# You can't stop self-driving cars. Nor should you want to.



## tomatopaste

Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
2. Everything becomes valet
3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
It's going to be great.


----------



## everythingsuber

There is the minor issue that they are not remotely close to actually working as yet.
Teleporting would be nice as well.


----------



## tomatopaste

everythingsuber said:


> There is the minor issue that they are not remotely close to actually working as yet.
> Teleporting would be nice as well.


They could start doing grocery delivery at night, say in a 2 mile radius from the supermarket, from 2am to 4am when there's no cars on the street. You'd have to sign up and they'd plot the location of your house. That's ready now. Fully autonomous, for humans, probably five to ten years.


----------



## PrestonT

Hell, Uber drivers can't afford houses with garages now. I guess we can bring an extra cardboard box under the bridge to build a mancave.


----------



## Fubernuber

Oh god enough with this already. Its not happeing. Mostly because the expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless. Uber will have to own these driverless cars. You think a 50 billion dollar bahemoth wants to be on the front end of lawsuits? You think they have money to buy the fleet? Maintain it? Warehouse it? The lapse between privately owned self driving cars and driverless for hires will be many years. You see any private driverless cars yet? Just to repeat the obvious. At thr very least 75% of our fares would not call a driver if they had a driverless car. They would not call for a driverless car either. Your own personal driverless car can take you anywhere and wait or go back to your garage. Not happening. I am in my later 30s and i hope to see this by the time my kids are old and grey


----------



## Gung-Ho

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!

A chimney sweep is a very important maintenance and safety feature for routine home care.

As for all the other mumbo jumbo....meh. We'll see.


----------



## tohunt4me

everythingsuber said:


> There is the minor issue that they are not remotely close to actually working as yet.
> Teleporting would be nice as well.


I vote for teleporatation.
Its almost as far along as self driving cars.

We have had Flying Cars for OVER 60 YEARS.

BUT I STILL DONT SEE ANY HERE.



Gung-Ho said:


> WHOA WHOA WHOA!!!
> 
> A chimney sweep is a very important maintenance and safety feature for routine home care.
> 
> As for all the other mumbo jumbo....meh. We'll see.


I think home fires have increased in recent years from Lack of Chimney Sweeps
Probably Pays Better than Uber too !



PrestonT said:


> Hell, Uber drivers can't afford houses with garages now. I guess we can bring an extra cardboard box under the bridge to build a mancave.


Harder to find
Good boxes


----------



## tomatopaste

Fubernuber said:


> Oh god enough with this already. Its not happeing. Mostly because the expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless. Uber will have to own these driverless cars. You think a 50 billion dollar bahemoth wants to be on the front end of lawsuits? You think they have money to buy the fleet? Maintain it? Warehouse it? The last industry to go driverless is the first industry to need a driver. The lapse between privately owned self driving cars and driverless for hires will be many years. You see any private driverless cars yet?


You went from 'Uber is a 50 billion dollar behemoth' to 'You think they have money to buy the fleet, maintain it and warehouse it?" in under two sentences. I'm checking to see if that's a new world record.

"The expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless." Come on, that's patently absurd. The largest cost for almost all businesses is people. Avg being 60 percent. With Uber it's probably more like 80%. Uber doesn't have to own the cars, people could lease their car to Uber, have it pulls itself out of the garage, drives someone to the airport, do a few more runs and tuck itself back in. Most people only use their cars 4 percent of the time. But my guess is the self-driving taxi company will prefer to own the cars. Also, it won't be Uber. Uber is not going to win the self-driving car race.

2017: "You see any private driverless cars yet?"
1903: "Wilbur and Orville are trying to build a contraption that will allow men to fly like birds. What a bunch of idiots"



PrestonT said:


> Hell, Uber drivers can't afford houses with garages now. I guess we can bring an extra cardboard box under the bridge to build a mancave.


Select, Black do


----------



## Fubernuber

tomatopaste said:


> You went from 'Uber is a 50 billion dollar behemoth' to 'You think they have money to buy the fleet, maintain it and warehouse it?" in under two sentences. I'm checking to see if that's a new world record.
> 
> "The expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless." Come on, that's patently absurd. The largest cost for almost all businesses is people. Avg being 60 percent. With Uber it's probably more like 80%. Uber doesn't have to own the cars, people could lease their car to Uber, have it pulls itself out of the garage, drives someone to the airport, do a few more runs and tuck itself back in. Most people only use their cars 4 percent of the time. But my guess is the self-driving taxi company will prefer to own the cars. Also, it won't be Uber. Uber is not going to win the self-driving car race.
> 
> 2017: "You see any private driverless cars yet?"
> 1903: "Wilbur and Orville are trying to build a contraption that will allow men to fly like birds. What a bunch of idiots"


You ever wonder why ford dont own dealers? Why gm dont sell cars directly? Why uber dont hire minimim wage drivers? Start wondering. Its called liability. 
It took decades for the wright brothers invention to become commercially viable and many more decades to be ubiquitous. I did not make an error above. Uber does not want to own the cars. Their investors will skin them alive if they try. The wall between uber and the opperators who are ultimately the likely target of a lawsuit is thick and will always remain that way.


----------



## tomatopaste

tohunt4me said:


> I vote for teleporatation.
> Its almost as far along as self driving cars.
> 
> We have had Flying Cars for OVER 60 YEARS.
> 
> BUT I STILL DONT SEE ANY HERE.
> 
> I think home fires have increased in recent years from Lack of Chimney Sweeps
> Probably Pays Better than Uber too !
> 
> Harder to find
> Good boxes


This is a two year old startup. First flight was in April.






The world is changing. Technology is moving at an exponential rate. Strap in.


----------



## Fubernuber

Taxi cab companies will eventually own fleets of driverless cars decades from now but these companies will be much smaller, much more nimble and worth thousands of times less than uber.



tomatopaste said:


> This is a two year old startup. First flight was in April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world is changing. Technology is moving at an exponential rate. Strap in.


Super. Its new tech that has been around for decades employed by the military. Skip self drivint cars. This self driving personal drone will be available 2020. Pffft. I am in my late thirties. By the time i am looking forward to retirement the faa will still be doing studies.


----------



## canyon

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


9. Maybe by 2040 but a lot can happen in between those years. By then I wont care. The American people wont let this happen. Just be patient and watch. These cars are going to be vandalized like you never seen. But good luck.


----------



## tomatopaste

Fubernuber said:


> You ever wonder why ford dont own dealers? Why gm dont sell cars directly? Why uber dont hire minimim wage drivers? Start wondering. Its called liability.
> It took decades for the wright brothers invention to become commercially viable and many more decades to be ubiquitous. I did not make an error above. Uber does not want to own the cars. Their investors will skin them alive if they try. The wall between uber and the opperators who are ultimately the likely target of a lawsuit is thick and will always remain that way.


Are you at happy hour? Ford and GM are liable for their cars regardless of how they market them.


----------



## Fubernuber

They had an article here on the forum


tomatopaste said:


> Are you at happy hour? Ford and GM are liable for their cars regardless of how they market them.


I give up you win. Let me know when the preorders for self driving cars start. I will sell you a self opening draw bridge and a self cleaning booth for your self opperating bridge sweeper to sit in.


----------



## tomatopaste

Fubernuber said:


> You ever wonder why ford dont own dealers? Why gm dont sell cars directly? Why uber dont hire minimim wage drivers? Start wondering. Its called liability.
> It took decades for the wright brothers invention to become commercially viable and many more decades to be ubiquitous. I did not make an error above. Uber does not want to own the cars. Their investors will skin them alive if they try. The wall between uber and the opperators who are ultimately the likely target of a lawsuit is thick and will always remain that way.


Uber does not want to own the cars but it's not due to liability. It has to do with capital. If you own the car and quit it's no skin off Uber's teeth. If Uber ponies up the 20/30k and you quit, it's a big deal



Fubernuber said:


> Taxi cab companies will eventually own fleets of driverless cars decades from now but these companies will be much smaller, much more nimble and worth thousands of times less than uber.
> 
> Super. Its new tech that has been around for decades employed by the military. Skip self drivint cars. This self driving personal drone will be available 2020. Pffft. I am in my late thirties. By the time i am looking forward to retirement the faa will still be doing studies.


Uber is only possible due to recent advancements in technology: smart phones, gps, large bandwidth.

Lilium is now possible due to advancements in battery technology. You can't operate a fleet of screaming Harrier Jump Jets, spewing jet fuel, in a metropolitan area. You can operate a Lilium electric jet, that's quieter than a motorcycle, in a metropolitan area.


----------



## Jesusdrivesuber

Hah, I think the bad side of driverless cars far outweighs the pros.


----------



## Fubernuber

tomatopaste said:


> Uber does not want to own the cars but it's not due to liability. It has to do with capital. If you own the car and quit it's no skin off Uber's teeth. If Uber ponies up the 20/30k and you quit, it's a big deal
> 
> Uber is only possible due to recent advancements in technology: smart phones, gps, large bandwidth.
> 
> Lilium is now possible due to advancements in battery technology. You can't operate a fleet of screaming Harrier Jump Jets, spewing jet fuel, in a metropolitan area. You can operate a Lilium electric jet, that's quieter than a motorcycle, in a metropolitan area.


You are completely mistaken. Uber is only possible thanks to a 0% fed rate and free money. So much money that their investors are litterally throwing money at them with no guarantees of a return on investment. Uber is as far from a tech company as google is from a fulfillment company. I think you are a smart kid but one day you will be a man still without a driverless car or a driveless uber many years from now


----------



## tomatopaste

Jesusdrivesuber said:


> Hah, I think the bad side of driverless cars far outweighs the pros.


Did you even see number 3, man-cave?


