out to pasture, as if you didn't figure that out already.
5) If drivers regardless of who they work for, which to keep on going, they should be calling their
congressman and senators to pass a FEDERAL LAW banning driverless taxis/limos/ubers/lyfts etc.
thats the big one and better to start now, than one day waking up and getting a DEAR PARTNER (jane)
letter.. your services are no longer needed.. good luck to you. haha..so much for being a Partner.
I would say someone should check w/a lawyer to see if in the true sense of the "PARTNER" word that
they call us, yet never ask our view on major issues be it reducing ratings (aka in NJ) or allowing NY Uber
drivers to Troll around in NJ but we can't do it in NYC.. (dont care about TLC..).. they can shut off them (ny lic.drivers)
just like they block us from doing biz in NYC/NY... and if TLC says they can't.. UH!! TLC rules NYC/NY .. they 
have no standing in NJ!. BUT getting back to the Partner...wondering if LEGALLY, being they call us that
do we (drivers) have any standing to pursue legal recourse should that happen? (which it will happen..no two ways
about that)..


----------



## Michael - Cleveland (Jan 1, 2015)

ATM said:


> ...so much for being a Partner.
> I would say someone should check w/a lawyer to see if in the true sense of the "PARTNER" word that
> they call us, yet never ask our view on major issues ...wondering if LEGALLY, being they call us that
> do we (drivers) have any standing to pursue legal recourse should that happen?


The designation of 'partner' has no legal meaning. 
It is a word, not a legal term. 
'Partner' means only what is defined within the 'partner agreement'. 
Nice try, though.


----------



## Adbam (Jun 25, 2015)

Again Michael Cleveland roaming the boards arguing with people for no reason. He's the biggest troll on here. I guarantee he has no "real" friends that like being around him and has never been able to stay in a long term relationship.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

MR5STAR said:


> Lol this is the last thing i'm worried about. Worry about something that actually could happen in the next 25 years like yellowstone errupting.


Can you believe those people in those horseless carriages! They'll never catch on!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Driverless cars will be available for purchase in no less than 5 years.

The technology is here. They are ALREADY on the roads.

Insurance companies will clamor to insure them as they will probably be 100 times safer than a human.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

William1964 said:


> The government frowns on drone usage do you really think they're going to allow driverless cars?


The government doesn't frown on Drones, they just haven't figured out how to tax them.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Adbam said:


> Uber is a technology company and not a transportation company. If they have those cars they would have to change that.


Nope. They don't have to own them to get them clients.



Adbam said:


> What stops a cabbie from thowing a rock at a normal uber....the guy that's inside that can chase the cabbie and call the cops.


Cameras.



Adbam said:


> How does a driverless car clean throw up?


They return to their home base.



Adbam said:


> Do you know that people would easily steal those uber rides at parties.
> People put the pins at the Wrong location all the time how does a robot car fix that


They have an Uber card they have to swipe or a bar code on their phone they have to use to get the doors to unlock. This is just silly. How do hotels keep you out of rooms?

Pins? Pins? The car does what a human does, contacts the rider and asks for an address or better pin.



Adbam said:


> People would knife the seats, pee in them


Not more than once. You do get that Uber knows who you are and the car will have cameras?



Adbam said:


> How does a robot car go thru the drive thru, help the elderly, load luggage?


You don't think a SDC can go through a drive thru? Why? Um, they will go anywhere a driven car can go. Have you even looked at the technology?

Help load the luggage? Well, sure, it could, or it could just have a street level cargo space door. You sure are desperate to find something it can't do as if that would stop all SDCs.



Adbam said:


> I can keep on going. Robo cars can work when you own your own. But won't work in taxi or rideshare


False.



Adbam said:


> Can robot cars change a tire


Yes, they probably could if you wanted them to, but why would you? A service person comes and changes it just like most tires today.



Adbam said:


> Travis k ceo of uber puts all tax burden on drivers but he can't tax a robot


Tax burdens? What?



Adbam said:


> Robot cars will have to obey traffic laws right? You can't program them to break laws uber would be sued. So how are they going to make all the illegal turns and stop illegally in the street down town to p/u pax


They find the closest safe spot and notify the pax? Maybe?



Adbam said:


> Anyone that thinks that rideshare or taxis will work without humans lives in a make belive world where there are always places to park, people are always nice and courteous, thinks GPS directions are always right and roads are perfect.
> They live in a make belive upper class world that everything is handed to them. They need to actually drive a cab or a ride share for a couple of months and then they might really realize the true problems.