----------



## Fubernuber

The only thing uber has now that is worth any money is drivers and growing user base that needs drivers to service them. Take drivers out of the picture and you have a slew of very well capitalized tech companies that are lightyears better equippes than uber ever will be to start the driverless livery evolution. Take the blinders away from your eyes. The biggest obstacle to ubers self driving car intentions is uber it self. Its all a show. You got front row ticketts. Think it over very hard. I know you will get it eventually. I am going to stop you now from saying "but uber had a brand and loyal customers". They have nothing but a legion of desperate drivers and many more desperate for uber to fail. They will and so will their dream of sdc livery in the near future


----------



## tomatopaste

Fubernuber said:


> The only thing uber has now that is worth any money is drivers and growing user base that needs drivers to service them. Take drivers out of the picture and you have a slew of very well capitalized tech companies that are lightyears better equippes than uber ever will be to start the driverless livery evolution. Take the blinders away from your eyes. The biggest obstacle to ubers self driving car intentions is uber it self. Its all a show. You got front row ticketts. Think it over very hard. I know you will get it eventually. I am going to stop you now from saying "but uber had a brand and loyal customers". They have nothing but a legion of desperate drivers and many more desperate for uber to fail. They will and so will their dream of sdc livery in the near future


1. Uber doesn't "have" drivers. Drivers despise Uber and are just waiting for someone better to come along.
2. Did I not say that Uber is going to lose the self-driving race. I did. Are you still at happy hour? You realize drinks are only half off until six, right?
3. Did you not say "I give up you win" You did. Are you asking to be reinstated? If so, I'll allow it but realize it's going to be painful.


----------



## Fubernuber

tomatopaste said:


> 1. Uber doesn't "have" drivers. Drivers despise Uber and are just waiting for someone better to come along.
> 2. Did I not say that Uber is going to lose the self-driving race. I did. Are you still at happy hour? You realize drinks are only half off until six, right?
> 3. Did you not say "I give up you win" You did. Are you asking to be reinstated? If so, I'll allow it but realize it's going to be painful.


Uber will not lose until sdc are available to drive us around or until the global economy falls appart. I suspect the later will come first but that may not be their undoing.


----------



## Nomad

Pretty sure I could stop a self-driving car with a Wile-E.-Coyote-esque painted tunnel...

or a big mirror...

whatever floats your boat


----------



## canyon

To


tomatopaste said:


> 1. Uber doesn't "have" drivers. Drivers despise Uber and are just waiting for someone better to come along.
> 2. Did I not say that Uber is going to lose the self-driving race. I did. Are you still at happy hour? You realize drinks are only half off until six, right?
> 3. Did you not say "I give up you win" You did. Are you asking to be reinstated? If so, I'll allow it but realize it's going to be painful.


I think I know the type of medication that will help you. If your interested let me know.


----------



## tomatopaste

canyon said:


> To
> 
> I think I know the type of medication that will help you. If your interested let me know.


You're never going to become a well-known member with posts like that. Sad.


----------



## Archie Pelago

Private driverless cars will be available in the next 5 years so they say. It seems incredible, but there are already impressive demos out there:





Obviously there's a bunch more problems to solve for automated taxis. I guess 10-15 years away?

But even private driverless cars might have effect on taxi drivers. If and when it becomes legal to be drunk so long as the car is autonomous, there's some rides that gone.


----------



## heynow321

first off, human beings are not dangerous. based on the trillions of miles we have driven, accident rates are extremely low. as he said, rain ****s up the cameras. know what else will **** it up? a 15 year old with a black permanent marker on the lense or some tape.


----------



## Nomad

heynow321 said:


> first off, human beings are not dangerous.


I get the argument you're making and I somewhat agree that there are many hurdles for autonomous vehicles, but this statement is just not true.


----------



## heynow321

Really? How many life altering car accidents have you been in? I've never been in any nor has anyone in my family nor have any of my friends or their immediate families. The vast vast majority of humans don't get in major accidents.


----------



## Archie Pelago

This is just a question of how many deaths there has to be before you call it dangerous. There are about 3,500 deaths on the road in the UK. About 35,000 in the USA. ANd worldwide about 1.3 million each year. 

Now it doesn't really matter whether you call that dangerous or not. What matters is whether that number will be higher or lower with autonomous cars. And no-one that has anything to do with autonomous cars doubts that they will reduce the number of deaths. In fact autonomous systems aren't going to be given permission go into general use unless and until they demonstrate that safety.


----------



## tomatopaste

Archie Pelago said:


> This is just a question of how many deaths there has to be before you call it dangerous. There are about 3,500 deaths on the road in the UK. About 35,000 in the USA. ANd worldwide about 1.3 million each year.
> 
> Now it doesn't really matter whether you call that dangerous or not. What matters is whether that number will be higher or lower with autonomous cars. And no-one that has anything to do with autonomous cars doubts that they will reduce the number of deaths. In fact autonomous systems aren't going to be given permission go into general use unless and until they demonstrate that safety.


Google's self driving cars have been involved in over 20 accidents. All caused by the other guy, the human driver. Self driving cars will save a million lives a year.



heynow321 said:


> Really? How many life altering car accidents have you been in? I've never been in any nor has anyone in my family nor have any of my friends or their immediate families. The vast vast majority of humans don't get in major accidents.


Driving for Uber you see at least one accident a day on the freeway that slows traffic. It's not just deaths but lost productivity and property damage that we have to deal with


----------



## heynow321

Archie Pelago said:


> This is just a question of how many deaths there has to be before you call it dangerous. There are about 3,500 deaths on the road in the UK. About 35,000 in the USA. ANd worldwide about 1.3 million each year.
> 
> Now it doesn't really matter whether you call that dangerous or not. What matters is whether that number will be higher or lower with autonomous cars. And no-one that has anything to do with autonomous cars doubts that they will reduce the number of deaths. In fact autonomous systems aren't going to be given permission go into general use unless and until they demonstrate that safety.


They're going to need to drive trillions of miles before you can make a statistical comparison to humans

I wonder how many people will die in ambulances or on the scene bc a sdc couldn't figure out what to do when getting out of the way requires highly illegal moves


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> They're going to need to drive trillions of miles before you can make a statistical comparison to humans
> 
> I wonder how many people will die in ambulances or on the scene bc a sdc couldn't figure out what to do when getting out of the way requires highly illegal moves


Watch the video: 





9:20: self driving car handles construction zone/cones
9:35: handles police flashing lights
9:45: handles stopped bus
9:50: handles bike guy giving hand signals
10:00: handles police officer giving hand signals to stop and then proceed
10:45: handles bike entering his lane to go around parked car
10:50 handles bike coming down other side of the road
11:00 handles car making a u-turn in front of him
11:15: handles women on electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles in front of him
11:30: handles bird flying in front of car
11:38: handles six man bike driving in front of him
11:45: handles child in electric car driving in middle of road in front of him
11:50: handles guy jumping out of truck as he passes
11:56: handless car cutting him off to make a right turn
12:03: handles car making lane change at same time
12:08: handles car running red light
12:14: handles bike running red light
12:20: handles car pulling out between 2 self driving cars

I think they have it covered.


----------



## Archie Pelago

heynow321 said:


> They're going to need to drive trillions of miles before you can make a statistical comparison to humans


Not trillions. Just millions. And they are doing exactly that.


----------



## heynow321

Archie Pelago said:


> Not trillions. Just millions. And they are doing exactly that.


You don't seem to understand statistics.


----------



## Archie Pelago

heynow321 said:


> You don't seem to understand statistics.


Go on then, tell me the required standard deviation, and how many miles that is. I'll wait.


----------



## Dturner

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


The only problem I foresee in this is a ton of laid off truck drivers. The process appears to be gradual however as there are a ton of trucks and buses on the road, that's a lot of people out of a job. Other than that the benefits to a user are great! Cars may come more impersonal as driving is not necessary.  Imagine you and 3 other people sharing a vehicle. The car is programmed so it knows when to pick you up, drop you off, and so on. Combine that with the smartphone, we may start using cars like people fractionalize a jet or have jet membership.


----------



## oldmanuber

heynow321 said:


> first off, human beings are not dangerous. based on the trillions of miles we have driven, accident rates are extremely low. as he said, rain &%[email protected]!*s up the cameras. know what else will &%[email protected]!* it up? a 15 year old with a black permanent marker on the lense or some tape.


As crazy as it sounds, good point. We zoom up and down the roads at 65-85 mph and accidents are low. Hell, I had some fools pass me the other sunday morning about 2 am thinking they were Paul Walker and Vin Diesel doing the "Fast and Furious" thing. There were about 20 of 'em flying and dipping in and out of traffic. Hell, I even sped up and tried to stay with 'em for a couple of seconds, but thought the better of it. But no one got into an accident. 
For most part, we're pretty good drivers.


----------



## nobody420

Good luck in an self diving uber and somebody shooting at you on the flip side with a self driving uber hell I don't need a hotel no more prostitutes riding around in uber all day making plays on the back seat


----------



## tomatopaste

Dturner said:


> The only problem I foresee in this is a ton of laid off truck drivers. The process appears to be gradual however as there are a ton of trucks and buses on the road, that's a lot of people out of a job. Other than that the benefits to a user are great! Cars may come more impersonal as driving is not necessary. Imagine you and 3 other people sharing a vehicle. The car is programmed so it knows when to pick you up, drop you off, and so on. Combine that with the smartphone, we may start using cars like people fractionalize a jet or have jet membership.


Driving jobs altogether will become obsolete. But 200 years ago 90 percent of the population worked on the farm. Automation allowed them to do other things



nobody420 said:


> Good luck in an self diving uber and somebody shooting at you on the flip side with a self driving uber hell I don't need a hotel no more prostitutes riding around in uber all day making plays on the back seat


Everything that happens inside the vehicle will be on camera, as well as outside. The ho gets arrested within the first five minutes.


----------



## heynow321

Archie Pelago said:


> Go on then, tell me the required standard deviation, and how many miles that is. I'll wait.


http://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/

But let's take the numbers at one death per 130 million miles as of August. The US average is 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles, or 92.6 million miles per. 95% of these deaths are attributed to driver error, and only 5% to vehicle failure.

Until there's a car with a two or three _billion_ miles on its autopilot system, there's no way to draw any meaningful statistical comparison between human drivers and autonomous mode. And that's assuming that people are violating the Tesla terms of service and driving without intervention; if you allow for people saving their own lives, the self-driving feature is certainly much less safe than it appears from our numbers. And that's not too good. No wonder Tesla wants you to keep your hands on the wheel.

Even if self-driving technology were comparable to human drivers, that will mean twenty or thirty more deaths before we even know with any reasonable certainty. Is it ethical to carry out this statistical experiment on normal drivers? What would we say about this if we knew that that self-driving were unsafe? Or is this just the price to pay to get to an inevitable state where self-driving cars do drive provably better than humans? I honestly don't know.

Automotive safety wasn't invented yesterday. There are protocols and standards for every fastener on the car's frame, and every line of firmware in its (distributed) brain. These are based on meeting established reliability and safety measures _up-front_rather than once they're on the road. Whether current practices are even applicable to self-driving cars is an interesting question, and one that the industry hasn't tackled yet.

So in the meantime, we've got a muddle. Tesla's Autopilot is good enough to seduce you into trusting it, but it's still essentially statistically untested, and on first glance it drives much worse than I'd like. On one hand, Tesla is doing the best they can - collecting real-world data on how the system responds while warning drivers that it's still in beta. On the other hand, if people were dying behind the wheel due to a "beta" brake-disc design, there would be a recall.



tomatopaste said:


> Everything that happens inside the vehicle will be on camera, as well as outside. The ho gets arrested within the first five minutes.


So who is going to be monitoring these cameras? are we going to have hundreds of thousands of people monitoring each car? boy that sounds expensive...


----------



## elelegido

Uber's already announced they're throwing in the Xchange towel on owning their own cars - they can't even run a fleet of leased Corollas lol. And that's with drivers helping them out with $150 per week payments for them. How on earth they think they're going to run a fleet with no subsidization/help from drivers is beyond me. Further still, it wouldn't be a fleet of Corollas and Hyundais; it'd be advanced cars equipped with radar, lidar, cameras, a dozen computers etc etc. Up front cost and maintenance would be astronomical.

It's all just pie in the sky, for the next 30 -50 years at least.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> http://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
> 
> But let's take the numbers at one death per 130 million miles as of August. The US average is 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles, or 92.6 million miles per. 95% of these deaths are attributed to driver error, and only 5% to vehicle failure.
> 
> Until there's a car with a two or three _billion_ miles on its autopilot system, there's no way to draw any meaningful statistical comparison between human drivers and autonomous mode. And that's assuming that people are violating the Tesla terms of service and driving without intervention; if you allow for people saving their own lives, the self-driving feature is certainly much less safe than it appears from our numbers. And that's not too good. No wonder Tesla wants you to keep your hands on the wheel.
> 
> Even if self-driving technology were comparable to human drivers, that will mean twenty or thirty more deaths before we even know with any reasonable certainty. Is it ethical to carry out this statistical experiment on normal drivers? What would we say about this if we knew that that self-driving were unsafe? Or is this just the price to pay to get to an inevitable state where self-driving cars do drive provably better than humans? I honestly don't know.
> 
> Automotive safety wasn't invented yesterday. There are protocols and standards for every fastener on the car's frame, and every line of firmware in its (distributed) brain. These are based on meeting established reliability and safety measures _up-front_rather than once they're on the road. Whether current practices are even applicable to self-driving cars is an interesting question, and one that the industry hasn't tackled yet.
> 
> So in the meantime, we've got a muddle. Tesla's Autopilot is good enough to seduce you into trusting it, but it's still essentially statistically untested, and on first glance it drives much worse than I'd like. On one hand, Tesla is doing the best they can - collecting real-world data on how the system responds while warning drivers that it's still in beta. On the other hand, if people were dying behind the wheel due to a "beta" brake-disc design, there would be a recall.
> 
> So who is going to be monitoring these cameras? are we going to have hundreds of thousands of people monitoring each car? boy that sounds expensive...


That's not how security works, is it? Does some monitor your home security system live all day long, or do they go back and look at the tape when there's an issue?


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> That's not how security works, is it? Does some monitor your home security system live all day long, or do they go back and look at the tape when there's an issue?


Oh, so that implies a delay. You understand, just like with home security systems, people can obscure their faces right? People can also steal these things called credit cards and use them quite a bit before the rightful owner knows they're gone.

pretty damn easy to walk up to a parked SDC and smash a camera or two with a bat while your face is covered and saunter off.


----------



## elelegido

Archie Pelago said:


> Private driverless cars will be available in the next 5 years so they say. It seems incredible, but there are already impressive demos out there:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there's a bunch more problems to solve for automated taxis. I guess 10-15 years away?
> 
> But even private driverless cars might have effect on taxi drivers. If and when it becomes legal to be drunk so long as the car is autonomous, there's some rides that gone.


One thing people are forgetting is that there is a huge difference between self driving cars and driverless cars. A driverless vehicle as Uber envisions it must be able to drive anywhere a human driver can, in all conditions that humans drive in. If not, then a driver is still required to take over as the test driver did in this video. What you're left with then is a very complex and expensive vehicle, plus the expense of the driver as well. It doesn't matter that he'd be sitting idle 90% of the time; he still has to be paid.

Self driving cars have come a long way and are indeed impressive, but self driving cars with a human only driving 10% of the time are not driverless cars. Neither is 95% car, 5% human. Nor is 98% car, 2% human etc.

Driverless cars are what Uber needs, and they're still a long way off.


----------



## heynow321

elelegido said:


> One thing people are forgetting is that there is a huge difference between self driving cars and driverless cars. A driverless vehicle as Uber envisions it must be able to drive anywhere a human driver can, in all conditions that humans drive in. If not, then a driver is still required to take over as the test driver did in this video. What you're left with then is a very complex and expensive vehicle, plus the expense of the driver as well. It doesn't matter that he'd be sitting idle 90% of the time; he still has to be paid.
> 
> Self driving cars have come a long way and are indeed impressive, but self driving cars with a human only driving 10% of the time are not driverless cars. Neither is 95% car, 5% human. Nor is 98% car, 2% human etc.
> 
> Driverless cars are what Uber needs, and they're still a long way off.


and as the guy said in the video, they can't even deal with heavy rain yet.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> Uber's already announced they're throwing in the Xchange towel on owning their own cars - they can't even run a fleet of leased Corollas lol. And that's with drivers helping them out with $150 per week payments for them. How on earth they think they're going to run a fleet with no subsidization/help from drivers is beyond me. Further still, it wouldn't be a fleet of Corollas and Hyundais; it'd be advanced cars equipped with radar, lidar, cameras, a dozen computers etc etc. Up front cost and maintenance would be astronomical.
> 
> It's all just pie in the sky, for the next 30 -50 years at least.


That's absurd. Most cars are used 4 percent of the time. The self driving taxi service, it won't be Uber, buy the fleet or cars at half price or less. They'll be able to put a million miles on them with proper maintenance.


----------



## elelegido

heynow321 said:


> and as the guy said in the video, they can't even deal with heavy rain yet.


Driverless cars will happen, but not before most of us are pushing up the daisies.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> That's absurd. Most cars are used 4 percent of the time. The self driving taxi service, it won't be Uber, buy the fleet or cars at half price or less. They'll be able to put a million miles on them with proper maintenance.


LOLOL what modern car can last for millions of miles with "proper maintenance"? jesus


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> That's absurd. Most cars are used 4 percent of the time.


And only 4% of Japanese homes have ovens. Just as irrelevant is the percentage of time that "most cars" are used.


> The self driving taxi service, it won't be Uber, buy the fleet or cars at half price or less.


Half of what price? If you want to talk numbers, give us some numbers. How much are you saying a driverless car will cost?


> They'll be able to put a million miles on them with proper maintenance.


Any car will do a million miles with enough maintenance + repairs. All depends how deep one's pockets are.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> Oh, so that implies a delay. You understand, just like with home security systems, people can obscure their faces right? People can also steal these things called credit cards and use them quite a bit before the rightful owner knows they're gone.
> 
> pretty damn easy to walk up to a parked SDC and smash a camera or two with a bat while your face is covered and saunter off.


Ya cause that's what criminals look for. They seek out places where they know they'll be on camera to commit their crimes. The car only unlocks with the code you're given that's tied to your account. Helen Keller could solve this crime in under 10 seconds


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Ya cause that's what criminals look for. They seek out places where they know they'll be on camera to commit their crimes. The car only unlocks with the code you're given that's tied to your account. Helen Keller could solve this crime in under 10 seconds


Oh, so banks and jewelry stores never get robbed? child, put on your thinking cap for a second. lets just entertain the silly notion of the future people like you predict, namely that millions of drivers will be out of work by a machine that will often be left unattended in open public areas. How do you think these angry frustrated disgruntled people will respond? thwarting a camera isn't exactly difficult.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> And only 4% of Japanese homes have ovens. Just as irrelevant is the percentage of time that "most cars" are used.
> Half of what price? If you want to talk numbers, give us some numbers. How much are you saying a driverless car will cost?
> Any car will do a million miles with enough maintenance + repairs. All depends how deep one's pockets are.


My guess is less than 10k per car. You have to realize, eventually people won't own cars. It will be far cheaper and more convenient to order a self driving taxi



heynow321 said:


> Oh, so banks and jewelry stores never get robbed? child, put on your thinking cap for a second. lets just entertain the silly notion of the future people like you predict, namely that millions of drivers will be out of work by a machine that will often be left unattended in open public areas. How do you think these angry frustrated disgruntled people will respond? thwarting a camera isn't exactly difficult.


And how are these cars any more vulnerable than the 100 cars currently sitting in the Wal-Mart parking lot? Except for the fact that the cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot don't have cameras?

The self driving cab company will buy or lease current parking lots, such as a Wal-Mart parking lot and when the cars are not in use there will be security. The lot will also be fenced


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> My guess is less than 10k per car. You have to realize, eventually people won't own cars. It will be far cheaper and more convenient to order a self driving taxi


So, you think a driverless car would cost less than the cheapest car for sale in the US; the Nissan Versa. A stripped out sub-compact with no self-driving technology. Not even plain ol' cruise control. Ok....

It's all moot to us as Uberlyft drivers anyway. As I say, self driving cars will have no effect whatsoever on rideshare. Maybe a few drivers will buy them so they can take their hands off the wheel once in a while, but that'll be it. Driverless cars, on the other hand, will put us out of a job. But there's no sign from any manufacturer anywhere that those will be ready anytime soon.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> My guess is less than 10k per car. You have to realize, eventually people won't own cars. It will be far cheaper and more convenient to order a self driving taxi
> 
> And how are these cars any more vulnerable than the 100 cars currently sitting in the Wal-Mart parking lot? Except for the fact that the cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot don't have cameras?
> 
> The self driving cab company will buy or lease current parking lots, such as a Wal-Mart parking lot and when the cars are not in use there will be security. The lot will also be fenced


B/c those currently parked cars at wal mart didn't put anyone out of a job. come on bro...incentives. Oh, so now wal mart is leasing their parking lots? How much is that going to cost? How much is the security guard going to cost plus all the security equipment as well? Cool, so when we go shopping we'll get to walk past a nice prison style gated area with barb wire everywhere? sounds like a beautiful sightly future you're creating.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> One thing people are forgetting is that there is a huge difference between self driving cars and driverless cars. A driverless vehicle as Uber envisions it must be able to drive anywhere a human driver can, in all conditions that humans drive in. If not, then a driver is still required to take over as the test driver did in this video. What you're left with then is a very complex and expensive vehicle, plus the expense of the driver as well. It doesn't matter that he'd be sitting idle 90% of the time; he still has to be paid.
> 
> Self driving cars have come a long way and are indeed impressive, but self driving cars with a human only driving 10% of the time are not driverless cars. Neither is 95% car, 5% human. Nor is 98% car, 2% human etc.
> 
> Driverless cars are what Uber needs, and they're still a long way off.