You have convinced me, you have no idea what a SDC will even be capable of. They will know more about the roads and conditions than a human ever could. Every car could tell every other car everything they know, live. Please, for god's sake, don't tell me you think they will be reliant on GPS alone and you have taken all this time to give us your opinion.



Adbam said:


> It will be a game for all the taxi drivers that lost their jobs out there let's go [email protected] up some robot ubers. Puncture tires, hit the sensors on the top, stick gum on the cameras. It would be so easy to do on Halloween everyone's wearing masks.


You sure do think very little of cabbies. I can't blame you. Cabbies will want to go to jail and owe thousands of dollars for damaging a SDC? You really think that?



Adbam said:


> Especially peeing in an uber the cameras inside wouldn't even see it or hear it. Next guy gets in wtf.


Why could a camera not see or hear that? You haven't thought this through, have you? Cameras are inexpensive and can see everything, even in the dark. It's not the 1970s anymore. EVEN if you couldn't prevent it, and you can, the next guy says there's pee in the car and they charge the previous pax for the damage and it returns to home base for a cleaning.



Adbam said:


> Passed out blacked out drunk guy that was fine when he got in but is out cold in the back after getting to the house. How will they Handle this? Uber eject button? I'm sure taxi drivers and uber drivers have saved pax lives before for what ever reason. People will die in those cars and robot car will sit there.


An unresponsive passenger? Call an ambulance. Auto-dial emergency contacts. Attempt to revive with lights and sounds. It's not an obligation to be a medic.



Adbam said:


> What if a guy doesn't want to get out says. **** you robouber is it gonna drive to the police station.


Sure. Why not? Or dial the police. What is wrong with you?



Adbam said:


> 10 people will try to pile in those things. People will ask robot uber to open trunk and pile people in there.....I can keep on going. They will spend so much money on those things and they will get torn up in less than a year.


People in the trunk? More people than it can hold? It's called sensors and cameras, silly. These sensor things can detect everything you are saying.

You could keep sounding completely uninformed on this subject, sure, but why do that to yourself?

By the way, just because it is self driving doesn't mean a human can't intervene, view what is happening, take control of the car, or contact the passengers live. You think these are roadblocks when they are foreseeable and easily overcome challenges.


----------



## UBERZERKER (Aug 13, 2015)

denverxdriver said:


> So I wonder if you can drink and drive if your car is autonomous?


Technically it would be drink and ride...lol,
But sure, why not?

If you could sleep and arrive safely, why not party and **** too?

The possibilities and privileges will be enormous.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> If Uber started hiring time travel engineers, would you think time travel will be a thing in the near future?


Please tell me you don't think time travel is not possible.

We already time travel. I'm serious. Every day people are time traveling.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

JMBF831 said:


> Just because someone has a vision doesn't mean it's going to work...


And just because ignorant people think it won't work, doesn't mean it on't.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> I happen to know someone that works with the driverless cars program at Google. They arent coming out anytime soon he said it's going to be at least 10 years before anything really happens.


There are a dozen major companies competing to be first. It's happening and it's happening soon.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Michael - Cleveland said:


> People keep forgetting that developing the cars is the easy part.
> Developing a roadway system on which they can operate safely in all weather conditions is complex, expensive and will take decades to build out.
> 
> If all a driverless car can do is travel a set route
> ...


Why would you say something so silly? why in the world would a driverless car need different roads?!


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> They would have to find an insurance company that would underwrite. Good luck!! Hahaha!!! Can you imagine the insurance premium on cars that are controlled by electronics?? You don't think the insurance companies have forgotten about Toyota's gas pedal? The insurance premium would probably cost 10x the amount of the car. Not to mention, do you think any state or city would allow these cars to roam aimlessly around? Not going to happen anytime soon. If they try the bullshit of what they did in the past and just implementing without authorization, I don't think any government would release them from impound.


Are you kidding? Insurance companies will be lining up to cover these cars that will be FAR safer than driven cars. It will be a boon for the insurance companies.

Oh, and your car is already driven by electronics all the time. So are airplanes and trains.

Yes, cities and states will let them roam around, they already do. Not sure why they would do it aimlessly, but I'm sure you do, because you've obviously thought this through.