No, you're talking about driver assistance, like Teslsa, vs self driving that requires no human interaction. Self driving will hit the roads within 5 yrs



heynow321 said:


> B/c those currently parked cars at wal mart didn't put anyone out of a job. come on bro...incentives. Oh, so now wal mart is leasing their parking lots? How much is that going to cost? How much is the security guard going to cost plus all the security equipment as well? Cool, so when we go shopping we'll get to walk past a nice prison style gated area with barb wire everywhere? sounds like a beautiful sightly future you're creating.


Did ATM's, self checkout put people out of business? Should we all move to Pennsylvania and become Amish?


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> No, you're talking about driver assistance, like Teslsa, vs self driving that requires no human interaction. Self driving will hit the roads within 5 yrs


No, I'm not interested in Tesla; they've got nothing to do with this.

People don't get the difference between self driving and driverless. It's a tricky concept for some, probably because all driverless cars are self driving, but not all self driving cars are driverless. The best analogy I can think of to explain it is, all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is an apple. Do you see? The Nissan above is a self driving car, which still requires a driver. A driverless car, on the other hand, is capable of driving itself without a driver; no human intervention. No driverless cars are anywhere close to being ready for use. And until they are, drivers (Uberlyft and in general) will still be required.


----------



## heynow321

tomatopaste said:


> Did ATM's, self checkout put people out of business? Should we all move to Pennsylvania and become Amish?


try again kiddo. again, how much will wal mart be charging for their parking lot? how much will the security guard cost and all the equipment and maintenance of fences and what not? will every major big box retailer be doing this? target, home depot, fred meyer, costco?


----------



## Xanvel

Lost in the argument is the fact that as of now, driving is considered a right of passage in the United States. And that while rideshare is big, most Americans are unwilling to give up the freedom of operating a vehicle of some sort on the road. Will SDC and Driverless cars make an impact? Yes. There probably will be a behavioral shift in the far future to where ownership of a car is considered a luxury or an expensive toy. But we are far from the future of human beings being totally replaced by the machine.
Also, believe it or not, most humans crave interaction with other humans. Do you prefer dealing with an automated phone answering system, or a live operator when you have a problem?
Lastly, I do not care who drives the car, or truck. I will take my motorcycle...


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> B/c those currently parked cars at wal mart didn't put anyone out of a job. come on bro...incentives. Oh, so now wal mart is leasing their parking lots? How much is that going to cost? How much is the security guard going to cost plus all the security equipment as well? Cool, so when we go shopping we'll get to walk past a nice prison style gated area with barb wire everywhere? sounds like a beautiful sightly future you're creating.


Wrought Iron fence: $3,213.16
8 security cameras: $1,522.87
Security robot to monitor the robot cars: 5,330.88
Total: $10,066.91



heynow321 said:


> try again kiddo. again, how much will wal mart be charging for their parking lot? how much will the security guard cost and all the equipment and maintenance of fences and what not? will every major big box retailer be doing this? target, home depot, fred meyer, costco?[/QUCostco will build another Costco will build another Costco in their Costco parking lot cause they won't need a parking lot





elelegido said:


> No, I'm not interested in Tesla; they've got nothing to do with this.
> 
> People don't get the difference between self driving and driverless. It's a tricky concept for some, probably because all driverless cars are self driving, but not all self driving cars are driverless. The best analogy I can think of to explain it is, all apples are fruit, but not all fruit is an apple. Do you see? The Nissan above is a self driving car, which still requires a driver. A driverless car, on the other hand, is capable of driving itself without a driver; no human intervention. No driverless cars are anywhere close to being ready for use. And until they are, drivers (Uberlyft and in general) will still be required.


Yes Tesla does have something to do with this. There 5 levels of self driving cars. 4 and 5 are fully autonomous. There is virtually no difference between 4 and 5. Tesla is a 2



heynow321 said:


> and as the guy said in the video, they can't even deal with heavy rain yet.


That's Nissan. Waymo and Aurora can



Xanvel said:


> Lost in the argument is the fact that as of now, driving is considered a right of passage in the United States. And that while rideshare is big, most Americans are unwilling to give up the freedom of operating a vehicle of some sort on the road. Will SDC and Driverless cars make an impact? Yes. There probably will be a behavioral shift in the far future to where ownership of a car is considered a luxury or an expensive toy. But we are far from the future of human beings being totally replaced by the machine.
> Also, believe it or not, most humans crave interaction with other humans. Do you prefer dealing with an automated phone answering system, or a live operator when you have a problem?
> Lastly, I do not care who drives the car, or truck. I will take my motorcycle...


If you're spending $1,000 a month for; car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, to travel x amount of miles. And the same miles only cost you $200 with a self driving taxi service. The change happens very quickly



heynow321 said:


> LOLOL what modern car can last for millions of miles with "proper maintenance"? jesus


A fuel cell car. Very few moving parts



elelegido said:


> And only 4% of Japanese homes have ovens. Just as irrelevant is the percentage of time that "most cars" are used.
> Half of what price? If you want to talk numbers, give us some numbers. How much are you saying a driverless car will cost?
> Any car will do a million miles with enough maintenance + repairs. All depends how deep one's pockets are.


Nice strawman. Who cares if they don't bake in Japan? The fact that cars are only utilized four percent of the time means that if you can take the driver out of the equation, taxis become cheaper than owning your own car.


----------



## wb6vpm

tomatopaste said:


> ...
> 11:15: handles women on electric wheelchair chasing a duck in circles in front of him
> ...


I laughed way too hard at the mental image of this when I read it!


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> There 5 levels of self driving cars. 4 and 5 are fully autonomous. There is virtually no difference between 4 and 5.


I could keep trying to explain the difference between autonomous and driverless cars, but I can't be bothered. If you still don't get it then this article or others like it do a reasonable job of explaining it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/self-driving-vs-driverless-car-difference-explained-2016-9



> Nice strawman. Who cares if they don't bake in Japan? The fact that cars are only utilized four percent of the time means that if you can take the driver out of the equation, taxis become cheaper than owning your own car.


Looks like you don't know what a strawman is. Anyway, I was talking about Uber not being able to afford to run its fleet of leased Corollas, and you responded with "people use their cars 4% of the time". Which was irrelevant to what I was saying.



tomatopaste said:


> If you're spending $1,000 a month for; car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, to travel x amount of miles. And the same miles only cost you $200 with a self driving taxi service.


Key word there being "if". When you build an assumption with "if", then you're not proving or demonstrating anything:

If A is 6 and B is 4 then A > B. Logically correct, but only because the assumption is made that A is 6 and B is 4. Aka circular reasoning.

Where are your actual figures on actual distances that people drive, and actual amounts they spend on their cars, and actual amounts that they will spend on driverless taxis? Because without that, you're just guessing.

You're self-referencing, and presenting guesses about the future as fact. You think that people use their cars 4% of the time, and that driverless taxis will be cheap to use. You therefore surmise that people will abandon their cars and use taxis more. Maybe; maybe not. I won't be convinced unless you can present some evidence of what you're claiming.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> B/c those currently parked cars at wal mart didn't put anyone out of a job. come on bro...incentives. Oh, so now wal mart is leasing their parking lots? How much is that going to cost? How much is the security guard going to cost plus all the security equipment as well? Cool, so when we go shopping we'll get to walk past a nice prison style gated area with barb wire everywhere? sounds like a beautiful sightly future you're creating.


No. When you go to Wal-Mart the self driving car will drop you off and pick you up at the front door.

How many hours of sleep do you lose a night, on average, knowing that the tomato plants in the Wal-Mart garden center are behind "a nice prison style gated area?"

I just got off the phone with Wal-Mart and the the self-driving car companies. They are willing to replace the wrought iron fence with a white picket fence with flower boxes


----------



## heynow321

guys like him and ramz never present any actual evidence. they just try to describe their simplistic sci-fi based futuristic fantasies without any break down of numbers or anything. Hell even maven just posted something saying some major players are doubting their previous thought-out road to profitability with this nonsense.


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> guys like him and ramz never present any actual evidence. they just try to describe their simplistic sci-fi based futuristic fantasies without any break down of numbers or anything. Hell even maven just posted something saying some major players are doubting their previous thought-out road to profitability with this nonsense.


Untrue. Read this thread. Watch both videos. Then let me know what doesn't make sense to you. https://uberpeople.net/threads/to-u...-have-to-understand-self-driving-cars.191377/


----------



## 123dragon

heynow321 said:


> B/c those currently parked cars at wal mart didn't put anyone out of a job. come on bro...incentives. Oh, so now wal mart is leasing their parking lots? How much is that going to cost? How much is the security guard going to cost plus all the security equipment as well? Cool, so when we go shopping we'll get to walk past a nice prison style gated area with barb wire everywhere? sounds like a beautiful sightly future you're creating.


----------



## tohunt4me

I CAN'T STOP SELF DRIVING CARS.

BUT A MOTH CAN !

Death Traps !!!

UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED !


----------



## nobody420

heynow321 said:


> http://hackaday.com/2016/12/05/self-driving-cars-are-not-yet-safe/
> 
> But let's take the numbers at one death per 130 million miles as of August. The US average is 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles, or 92.6 million miles per. 95% of these deaths are attributed to driver error, and only 5% to vehicle failure.
> 
> Until there's a car with a two or three _billion_ miles on its autopilot system, there's no way to draw any meaningful statistical comparison between human drivers and autonomous mode. And that's assuming that people are violating the Tesla terms of service and driving without intervention; if you allow for people saving their own lives, the self-driving feature is certainly much less safe than it appears from our numbers. And that's not too good. No wonder Tesla wants you to keep your hands on the wheel.
> 
> Even if self-driving technology were comparable to human drivers, that will mean twenty or thirty more deaths before we even know with any reasonable certainty. Is it ethical to carry out this statistical experiment on normal drivers? What would we say about this if we knew that that self-driving were unsafe? Or is this just the price to pay to get to an inevitable state where self-driving cars do drive provably better than humans? I honestly don't know.
> 
> Automotive safety wasn't invented yesterday. There are protocols and standards for every fastener on the car's frame, and every line of firmware in its (distributed) brain. These are based on meeting established reliability and safety measures _up-front_rather than once they're on the road. Whether current practices are even applicable to self-driving cars is an interesting question, and one that the industry hasn't tackled yet.
> 
> So in the meantime, we've got a muddle. Tesla's Autopilot is good enough to seduce you into trusting it, but it's still essentially statistically untested, and on first glance it drives much worse than I'd like. On one hand, Tesla is doing the best they can - collecting real-world data on how the system responds while warning drivers that it's still in beta. On the other hand, if people were dying behind the wheel due to a "beta" brake-disc design, there would be a recall.
> 
> So who is going to be monitoring these cameras? are we going to have hundreds of thousands of people monitoring each car? boy that sounds expensive...


Might as well pay somebody to drive the car if you going to pay somebody to monitor the car


----------



## fields

tomatopaste said:


> Google's self driving cars have been involved in over 20 accidents. All caused by the other guy, the human driver. Self driving cars will save a million lives a year.


If you believe the spin, sure. Google's car stops for no apparent reason in the middle of the road and is hit from behind. Yes, the driver is at fault but the accident would not have happened had the Google not stopped.

Self drive cars will never save a million lives. Most road deaths occur in third and second world countries where they cannot afford this technology.


----------



## tohunt4me

Yet the world is worse off not better.

Transhumanist Globalists should consider Quality of Life.
Stop making the world a for profit slum.

Misapplied Technology.


----------



## nemesis1

Do not listen to fubernuber...as you can tell by his insightful posts, he is not a thinking type of man. He makes absolutely no sense 100% of the time as this thread shows.


----------



## Slim Pete

tomatopaste said:


> They could start doing grocery delivery at night, say in a 2 mile radius from the supermarket, from 2am to 4am when there's no cars on the street. You'd have to sign up and they'd plot the location of your house. That's ready now. Fully autonomous, for humans, probably five to ten years.


Stop with your nonsense talk please.


----------



## ChortlingCrison

I'm surprised the "Ramzfanz" hasn't weighed in on this thread yet.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


I Am Pro Autonomous Vehicles. That being said.

1. Traffic jams would be a thing of the past if we could just get the drivers to stop tailgating. Safe following distance allows the 1% of drivers that are total tools to run out the Exit Only and other ending lane situations and then merge back into traffic without a problem.

2. Nothing becomes valet. Valet is to take your car and park it somewhere else. Your car just goes and parks .... Oh, yeah, where, you say later down that the parking lots are gone because fewer people own cars...
Reality, the mass majority of people that own cars today (and don't Uber or ride in other vehicles unless theirs is broken down) will own a self driving car, with rider override option. So, yes, the car will go find a parking spot...without you in it??? And, how do you tell it where to park.

3. See above, most people are going to own a vehicle.

4. Only as long as the self driving cars are the only cars on the road, and they NEVER have mechanical failures, like tire blow out, bird or animal strikes, etc.

5. See above, most people are going to own a vehicle. Most people won't want to send their cars home to "wait for them" and then have to worry if their car is going to end up not getting back to pick them up. You know, because some teenager decided to play funny with the car and mount a suction cup mounted "pedestrian" onto the hood (picture a long tripod setup that attaches to the hood but suspends the "dummy" in front of the car") at an intersection because "funny" to watch the car stuck there...along with all the other traffic problems that will cause.

6. Delivery will cost more. Do you really think your pizza comes to your home in a nearly 40,000.00 car? And, as lazy as people are when ordering delivery do you really see them walking out to Every Single Delivery to get it themselves???

7. Most people will own cars, for the same reason that most people own cars now. For Farks Sake. Have you even looked into why we have such a HUGE problem getting people to use Mass Transit or to even Car Pool with their coworkers. Yes, some companies, and very very few of these, have had some success with getting their employees to use company provided mass transit. However, these are nearly exclusively companies that also expect "devotion" to their company in the form of working nearly 70 hours (or more) a week. Looking at YOU Google.

8. You will have access to a vehicle that doesn't even have a live attendant to ensure that the previous passenger didn't leave something in the car. Much less that they didn't rip up the thing and leave it trashed. I mean, it isn't like anyone has ever booked a rental car with stolen credit cards and then trashed the crap out of it...or an Uber.

Reality is far from perfect. Self driving technology isn't ready for even the most basic of inner city driving situations that happen all the time. Road closures, bad road markings, rain/snow obstructing the view, cyclist, squirrels.

Seriously, have we even had a report on what happens if a squirrel runs out in front of an autonomous vehicle.

Here in Florida, what about all the times I am driving down the road and a flying rat (seagull), or other larger birds, flies across the front of my vehicle, or even worse right next to it (looking at you pelicans) right about where a cyclist might be normally?

And, I don't even want to talk about the number of times that I as an OTR truck driver had the Adaptive Cruise Control cut out because the "radar alignment" was out. It CAN'T attempt to resync/realign until it shuts down and restarts.

*How do I stop this stupid comments section from simply appending my new comments or replies to my previous comment or reply.*


----------



## d0n

Lol, why not self sailing boats or self flying planes?

Think about it, if those methods of transportation which have zero to no traffic haven't been automated (Asides auto pilot), what makes you think a crowded space with millions of vehicles can do better?

We should have had self flying and sailing ages ago and nobody bothered because sinking a ship or crashing a plane could devastate the company behind such systems plus the company allowing it, self driving will prey on the every day average Joe unable to sue the living shit out of those companies, all while they make them beta test their systems to make them better, this is classic silicon valley shens, release incomplete shit and have the users test it while they bought it.

They are counting on every "single" gullible person (avoiding class action) to fund such advancements which in the end will mean less work to feed your families.

Maybe in a communist world or a Utopia, does this world look like either one of them?


----------



## nobody420

A self driving car not going to rush me to hospital if I'm on the back seat having a heart attack r get me out of danger when I see the robbing crew running up to the car at a red light. R slow down and stop when I see somebody fighting on the curb that may fall in my path. R be able to navigate thru every street that's closed a real gps dumb af so NO I don't want to ride in a car that's dumb AF.


----------



## Phxdriver

Yes and when the PAX get in and leave nasty dog hair on seats the self driving car will vacuum, right? No telling what the college kids will leave in the backseat you would probably rather sit in the dog hair. I see dirty diapers being shoved under the seats, peanut butter on the interior windows and so on.


----------



## empresstabitha

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


1. Will not stop traffic jams. Unless all cars are self driving and pedestrians don't **** around.
2. Valets park cars, so you wouldn't have a valet.
3. I'm not a man
4.Unless someone hacks it and kills people
5.Where you going to park all the self driving cars? You'll need even larger parking lots.
6.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Free? Hahahahahahahahah
7. Yeah sure. Most people prefer having their own vehicles.
8. Again, if you think you'll have access to any type of vehicle you want then you're assuming there's enough extra cars so you aleays have an option. Even if you have a taxi service they need somewhere to house those cars and do maintenance on them. Since it will probably be several central locationa there goes your free apace theory. And if they don't want to waste time they'll need smaller lots and charfing stations so the car is always near. Cars that assist in driving would be a more realistic expectation than fullu autonomous cars.



tomatopaste said:


> Driving jobs altogether will become obsolete. But 200 years ago 90 percent of the population worked on the farm. Automation allowed them to do other things
> 
> Everything that happens inside the vehicle will be on camera, as well as outside. The ho gets arrested within the first five minutes.


Pfft yeah because self dribing cars will make cops more productive


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


Bro, you seem to forget one very important thing: just because a car is self driving, it still needs gas (or an electric charge, which did you know costs about 60-75% in electric costs as it costs in gas to fill up at the pump? In other words, it's not "free electricity") then there's tires, brakes, oil changes, tune ups, and other mechanic costs such as new alternator, water pump, belts hoses etc as the car reaches 100k and 200k miles (which will be very quick if by your prediction everyone will be doing this)

Not to mention the garages of storage and mechanics on duty as well as the cleaning staff that will need to be employed to maintain this fleet of cars.

In short- add up all the costs that I just described (as well as all the ones I didn't think of) and I wonder just how "affordable" a "taxi service subscription" would be.

Might just be cheaper to, um.... have your own cars?

I know the sci-fi world you describe sounds cool, but the reality of logistics tell me it just might be too costly to be common


----------



## VegasR

As for food delivery, you probably won't need a real car. 

Someone on the postmates Reddit posted these little r2d2 looking things the are supposedly replacing us with.


----------



## JDawg1990

Driverless cars still have to have a person behind the wheel to over ride to prevent accidents. My life is valuable I won't trust a computer to drive me. Software is fatal but the human mind can't be hacked.


----------



## DevaX

Tomato, you are a part of the problem with the working poor. Soon, humans will no longer be necessary, except for a few to keep the machines and blowjobs coming. You disgust me.


----------



## wb6vpm

JDawg1990 said:


> Driverless cars still have to have a person behind the wheel to over ride to prevent accidents. My life is valuable I won't trust a computer to drive me. Software is fatal but the human mind can't be hacked.


No, if it requires a driver, that is a driver assistance system. If it is driverless, then it is autonomous. Your arguments sound a lot like the arguments against the horseless carriage that happened back in the early 20th century.


----------



## tohunt4me

tomatopaste said:


> This is a two year old startup. First flight was in April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world is changing. Technology is moving at an exponential rate. Strap in.


I admire the Amish.
They may have the Right Idea.

If i were a younger man, i would go to them and ask to be taught their ways in exchange for work.


----------



## Oscar Levant

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


A fine and dandy in theory. I'll believe it when I see it, but until then, it's fantasy.



wb6vpm said:


> No, if it requires a driver, that is a driver assistance system. If it is driverless, then it is autonomous. Your arguments sound a lot like the arguments against the horseless carriage that happened back in the early 20th century.


There is a big difference, and that difference is why your analogy doesn't work, and the difference is this:

With a car, as with the horse, you are still steering/driving the thing, and, as such, you trust your ability to drive. This doesn't hold true with the driverless car.

Just because it's "high tech" doesn't mean its' necessarily going to be viable. The entire DC industry is operating on a grand assumption:

That they can be safe enough, ( without the assistance of computerizing the roads, street lights and signs ) and the grand assumption that people will want them.

Only one or two percent of all patents actually become commercially viable.