Optimus Uber said:


> This is different than releasing an app upgrade. There are checks and balances required by law. This is allot different than human beings behind the wheel. One solar flare, one death, this project is in the scrap heap. It could be decades government lets these vehicles roam the streets unattended.


Um, cars driven by people killed 32,719 in 2013 alone in the US. Are human driven cars in the scrapheap?

Again, governments ALREADY allow them. Many more are preparing to allow them.



Optimus Uber said:


> The cars would require FCC authorization as well. Can you imagine with one of Ubers none tested upgrades. They'd probably take down a plane theyre so inept.


Why would they need the FCCs approval?!?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

UBERZERKER said:


> Technically it would be drink and ride...lol,
> But sure, why not?
> 
> If you could sleep and arrive safely, why not party and **** too?
> ...


People just can't seem to grasp the advantages of a self driven car. Passengers already drink in cars in many states. Not all citizens shed their rights on a whim.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Are you kidding? Insurance companies will be lining up to cover these cars that will be FAR safer than driven cars. It will be a boon for the insurance companies.
> 
> Oh, and your car is already driven by electronics all the time. So are airplanes and trains.
> 
> ...


Because they drive by wire. There needs to be a signal sent to them to tell them where to go. What happens when a solar flare interrupts the communicatiom?

Have you forgotten about the Toyota gas pedal issue? Do you think insurance companies have forgotten about it?

What I do know is it will take allot longer to get from point a to point b as everything is binary.

They are allot farther off than some people think. They can make it but how long before society accepts it and allows the implementation of it.

I realize they are already here, but they are in confined locations and not being unleashed into the general population.

As for insurance. They require commercial insurance. Let's see these companies digest that over head. Uber just raised their safe rider fee by .65 per ride. I think you underestimate the insurance costs.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> Because they drive by wire. There needs to be a signal sent to them to tell them where to go. What happens when a solar flare interrupts the communicatiom?


You ask these questions as if they haven't already been considered and addressed by far smarter people than you and I. They have.

I don't think you know what "drive by wire" means. Current cars already drive by wire. You press down on the accelerator and an electronic signal is sent to the engine. They don't use physical cables anymore. Planes, trains, boats, Autos, buses, they almost all drive by wire.

There needs to be a signal? Well, not entirely true, but yes, they will use GPS and cell signals and possibly proprietary radio signals to assist the SDC, but they will also be able to function without those signals. These have all existed for some time and require no further approval. Everything the cars will use electronically, that I'm aware of, already exists and is in use today.

A solar flare? So what?



Optimus Uber said:


> Have you forgotten about the Toyota gas pedal issue? Do you think insurance companies have forgotten about it?


I know nothing about "the Toyota gas pedal issue" and I'm sure the insurance companies couldn't care less. Technology issues are a built in risk they already charge for.



Optimus Uber said:


> What I do know is it will take allot longer to get from point a to point b as everything is binary.


Uh, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Binary? Dude, SDCs will eventually be able to travel far faster than a driven car many many times safer. Think 200 mph a foot away from each other. Things humans can't do.

Not only will it not take longer, when we have 100% SDCs, it will end traffic congestion, traffic lights, stop signs, etc. Beides, being self driven means you can work or enjoy entertainment and not worry about commute times anymore.



Optimus Uber said:


> They are allot farther off than some people think. They can make it but how long before society accepts it and allows the implementation of it.


Soon. Just like they adapted to Uber.



Optimus Uber said:


> I realize they are already here, but they are in confined locations and not being unleashed into the general population.


Nope, they are on the roads in major cities and have driven coast to coast in live traffic conditions.



Optimus Uber said:


> As for insurance. They require commercial insurance. Let's see these companies digest that over head. Uber just raised their safe rider fee by .65 per ride. I think you underestimate the insurance costs.


I'm not, you're overestimating it. When these cars show their track record for safety, insurance companies will line up. No drunk, tired, distracted and careless drivers? Hell yeah we'll insure them.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> You ask these questions as if they haven't already been considered and addressed by far smarter people than you and I. They have.
> 
> I don't think you know what "drive by wire" means. Current cars already drive by wire. You press down on the accelerator and an electronic signal is sent to the engine. They don't use physical cables anymore. Planes, trains, boats, Autos, buses, they almost all drive by wire.
> 
> ...


They have driven coast to coast in controlled traffic conditions. Not live traffic conditions. They were watched 100% of the way. Having people watch a self driven car to make sure they dont go out of control is not allowing it to drive itself unattended.