----------



## Mido toyota

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


Uber failed on the lease exchange and they are talking about big losses ,I wonder it is going to be when they own a fleet !!!!?


----------



## canyon

tomatopaste said:


> You're never going to become a well-known member with posts like that. Sad.


I'm not here to be a well known member, I'm here to tell the truth and call it what it is. If you don't like it block me sweet heart.


----------



## swingset

Here's the 900lb gorilla of driverless car obstaclaes:

1. Liability. No one has a solution for this. 100% of all accidents, deaths and injuries falls directly on the maker. That's never the case with normal transportation, and it's unprecedented. It can, and probably will, crush companies to get this going. Anyone got an answer that will precede the incidents? Yep, thought so.

2. Infrastructure and accuracy. It's nearly impossible to get non-point-to-point accurate systems of navigation because the mapping and address data is often voluntarily built, changes faster than the computers will have access to it, and no one has an answer for this. It's not just coordinates. Any of us should know the difficulty/impassibility of this by heart, we deal with it every day. The best navigation systems, combined, aren't even close to being accurate enough for a self-driving Uber to work reliably.

3. For something like a self-driving Uber, you have radically change (for the better) the customers. They are too stupid, lazy, entitled to find their car as it sits passively where it thinks they should be. Imagine 200 white UberJohnnyCabs showing up to a crowded event where pedestrians are dumping out into the street finding pax and vice versa. I'd pay per view that cluster just for laughs.

4. Even if it works, would YOU want to ride in the back of an UberJohnnyCab? Can you imagine the rolling health hazard in that back seat? Crap, puke, jizz and trash. People will be shooting up, screwing, and letting their animals have their way with it. Whoever gets paid to clean the fleet car at the end of the night will need a Hazmat suit.

5. For Uber to replace us, they'd need about 200,000 cars at the minimum. Do you realize the cost, logistics, complexity and control something like that would take? Verses just running the app and a few greenlight hubs? As it stands now, they've shifted almost the entire operating expense onto us, which is a brilliant model. Putting 100% back on the company is lunacy, frankly. With, honestly, nothing to gain from it except more risk, liability and operating costs based on a HUNCH that people want that. Most I talk to would not be cool getting in the back of one. I wouldn't.


----------



## Trebor

everythingsuber said:


> There is the minor issue that they are not remotely close to actually working as yet.
> Teleporting would be nice as well.


Teleportation is a lot closer then you think

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40594387


----------



## 123dragon

VegasR said:


> As for food delivery, you probably won't need a real car.
> 
> Someone on the postmates Reddit posted these little r2d2 looking things the are supposedly replacing us with.


They have them in my neighborhood already.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...roll-up-to-deliver-it/?utm_term=.8db6d3addfe5

Its come to my house a few times through Caviar. Someone follows behind it, they refuse to accept tips.


----------



## Wil_Iam_Fuber'd

JDawg1990 said:


> Driverless cars still have to have a person behind the wheel to over ride to prevent accidents. My life is valuable I won't trust a computer to drive me. Software is fatal but the human mind can't be hacked.


I agree with this sentiment, but ,"the human mind can't be hacked"? Seriously, you believe this? The human mind is ridiculously easy to hack. How else can one explain Religion or Republicans??


----------



## Spotscat

Actually, truth be told, none of this matters anyway. 

When Skynet goes active, we're all screwed!


----------



## Baby Cakes

tomatopaste said:


> This is a two year old startup. First flight was in April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world is changing. Technology is moving at an exponential rate. Strap in.


CGI has improved quite a bit, I almost believed that!


----------



## Uberdriverlasvegas

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


----------



## elelegido

d0n said:


> Lol, why not self sailing boats or self flying planes?


Self flying planes already exist, as do self-piloting ships. Assuming you are talking about why there are no pilotless passenger planes or pilotless ships, it's because of (a) government regulations and (b) no consumer demand. I can't think of too many people who would want to get on a plane that flies at 39,000 feet and 550 mph with no pilot in it. And they don't want just one pilot in the plane; they want two.

Self driving cars are here already, but driverless cars are still quite a way off technically. But what happens if, like pilotless commercial jets, there is little consumer demand for them? In x years' time, when driverless cars are finally developed, tested, approved and legalized, maybe people won't want a machine driving them.

It's pretty interesting. We trust driverless trains (airport monorails, London's DLR railway) in low speed, isolated and controlled environments, but trusting a machine in the chaos of a city street or freeway is another matter altogether.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> So, you think a driverless car would cost less than the cheapest car for sale in the US; the Nissan Versa. A stripped out sub-compact with no self-driving technology. Not even plain ol' cruise control. Ok....
> 
> It's all moot to us as Uberlyft drivers anyway. As I say, self driving cars will have no effect whatsoever on rideshare. Maybe a few drivers will buy them so they can take their hands off the wheel once in a while, but that'll be it. Driverless cars, on the other hand, will put us out of a job. But there's no sign from any manufacturer anywhere that those will be ready anytime soon.


Really? GM already has 100 self driving cars for their employees to use anywhere they want to go in San Francisco.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/future/cruise-gm-ridesharing/index.html



tohunt4me said:


> Yet the world is worse off not better.
> 
> Transhumanist Globalists should consider Quality of Life.
> Stop making the world a for profit slum.
> 
> Misapplied Technology.


Should we follow Cuba's utopian model instead?



nemesis1 said:


> Do not listen to fubernuber...as you can tell by his insightful posts, he is not a thinking type of man. He makes absolutely no sense 100% of the time as this thread shows.


Kind of a general statement there Nemy. What specifically do you take issue with? I'm happy to defend everything I've said. Please make your argument.



tohunt4me said:


> I admire the Amish.
> They may have the Right Idea.
> 
> If i were a younger man, i would go to them and ask to be taught their ways in exchange for work.


And this would be the wife they assign you. Grrrrrrrrrr.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/2d/a4/e82da43046306d93a9b069a935a25960.jpg
At least you won't need Viagra


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> Really? GM already has 100 self driving cars for their employees to use anywhere they want to go in San Francisco.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/08/technology/future/cruise-gm-ridesharing/index.html


Not quite sure why you insist on posting responses that are not relevant to what I posted. Google making some self-driving cars available for employee use does not address, in any way, my point that there is no target date for _driverless_ cars from manufacturers.

From your article,

_Cruise's test fleet of Chevy Bolts run 16 hours each day around most of San Francisco and has already given more than a 1,000 rides. *A test driver is present to oversee the vehicle's operation and guarantee safety.*_


----------



## tomatopaste

Slim Pete said:


> Stop with your nonsense talk please.


 Yes ma'am. Sorry



DevaX said:


> Tomato, you are a part of the problem with the working poor. Soon, humans will no longer be necessary, except for a few to keep the machines and blowjobs coming. You disgust me.


I'm guessing you'll sign up for the latter.



elelegido said:


> Not quite sure why you insist on posting responses that are not relevant to what I posted. Google making some self-driving cars available for employee use does not address, in any way, my point that there is no target date for _driverless_ cars from manufacturers.
> 
> From your article,
> 
> _Cruise's test fleet of Chevy Bolts run 16 hours each day around most of San Francisco and has already given more than a 1,000 rides. *A test driver is present to oversee the vehicle's operation and guarantee safety.*_


GM, not Google. Google/Waymo has their own testing going on with volunteers from the public in Phoenix. This is how you bring a new product to market. You create a beta version then test the hell out of it to find bugs.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> GM, not Google. Google/Waymo has their own testing going on with volunteers from the public in Phoenix.


I stand corrected; your article is about GM, not Google. Still doesn't change the fact that no company has released a believable target date for driverless cars


> This is how you bring a new product to market. You create a beta version then test the hell out of it to find bugs.


Correct. And?


----------



## tomatopaste

canyon said:


> I'm not here to be a well known member, I'm here to tell the truth and call it what it is. If you don't like it block me sweet heart.


You realize 'well-know' members pull the ladies, right?


----------



## Archie Pelago

heynow321 said:


> But let's take the numbers at one death per 130 million miles as of August. The US average is 1.08 fatalities per 100 million miles, or 92.6 million miles per. 95% of these deaths are attributed to driver error, and only 5% to vehicle failure.
> 
> Until there's a car with a two or three _billion_ miles on its autopilot system...


So two problems there.
1) You've already conceded that it's not trillions. You're now claiming billions.
2) You are only considering fatalities. And yet there are many, many more collisions than that, all of which we want to avoid.
3) You're also not considering adhering to the rules of the road. They can and do measure how likely it is for a autonomous cars to run a red light etc against a human driver. A car that breaks the rules of the road less often, by mistake or deliberately is safer in that regard.

There really is a lot to measure and compare in the region of millions of road miles. And we definately don't need to wait for trillions.

As a reminder a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 miles. A million million.
All US traffic added together only manages 3 trillion in a year. (And comes to 35,000 deaths)

There are some here saying that driverless cars (i.e. Level 5 automation) will not be here in our lifetimes. 
And there are some saying that driverless taxis will be here soon, and will put vast numbers of drivers out of work.

They're both wrong. The truth lies somewhere between those extremes.


----------



## jfinks

So you are saying that these cars will self maintain? Tires, brakes, oil (if not electric), grease, general checks, body work, general repair.... It is just a shift of paying drivers to paying mechanics. Mechanics command higher wages than uber drivers also, probably a 2 to 1 ratio.



tomatopaste said:


> You went from 'Uber is a 50 billion dollar behemoth' to 'You think they have money to buy the fleet, maintain it and warehouse it?" in under two sentences. I'm checking to see if that's a new world record.
> 
> "The expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless." Come on, that's patently absurd. The largest cost for almost all businesses is people. Avg being 60 percent. With Uber it's probably more like 80%. Uber doesn't have to own the cars, people could lease their car to Uber, have it pulls itself out of the garage, drives someone to the airport, do a few more runs and tuck itself back in. Most people only use their cars 4 percent of the time. But my guess is the self-driving taxi company will prefer to own the cars. Also, it won't be Uber. Uber is not going to win the self-driving car race.
> 
> 2017: "You see any private driverless cars yet?"
> 1903: "Wilbur and Orville are trying to build a contraption that will allow men to fly like birds. What a bunch of idiots"
> 
> Select, Black do


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> I stand corrected; your article is about GM, not Google. Still doesn't change the fact that no company has released a believable target date for driverless cars
> Correct. And?


Not true. In this video Chris Urmson who was in charge of Google's self driving car effort, then started his own self driving company Aurora, says it will be ready in under four and a half years. He said that 2 years ago.
see video starting at: 13:25






If you watch this video you see GM's self driving car driving in downtown San Francisco at night for an hour and a half with ZERO! human interaction. It's ready now. It will be here in less than two and a half yrs as Urmson predicted. At this point they're just gathering data to be able to show to governments, insurance companies, regulators, and the public.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> Not true. In this video Chris Urmson who was in charge of Google's self driving car effort, then started his own self driving company Aurora, says it will be ready in under four and a half years. He said that 2 years ago.
> see video starting at: 13:25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you watch this video you see GM's self driving car driving in downtown San Francisco at night for an hour and a half with ZERO! human interaction. It's ready now. It will be here in less than two and a half yrs as Urmson predicted. At this point they're just gathering data to be able to show to governments, insurance companies, regulators, and the public.


We shall see. The delivery date has already slipped from 2017 to 2020. I didn't believe them when they said 2017 and I was correct not to. I do not believe them with their new 2020 date. But we shall see.


----------



## Steveyoungerthanmontana

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


When this happens it will happen with a company that is NOT dysfunctional like UBER.

Although all the tech companies are pretty dysfunctional right now.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> We shall see. The delivery date has already slipped from 2017 to 2020. I didn't believe them when they said 2017 and I was correct not to. I do not believe them with their new 2020 date. But we shall see.


No. He predicted in the video it would be ready four and a half years from June of 2015. That would be the end of 2019. It's 2017. He gave himself a two year buffer.


----------



## tohunt4me

Mido toyota said:


> Uber failed on the lease exchange and they are talking about big losses ,I wonder it is going to be when they own a fleet !!!!?


Uber cant do what we do with the pitiful amount of money we receive.

DRIVERS SUBSIDISE UBER !

STOP.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> No. He predicted in the video it would be ready four and a half years from June of 2015. That would be the end of 2019. It's 2017. He gave himself a two year buffer.


End of 2019 or one month later in January 2020... a small difference which doesn't matter anyway - if I don't believe 2020 then I logically don't believe 2019 either.


----------



## tomatopaste

Steveyoungerthanmontana said:


> When this happens it will happen with a company that is NOT dysfunctional like UBER.
> 
> Although all the tech companies are pretty dysfunctional right now.


It will not be with Uber. Uber is toxic, they can't even hire a CEO.



elelegido said:


> End of 2019 or one month later in January 2020... a small difference which doesn't matter anyway - if I don't believe 2020 then I logically don't believe 2019 either.


You said:

"We shall see. The delivery date has already slipped from 2017 to 2020. I didn't believe them when they said 2017 and I was correct not to. I do not believe them with their new 2020 date. But we shall see."

The delivery date was always end of 2019. Nobody said anything about 2017.


----------



## WaveRunner1

Self-driving cars is an excellent idea however it is very idealistic at this point. There are many factors that will delay a roll out on a national level. For example, roads are not made for these types of vehicles. It would take a decade for all state and local governments to make the proper modifications. Think about the single middle lanes that have two way turns. This coupled with the factor most cars on the road would still be driven by humans, many who don't know how to drive properly. You get the point.

Assuming Uber survives at all, I don't think they will be able to compete with Apple and Google and all auto manufacturers (many historic brands will fold sadly) and others will merge and form alliances. Many companies are rejoicing at Uber's current self-inflicted problems.


----------



## tomatopaste

jfinks said:


> So you are saying that these cars will self maintain? Tires, brakes, oil (if not electric), grease, general checks, body work, general repair.... It is just a shift of paying drivers to paying mechanics. Mechanics command higher wages than uber drivers also, probably a 2 to 1 ratio.


No. I'm saying they'll operate like a traditional taxi company as far as the fleet goes. Uber's fleet is actually more expensive than cab companies on a cost per mile basis. It's just that Uber rips off the driver by using their cars for free.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> You said:
> 
> "We shall see. The delivery date has already slipped from 2017 to 2020. I didn't believe them when they said 2017 and I was correct not to. I do not believe them with their new 2020 date. But we shall see."
> 
> The delivery date was always end of 2019. Nobody said anything about 2017.


You appear to be ill informed. Sergey Brin made the 2017 prediction in 2012. https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-sergey-brin-youll-ride-in-robot-cars-within-5-years/


----------



## empresstabitha

elelegido said:


> Self flying planes already exist, as do self-piloting ships. Assuming you are talking about why there are no pilotless passenger planes or pilotless ships, it's because of (a) government regulations and (b) no consumer demand. I can't think of too many people who would want to get on a plane that flies at 39,000 feet and 550 mph with no pilot in it. And they don't want just one pilot in the plane; they want two.
> 
> Self driving cars are here already, but driverless cars are still quite a way off technically. But what happens if, like pilotless commercial jets, there is little consumer demand for them? In x years' time, when driverless cars are finally developed, tested, approved and legalized, maybe people won't want a machine driving them.
> 
> It's pretty interesting. We trust driverless trains (airport monorails, London's DLR railway) in low speed, isolated and controlled environments, but trusting a machine in the chaos of a city street or freeway is another matter altogether.


Trains are on tracks


----------



## Uberdriver2710

Yes, and Santa Clause is real.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> You appear to be ill informed. Sergey Brin made the 2017 prediction in 2012. https://www.cnet.com/news/googles-sergey-brin-youll-ride-in-robot-cars-within-5-years/


And he was right. 
"Ordinary folks will have access to self-driving cars in the next few years", the Google cofounder said at a California bill signing today.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanoh...of-google-self-driving-car-tech/#7908a23c6141


----------



## AmericanTaxiOptima

I read this as "Here's why I don't mind losing my job to robots" followed by a list of BS reasons why this is a good thing.

I naturally assume this person also has no problem watching someone else have sex with their spouse.

1. It saves me the time and energy of having to bang my own wife!
2. My wife enjoys it!
3. Think of all the sexually frustrated men I'm helping out!
4. My kids get to have numerous male role models!
5. She was probably going to cheat anyways might as well just get it over with!
6. This is just how the future was going anyways!

****ing cuck


----------



## tomatopaste

AmericanTaxiOptima said:


> I read this as "Here's why I don't mind losing my job to robots" followed by a list of BS reasons why this is a good thing.
> 
> I naturally assume this person also has no problem watching someone else have sex with their spouse.
> 
> 1. It saves me the time and energy of having to bang my own wife!
> 2. My wife enjoys it!
> 3. Think of all the sexually frustrated men I'm helping out!
> 4. My kids get to have numerous male role models!
> 5. She was probably going to cheat anyways might as well just get it over with!
> 6. This is just how the future was going anyways!
> 
> &%[email protected]!*ing cuck


I read this as: OMG like what will I do if like Uber goes away and like I have to go back to:
Taco Bell
or
baby sitting
or 
pickpocketing

I mean like my Mom is so proud of me.

P.S. Does anyone know where I can get an Uber tattoo removed from my ass?


----------



## 123dragon

AmericanTaxiOptima said:


> I read this as "Here's why I don't mind losing my job to robots" followed by a list of BS reasons why this is a good thing.
> 
> I naturally assume this person also has no problem watching someone else have sex with their spouse.
> 
> 1. It saves me the time and energy of having to bang my own wife!
> 2. My wife enjoys it!
> 3. Think of all the sexually frustrated men I'm helping out!
> 4. My kids get to have numerous male role models!
> 5. She was probably going to cheat anyways might as well just get it over with!
> 6. This is just how the future was going anyways!
> 
> &%[email protected]!*ing cuck


A lot of people are part time more then half uber drivers are. If it makes other parts of your life easier that out weight the part time jobs I can see how people are excited.

Whether you agree with it or not you cannot stop it unless you get every country to agree to outlaw it. When India and China build out their 250+ smart cities they have slated the cost of moving goods is going to be reduced 40% which will make it even more difficult for us to compete in world trade.


----------



## Westerner

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> .


Not. Even with driverless cars there will still be peak demand times for road space


----------



## tomatopaste

Westerner said:


> Not. Even with driverless cars there will still be peak demand times for road space


They will eventually once humans get off the road.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> If you watch this video you see GM's self driving car driving in downtown San Francisco at night for an hour and a half with ZERO! human interaction. It's ready now.


Lol, no; a 90 minute drive in a city environment is not evidence that driverless cars can handle all environments and conditions in which humans drive (ice, rain, snow, fog, high winds, no road markings, police - directed traffic, traffic lights out, emergency vehicles approaching etc etc)

Interesting to see that at 2:52 the car stopped because there was a cyclist behind it. The car ground to a halt and waited until the cyclist passed it and turned off the street. If that's the way they deal with bicycles, cyclists are going to love driverless cars. For them, it'll be like Moses parting the Red Sea - they'll very quickly learn that all they have to do ride like tools when they're near one and it'll stop and let them through. It can also be seen in the video that the car was stopped just over 30 seconds while it figured out what to do. Not quite ready for prime time yet anywhere there are cyclists.



> At this point they're just gathering data to be able to show to governments, insurance companies, regulators, and the public.


No, you're just guessing. But if you do have a copy of Waymo's project plan with these milestones checked off, then please post it.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> Lol, no; a 90 minute drive in a city environment is not evidence that driverless cars can handle all environments and conditions in which humans drive (ice, rain, snow, fog, high winds, no road markings, police - directed traffic, traffic lights out, emergency vehicles approaching etc etc)
> 
> Interesting to see that at 2:52 the car stopped because there was a cyclist behind it. The car ground to a halt and waited until the cyclist passed it and turned off the street. If that's the way they deal with bicycles, cyclists are going to love driverless cars. For them, it'll be like Moses parting the Red Sea - they'll very quickly learn that all they have to do ride like tools when they're near one and it'll stop and let them through. It can also be seen in the video that the car was stopped just over 30 seconds while it figured out what to do. Not quite ready for prime time yet anywhere there are cyclists.
> 
> No, you're just guessing. But if you do have a copy of Waymo's project plan with these milestones checked off, then please post it.


Waymo project plan for 2017


elelegido said:


> Lol, no; a 90 minute drive in a city environment is not evidence that driverless cars can handle all environments and conditions in which humans drive (ice, rain, snow, fog, high winds, no road markings, police - directed traffic, traffic lights out, emergency vehicles approaching etc etc)
> 
> Interesting to see that at 2:52 the car stopped because there was a cyclist behind it. The car ground to a halt and waited until the cyclist passed it and turned off the street. If that's the way they deal with bicycles, cyclists are going to love driverless cars. For them, it'll be like Moses parting the Red Sea - they'll very quickly learn that all they have to do ride like tools when they're near one and it'll stop and let them through. It can also be seen in the video that the car was stopped just over 30 seconds while it figured out what to do. Not quite ready for prime time yet anywhere there are cyclists.
> 
> No, you're just guessing. But if you do have a copy of Waymo's project plan with these milestones checked off, then please post it.