As far as the rest of your opinions we will see how things play out.

We are going to have to disagree at this juncture in time.


----------



## Adbam (Jun 25, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Nope. They don't have to own them to get them clients.
> 
> Cameras.
> 
> ...


Cameras don't stop people from committing crimes especially when there are masks or hoodies. We are talking about dark streets not well lit stores.

I don't think you drive at night very much and don't have much Uber experience.

You say taxes... what? Don't you realize that Uber is investing and researching driverless cars. Do you really think Uber is going to become a car dealer? They are making them to use them. Uber dodges transportation laws and uses tax loopholes by being a tech company. If they own and operate robot cars they will be a transportation company.

All your answers are sensors cameras sensors cameras human interaction. Your describing a very expensive car. Do you really think people will want to drive in a car with cameras at every angle?

An Uber card to get in the car or another sensor to scan the pax phone? More $ and what about people that order Uber for girlfriends and family members. Drunk people looking for the Uber card to get in.

You say cameras or microphones will sense pee, tears and throwup? You say the next pax will tell the car and it will be fixed. What about that next pax? Can you say lawsuit? A human is supposed to go offline after a mess but you say let the next pax fix the issue by sitting in pee or throwup.

I don't think you drive very much at night in a downtown environment pax want to be picked up very close to where they are standing they don't want to walk 10 blocks to the next legal and empty street parking place.

So your robot car has cameras that can magically see all the nooks and crevices in a car. Think about where cameras are placed in stores? They are placed where they can record a large area of the store. There isn't a large area in a car. People have dog poop on thier shoes but your cameras and sensors will see that.

Your sensors and cameras will be able to tell a person from a bag in the trunk. It is possible but would require more $$$ and more human interaction.

Why don't you read this forum a bit and you will realize there will be a bunch of former Uber drivers and cabbies that will screw with robo ubers. Your answers are cameras call the cops. Yeah Cops will stop what they are doing and drive full speed to help a robot car. HAHAHAHA. An Obama mask thwarts a camera.

You came on this thread throwing insults and arguing everyone's posts. Just admit that your a troll that gets off on arguing with people. You don't work nights in the city. You are describing a very expensive car that doesn't exist, yes it can exist but would be very expensive to own and operate. Not worth 1$ a mile.

Since your so knowledgeable about the logistics of making a robo uber please make one. Prove me wrong.

Go ahead and respond to this post with more insults and more expensive options or posibilties. I won't be replying to your coments on this thread. I won't fan your troll fire anymore.


----------



## Optimus Uber (Oct 7, 2014)

Entire thread based on assumptions. We'll see how it unfolds


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> There are a dozen major companies competing to be first. It's happening and it's happening soon.


No its not.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Can you believe those people in those horseless carriages! They'll never catch on!


^^^
But I still carry a buggy whip in my assigned car at work.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> They have driven coast to coast in controlled traffic conditions.


Nope. They did it in live traffic on live streets and interstates.


----------



## Uber-Doober (Dec 16, 2014)

RamzFanz said:


> Nope. They did it in live traffic on live streets and interstates.


^^^
http://www.gizmag.com/delphi-drive-completed/36859/


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Adbam said:


> Cameras don't stop people from committing crimes especially when there are masks or hoodies. We are talking about dark streets not well lit stores.
> 
> I don't think you drive at night very much and don't have much Uber experience.


Cameras both deter and help catch people who commit crimes. Alarms help chase them off. Attacking an SDC is no different than any other vandalism other than the SDC is equipped to record it in a 360 degree view and immediately contact authorities with evidence. Of course some vandalism will happen. So what?



Adbam said:


> You say taxes... what? Don't you realize that Uber is investing and researching driverless cars. Do you really think Uber is going to become a car dealer? They are making them to use them. Uber dodges transportation laws and uses tax loopholes by being a tech company. If they own and operate robot cars they will be a transportation company.


You assume they will operate under current driven car laws. That's silly. Also, if they are eliminating the river, their gross profit goes up 80% a ride, and it will work almost constantly. That's a lot of income.

You assume the laws won't be changing. People don't want low service highly regulated and expensive options like cabbies. They want Uber and soon, self driving cars. Watch, you'll see.



Adbam said:


> All your answers are sensors cameras sensors cameras human interaction. Your describing a very expensive car. Do you really think people will want to drive in a car with cameras at every angle?


No, I'm not. Cameras and sensors are very inexpensive. Delphi estimates the entire electronics package will be about $5,000.



Adbam said:


> An Uber card to get in the car or another sensor to scan the pax phone? More $ and what about people that order Uber for girlfriends and family members. Drunk people looking for the Uber card to get in.


I said OR. Uber card OR bar code. Neither require an expensive anything. A $5 camera attached to the operating system can read a barcode or even a face. So all you may need is a face.

Friends and family? Come on dude, this stuff is so easy. You text them the barcode.

EVEN IF people snatch a free ride, so what? It's pennies. You think it would impact the system at all?!?



Adbam said:


> You say cameras or microphones will sense pee, tears and throwup? You say the next pax will tell the car and it will be fixed. What about that next pax? Can you say lawsuit? A human is supposed to go offline after a mess but you say let the next pax fix the issue by sitting in pee or throwup.


Yes, inexpensive sensors can detect liquids, video for evidence and audio record for evidence. ZERO dollars lost.

I said no such thing. The next pax pushes a button on their phone, car needs cleaning / bodily waste / away it goes to be cleaned and the last pax is charged and audio / video evidence saved.

You silly people are so scared of lawsuits. Uber has been in how many lawsuits already? Hundreds. They aren't scared. They have an army of lawyers. You don't seem to have any grasp of what negligence and culpability are. If the passenger does something like urinates, THEY are responsible, not Uber. Uber would have to know about it and do nothing to even include them in the argument. Then there would need to be actual damages. How is one damaged by pee on the floor again?



Adbam said:


> I don't think you drive very much at night in a downtown environment pax want to be picked up very close to where they are standing they don't want to walk 10 blocks to the next legal and empty street parking place.


I drive downtown every night I work. I make Pax walk to me all the time because of traffic conditions. You want it to be a big deal, it's not. In congested areas where pickup isn't possible, you have a designated Uber spot. Problem solved. What if they don't want to walk a block? Call a cabbie. Who cares?



Adbam said:


> So your robot car has cameras that can magically see all the nooks and crevices in a car. Think about where cameras are placed in stores? They are placed where they can record a large area of the store. There isn't a large area in a car. People have dog poop on thier shoes but your cameras and sensors will see that.


Sensors and cameras are cheap. Very cheap. I know all about them, security systems, surveillance systems, and automation systems. I used to design, install, and program all of them. They're cheap. You could have 20 a/v cameras in the interior for less than $100. Another hundred will get you a dozen sensors.

Dog poop? Next pax reports it, car heads in for cleaning, last pax charged, video evidence saved.



Adbam said:


> Your sensors and cameras will be able to tell a person from a bag in the trunk. It is possible but would require more $$$ and more human interaction.


Yes, a simple infrared camera will detect humans and animals. Cheap and easy. The system will also be able to detect the number of people in the passenger compartment using infrared and weight. When the system is triggered, a human takes a peek to ensure everything is ok. If it's not, they "skype" in and explain to the pax they have too many people. This isn't new. It happens all day every day in other ways with off-the-shelf technology.



Adbam said:


> Why don't you read this forum a bit and you will realize there will be a bunch of former Uber drivers and cabbies that will screw with robo ubers. Your answers are cameras call the cops. Yeah Cops will stop what they are doing and drive full speed to help a robot car. HAHAHAHA. An Obama mask thwarts a camera.


You got me, I didn't know there were bands of ex-uber drivers ex-cabbies preparing for war with the SDC willing to be jailed and pay thousands of dollars in damages and fines. Let me know when the revolution begins! 



Adbam said:


> You came on this thread throwing insults and arguing everyone's posts. Just admit that your a troll that gets off on arguing with people. You don't work nights in the city. You are describing a very expensive car that doesn't exist, yes it can exist but would be very expensive to own and operate. Not worth 1$ a mile.


They are expensive to do the R&D and testing. The final product is expected to be priced just like other cars with perhaps a $3,000-$5,ooo premium at first. Eventually when all driving controls are removed, they will be cheaper than today's cars. You imagine all of this gadgetry from James Bond but, in reality, everything needed was invented, tested, approved, and brought to market long ago and is in use around the world today.



Adbam said:


> Since your so knowledgeable about the logistics of making a robo uber please make one. Prove me wrong.


I don't need to, they are on the roads today. Every day in major cities and normal traffic conditions. They even encounter each other on the streets. I'm way too late to catch up. Major corporations around the world are racing to be first. Honda, Mercedes, Ford, Lexus, Google, Uber, Tesla, BMW, Audi, Delphi, Apple, and more. Are they all wrong? Are you really smarter than they are? Do you not grasp that companies like this can get the legislation they want?



Adbam said:


> Go ahead and respond to this post with more insults and more expensive options or posibilties. I won't be replying to your coments on this thread. I won't fan your troll fire anymore.


I commented to squash the blowhard, no-nothing, BS, uninformed people like you want to spread. Stop offering nonsense opinions on a subject you know nothing about and I'll stop exposing them.

The part that naysayers always leave out is people will LOVE self driving cars. They will adapt immediately and never look back. The world isn't populated with old people who are scared of their settings on their phones. People today WANT the new technology. No cost of ownership. No time in traffic. A tiny fraction of the risk of injury and death today.

When all is said and done, driving will become all but extinct. It will be looked at like smoking. It kills people by the tens of thousands in the US alone every year, it pollutes, it's unnecessary and dangerous.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> No its not.


Honda, Mercedes, Ford, Lexus, Google, Uber, Tesla, BMW, Audi, Delphi, Apple, and more. Are they all wrong?

The experts are saying 2-5 years.

They are ALREADY on the roads in major cities EVERY day. If you want to say this isn't happening soon, you need to go back to the year 2000.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

What you will find in this thread are people who know nothing about the subject trying with all their might to throw up imaginary roadblocks as if they were insurmountable.

These companies have gathered hundreds of the best engineering minds long ago to make this happen:

Honda, Mercedes, Ford, Lexus, Google, Uber, Tesla, BMW, Audi, Delphi, Apple, and more. Are they all wrong? No, they are not only not wrong, they are ALREADY ON OUR ROADS EVERY DAY.

*- It's too expensive.*

Wrong. These companies have already invested in the prototypes and the electronics are not expensive. What these naysayers never mention is that when you remove the driving controls, you can save MORE than the electronics cost.

Google isn't even building a car. They are developing the technology to lease to car manufacturers. Car companies that aren't even in the race, will ALL still be able to produce SDCs for daily real world use within a few years.

*- It won't work.*

It already does. Again, all those minds and companies aren't wrong. They know what they are doing and they are doing it. The combined teams of engineering minds is akin to a space shuttle effort.

*- Insurance will be too expensive.*

Laughable. It will be too expensive to insure a far safer car that no drunk, old person, careless or tired driver could even drive if they wanted too? Wake up. Insurance is based on risk, the risk is far far lower. Cars ALREADY have many of the features like crash avoidance systems and self parking and insurance companies love it.

*- The lawmakers won't allow it.*

They already allow them in many major cities. The feds have no control over the roads. They have already driven coast to coast without legal hurdles. Lawmakers will want their piece of the action, but they will welcome self driving cars with open arms. It will be a feather in their cap to be the champion of self driving cars.

*- People won't accept them.*

Wow, just wow. They said that about Uber too.

People won't accept never needing to own or drive a car? A car on demand any time day or night? No need for a garage (MAN CAVE!). Working or playing while riding and never sitting in traffic again? No licenses or tests? No tickets?

Not just as transportation either. Buy something at Target and it's delivered to your door in minutes for a couple of dollars. Any food, from any restaurant, now.

What is around the corner is a revolution of convenience and safety that is comparable to nothing we've ever done. Not only will people accept them, people CAN'T wait to get them!

*- This won't happen for 25 years.*

It's not IF, it's when, and when, according to the experts, is before the end of the decade or sooner. 25 years? In 25 years there may be no human driven cars allowed on the roads except for special circumstances.

25 years ago we launched our very first GPS satellite for military use only. The best computer available to the public was an Apple IIC with an operating system on a floppy disc. The internet accepted its FIRST public user. Lotus notes launched. Flip phones came out. The stealth bomber took its first flight. Nintendo introduced the GameBoy.

Today, technology is accelerating at a rate hundreds of times those years. You and I can't even imagine 25 years from now. It sure as hell won't be the acceptance of self driving cars! Our kids under 8 may never even need a license in their life, it's so close. It's FAR more likely we are in self flying craft 25 years from today than SDCs!

The Naysayers remind me of my roommate in the 90s who was trying to convince me the internet was a fad and had no important uses he could imagine. I just chuckled.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

Optimus Uber said:


> Because they drive by wire. There needs to be a signal sent to them to tell them where to go. What happens when a solar flare interrupts the communicatiom?
> 
> Have you forgotten about the Toyota gas pedal issue? Do you think insurance companies have forgotten about it?
> 
> ...


Nope, that isn't what drive by wire means and nope, they do not require signals to tell them where to go.


----------



## JMBF831 (Aug 13, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Please tell me you don't think time travel is not possible.
> 
> We already time travel. I'm serious. Every day people are time traveling.


Your avatar is perfect for you


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

RamzFanz said:


> Honda, Mercedes, Ford, Lexus, Google, Uber, Tesla, BMW, Audi, Delphi, Apple, and more. Are they all wrong?
> 
> The experts are saying 2-5 years.
> 
> They are ALREADY on the roads in major cities EVERY day. If you want to say this isn't happening soon, you need to go back to the year 2000.


Let me make this EASY for you and others in this thread..... You continue to believe what your little heart wants. I will continue to believe a VERY CLOSE family friend (my source) that manages a team, that is part of a large team, that get paid by Google for being in Googles "driverless car" division if you want to call it that. Let me say it again he works for google and works on the driver less cars every day.


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

JMBF831 said:


> Your avatar is perfect for you


You don't believe me?


----------



## RamzFanz (Jan 31, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> Let me make this EASY for you and others in this thread..... You continue to believe what your little heart wants. I will continue to believe a VERY CLOSE family friend (my source) that manages a team, that is part of a large team, that get paid by Google for being in Googles "driverless car" division if you want to call it that. Let me say it again he works for google and works on the driver less cars every day.


One company of many. This decade, guaranteed.


----------



## dutch369 (Jun 24, 2014)

sidewazzz said:


> Let me make this EASY for you and others in this thread..... You continue to believe what your little heart wants. I will continue to believe a VERY CLOSE family friend (my source) that manages a team, that is part of a large team, that get paid by Google for being in Googles "driverless car" division if you want to call it that. Let me say it again he works for google and works on the driver less cars every day.


Great, than ask your family friend when things do go astray what does the bubble do? 
Sorry driverless car.
1. Does it lock its breaks,which in turn can cause a change reaction. 
You should see how fast these bubbles can stop.
Please ask your family friend about its breaking system and how far along they are in developing the human touch, Since we are talking about a Machine driven by a computer, and not a human.
2nd ask your family friend how many accidents they have been involved in, where the bubble was at fault.
3rd when can I expect to see the bubble cruising down 101 instead of Rengstorff or San Antonio. 
It's going to take time, along time i'm afraid, but they are here to stay.
Uber on!!!


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

dutch369 said:


> Great, than ask your family friend when things do go astray what does the bubble do?
> Sorry driverless car.
> 1. Does it lock its breaks,which in turn can cause a change reaction.
> You should see how fast these bubbles can stop.
> ...


That's actually all information you can look up yourself. I never said they weren't here to stay I said they are not coming anytime in the next 5 years. My source seems to think 10 years is the more realistic time frame.


----------



## JMBF831 (Aug 13, 2015)

As soon as one driverless car takes the "detour" route off of a highway structure that is still being built and someone plunges to their death, we will see how much faith people really have in the technology.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Tesla just released auto pilot technology to it's Model S owners today. It's here ladies and gentleman.


----------



## Einstein (Oct 10, 2015)

Can you program your Tesla to go to the deli and bring back a sandwich?
Just wait for the first 100 million dollar lawsuit when something goes wrong. And things will go wrong.

And what is Uber going to do on weekends when the college kids go from the bars to the drive-thru to pick up their food? You think a driver-less car can manage that?
LOL


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Tesla just released auto pilot technology to it's Model S owners today. It's here ladies and gentleman.


Auto pilot is a step above cruise control..... again this is auto pilot and not a driverless car.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> Auto pilot is a step above cruise control..... again this is auto pilot and not a driverless car.


I know that, but this is definitely a test to bring us one step closer. First the semi auto pilot program, then the fully auto pilot program when they find out how safe it is. There is most certainly a race going on to put this technology out there.


----------



## Einstein (Oct 10, 2015)

It will take 15 years before they figure out how to operate fleets of these vehicles in dense urban areas.
Even if these vehicles don't cause accidents, there will be many more manned vehicles which will periodically crash into them.
This will create legal liability for the operating company, which in turn will raise costs.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

Einstein said:


> It will take 15 years before they figure out how to operate fleets of these vehicles in dense urban areas.
> Even if these vehicles don't cause accidents, there will be many more manned vehicles which will periodically crash into them.
> This will create legal liability for the operating company, which in turn will raise costs.


The companies producing them are willing to self insure without insurance companies though. Even if let's say they do cause an occasional accident here and there, the rewards far outweigh the costs associated with it.


----------



## Einstein (Oct 10, 2015)

Can you see the various levels of government regulation that will be imposed on operators? It will be stifling and add layers of costs.
It will take years to sort out all the regulatory issues.


----------



## JMBF831 (Aug 13, 2015)

Einstein said:


> Can you see the various levels of government regulation that will be imposed on operators? It will be stifling and add layers of costs.
> It will take years to sort out all the regulatory issues.


Nah man, 2 years lol

(Heavy sarcasm)


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

JMBF831 said:


> Nah man, 2 years lol
> 
> (Heavy sarcasm)


Not completely autonomous cars, but cars with full auto pilot systems by then is very possible. If they can show that computers driving is safer than humans (in a real world setting) then it's all over from there.


----------



## Ubermon (Aug 19, 2014)

Tesla firmware update 7.0 was pushed over the air today to all Models S cars produced since late Sept 2014. The autopilot features include staying in/changing lanes and parallel parking. They're calling this a public beta and so your hands are required on the wheel at all times. Hands off and a chime will sound and the car will eventually slow down to a stop. A future update will remove this requirement.

Tesla is slowing rolling out autopilot features in the cars already on the road. Firmware 7.1 (future update) will allow the car to park itself after you jump out.

A reminder: Travis has been quoted as saying Uber will buy 500,000 Tesla vehicles if Tesla can make them completely autonomous by 2020.


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

UberLo said:


> I know that, but this is definitely a test to bring us one step closer. First the semi auto pilot program, then the fully auto pilot program when they find out how safe it is. There is most certainly a race going on to put this technology out there.


Yup just like the airline industry....


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> Yup just like the airline industry....


Next up! Driver-less trucks, buses, and trains. The transportation (and logistics) industry will see a lot of jobs soon.


----------



## sidewazzz (Jun 30, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Next up! Driver-less trucks, buses, and trains. The transportation (and logistics) industry will see a lot of jobs soon.


I was being sarcastic, airliner require two pilots at all times. They also take plane's out of auto pilot pretty often when faced with unpredictable conditions, landing and taking off.


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)

sidewazzz said:


> I was being sarcastic, airliner require two pilots at all times. They also take plane's out of auto pilot pretty often when faced with unpredictable conditions, landing and taking off.


It will be much easier in that case. Of course it would also require some sort of artificial intelligence as well.


----------



## Sport (Sep 12, 2015)

UberLo said:


> Had an interesting discussion with a rider the other night who just so happened to be an investment banker working with Uber. During the ride he went on to tell me that Travis had recently reached out to his company for financing his "autonomous vehicles", but they ultimately denied him due to liability concerns. He also said Travis was a ******, and acted like he was President Obama. Anyway, we got into a real deep discussion about Uber, which led to him asking me why I would continue working for a guy who is essentially looking to put us all out of business? I told him my reasons, and continued on with the discussion. He then told me what they are projecting for these "autonomous vehicles" as a basis for trying to get financing. So basically, Travis and the geniuses over at Uber are in fact pushing for these cars to be on the road very soon (also Apple, and Tesla). Like, VERY SOON! He told me they were projecting for the cars to be on the road 24hrs a day, and that they would completely pay for themselves after 6 months. I told him that projection was completely ridiculous given the amount of overhead, and liability the company would be now taking on. Uber remains a lucrative investment because they don't have much of that now. That would change once they actually acquired a fleet of driver-less vehicles. Also, demand isn't non stop 24 hrs a day, and they would have serious issues finding insurance companies to cover this. He totally agreed with me on the overhead, and insurance issues, and told me that was the main reason they were denied financing.


Has the ideal setup already. All of this is no different than the whole point system. Meant to keep the drivers 'in check'.


----------



## dutch369 (Jun 24, 2014)

sidewazzz said:


> That's actually all information you can look up yourself. I never said they weren't here to stay I said they are not coming anytime in the next 5 years. My source seems to think 10 years is the more realistic time frame.


We must have the same sources side, also hearing 10yrs,


----------



## UberLo (Feb 23, 2015)




----------