I love how you guys come up with the most minuscule insignificant bs to try to prove self driving cars won't work. "Well, what if a herd of wild buffalo come down from Wyoming and block the road until they get some Double Chalupas from Taco Bell? Self driving cars don't speak buffalo but a human driver could get out and use hand signals."


----------



## EV Driver

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.





tomatopaste said:


> 1. Uber doesn't "have" drivers. Drivers despise Uber and are just waiting for someone better to come along.
> 2. Did I not say that Uber is going to lose the self-driving race. I did. Are you still at happy hour? You realize drinks are only half off until six, right?
> 3. Did you not say "I give up you win" You did. Are you asking to be reinstated? If so, I'll allow it but realize it's going to be painful.


You never get rid of 100%, Dummy taxi cab drivers, why can't anyone figure this OUT...?


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> I love how you guys come up with the most minuscule insignificant bs to try to prove self driving cars won't work. "Well, what if a herd of wild buffalo come down from Wyoming and block the road until they get some Double Chalupas from Taco Bell? Self driving cars don't speak buffalo but a human driver could get out and use hand signals."


I think it was you who mentioned strawman arguments a while ago? Now ^^that^^ is a strawman. You were a little hazy on what a strawman is. It is claiming that another person said something which they actually didn't, and then attacking the imaginary comment that they themselves made up. It's pretty dumb, and usually done when the person has no other comeback.

My observation that a 90 minute video in one environment in one weather condition does not demonstrate that an autonomos vehicle can be driven in all (commonly encountered) environments and weather conditions that a human can is correct. This is by definition, as only one environment/condition is demonstrated in the video. Pretty simple, really.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> I think it was you who mentioned strawman arguments a while ago? Now ^^that^^ is a strawman. You were a little hazy on what a strawman is. It is claiming that another person said something which they actually didn't, and then attacking the imaginary comment that they themselves made up. It's pretty dumb, and usually done when they have no other comeback.
> 
> My observation that a 90 minute video in one environment in one weather condition does not demonstrate that an autonomos vehicle can be driven in all (commonly encountered) environments and weather conditions that a human can is correct. This is by definition, as only one environment/condition is demonstrated in the video. Pretty simple, really.


No. I was mocking your strawman argument that self driving cars can't work because the self driving car didn't cut off the cyclist and run him over.

Yes, a 90 minute video of the most challenging driving environment anyone will ever encounter, except of course driving on the highway from Vegas to Victorville.

If you can solve quadratic equations you can handle take-aways (3-2) as well.



EV Driver said:


> You never get rid of 100%, Dummy taxi cab drivers, why can't anyone figure this OUT...?


You'll never get rid of 100 percent of what? Dumb taxi cab drivers?


----------



## RamzFanz

everythingsuber said:


> There is the minor issue that they are not remotely close to actually working as yet.
> Teleporting would be nice as well.


Self Driving on live roads, no driver, no driver controls, started over a year ago.



Fubernuber said:


> Oh god enough with this already. Its not happeing. Mostly because the expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless.


Not even close.



Fubernuber said:


> Uber will have to own these driverless cars.


No, actually, they won't.



Fubernuber said:


> You think a 50 billion dollar bahemoth wants to be on the front end of lawsuits?


Uber is in constant lawsuits.



Fubernuber said:


> You think they have money to buy the fleet? Maintain it? Warehouse it?


They won't need to do any of those things. You should actually study this subject and form an informed opinion.



Fubernuber said:


> The lapse between privately owned self driving cars and driverless for hires will be many years.


Ago. More perniciously, over a year ago. Driverless for hire is over a year old whereas there are no privately owned ones.



Fubernuber said:


> You see any private driverless cars yet? Just to repeat the obvious.


No, we don't. Almost none of the companies, which includes almost every major auto company and almost every major tech company in the world, are focused on privately owned, they are focused on for hire.



Fubernuber said:


> At thr very least 75% of our fares would not call a driver if they had a driverless car. They would not call for a driverless car either.


Made up statistic.



Fubernuber said:


> Your own personal driverless car can take you anywhere and wait or go back to your garage. Not happening.


Privatly owned cars are already in decline and will plummet when for hire driverless gets a foothold.



Fubernuber said:


> I am in my later 30s and i hope to see this by the time my kids are old and grey


1-3 years for introduction.



Nomad said:


> Pretty sure I could stop a self-driving car with a Wile-E.-Coyote-esque painted tunnel...
> 
> or a big mirror...
> 
> whatever floats your boat


Neither would work.



Archie Pelago said:


> Private driverless cars will be available in the next 5 years so they say. It seems incredible, but there are already impressive demos out there:


1 to 3 years.

Almost everyone is saying 1 to 3.

But they won't be private, the will be TNCs.



Archie Pelago said:


> Now it doesn't really matter whether you call that dangerous or not. What matters is whether that number will be higher or lower with autonomous cars. And no-one that has anything to do with autonomous cars doubts that they will reduce the number of deaths. In fact autonomous systems aren't going to be given permission go into general use unless and until they demonstrate that safety.


Exactly.



tomatopaste said:


> Driving for Uber you see at least one accident a day on the freeway that slows traffic. It's not just deaths but lost productivity and property damage that we have to deal with


People always talk about deaths. Deaths have been reduced by safety requirements. Injuries, however, are astronomical.



heynow321 said:


> I wonder how many people will die in ambulances or on the scene bc a sdc couldn't figure out what to do when getting out of the way requires highly illegal moves


You just keep going in circles. We've covered this a dozen times. SDCs will ALREADY break the laws as needed. It's over, move on.



heynow321 said:


> You don't seem to understand statistics.


They don't need anything of the kind. They will be tested and certified on proving grounds already under construction. However many miles, live and simulated, they need to pass these tests is up to the manufacturer.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> No. I was mocking *your strawman argument that self driving cars can't work because the self driving car didn't cut off the cyclist and run him over*.


Another strawman from you - I never said that sdc won't work because the car didn't cut off the cyclist and run him over. Looks like you still don't know what a strawman is. Here's some help for you:

straw man
ˌstrô ˈman/
_noun_
noun: *strawman*

*1*.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
If you _still_ don't get it, it's also known in simpler terms as putting words into other people's mouths. Saying that other people said things which they did not say. Come on; it's really not that difficult a concept.

If you disagree with what I said, then disagree with something I actually did say. For example, I said that passengers will not want to stop and wait 30 seconds when a cyclist is near the vehicle. If you think otherwise then say why I am wrong. But making things up and then disagreeing with them is just silly.



> Yes, a 90 minute video of the most challenging driving environment anyone will ever encounter, except of course driving on the highway from Vegas to Victorville.


You do have a few valid/intelligent thoughts and show a degree of reasoning, but then you go and cast doubt on yourself with comments like this. Let me try to put it in an even simpler way. A video in which there is no snow does not demonstrate that the vehicle can drive itself in snow. True or false?


----------



## RamzFanz

oldmanuber said:


> As crazy as it sounds, good point. We zoom up and down the roads at 65-85 mph and accidents are low. Hell, I had some fools pass me the other sunday morning about 2 am thinking they were Paul Walker and Vin Diesel doing the "Fast and Furious" thing. There were about 20 of 'em flying and dipping in and out of traffic. Hell, I even sped up and tried to stay with 'em for a couple of seconds, but thought the better of it. But no one got into an accident.
> For most part, we're pretty good drivers.


We're terrible drivers, we're just good at making them safer. 20-50 million injured or disabled every year.



elelegido said:


> Uber's already announced they're throwing in the Xchange towel on owning their own cars - they can't even run a fleet of leased Corollas lol. And that's with drivers helping them out with $150 per week payments for them. How on earth they think they're going to run a fleet with no subsidization/help from drivers is beyond me. Further still, it wouldn't be a fleet of Corollas and Hyundais; it'd be advanced cars equipped with radar, lidar, cameras, a dozen computers etc etc. Up front cost and maintenance would be astronomical.
> 
> It's all just pie in the sky, for the next 30 -50 years at least.


They aren't expensive and Uber won't own them.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> They aren't expensive and Uber won't own them.


Please post the price list for self driving cars, and evidence that Uber will not own its SDC.

_Hint: "It's on the web" is not a valid answer_


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> One thing people are forgetting is that there is a huge difference between self driving cars and driverless cars. A driverless vehicle as Uber envisions it must be able to drive anywhere a human driver can, in all conditions that humans drive in. If not, then a driver is still required to take over as the test driver did in this video. What you're left with then is a very complex and expensive vehicle, plus the expense of the driver as well. It doesn't matter that he'd be sitting idle 90% of the time; he still has to be paid.


Nope. You have self-driving in a geo-fenced area, level 4, and fully autonomous, level 5.

Uber only needs level 3.5. Self driving with rare remote intervention or driving or passenger intervention.



elelegido said:


> Self driving cars have come a long way and are indeed impressive, but self driving cars with a human only driving 10% of the time are not driverless cars. Neither is 95% car, 5% human. Nor is 98% car, 2% human etc.


Waymo went 7 months in 2015 without a single required human takeover. Where do you think they are now?



elelegido said:


> Driverless cars are what Uber needs, and they're still a long way off.


Uber isn't even a factor in SDCs. They will be partnered with auto companies who will provide the fleet. Lyft as well.


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> Self Driving on live roads, no driver, no driver controls, started over a year ago.
> 
> Not even close.
> 
> No, actually, they won't.
> 
> Uber is in constant lawsuits.
> 
> They won't need to do any of those things. You should actually study this subject and form an informed opinion.
> 
> Ago. More perniciously, over a year ago. Driverless for hire is over a year old whereas there are no privately owned ones.
> 
> No, we don't. Almost none of the companies, which includes almost every major auto company and almost every major tech company in the world, are focused on privately owned, they are focused on for hire.
> 
> Made up statistic.
> 
> Privatly owned cars are already in decline and will plummet when for hire driverless gets a foothold.
> 
> 1-3 years for introduction.
> 
> Neither would work.
> 
> 1 to 3 years.
> 
> Almost everyone is saying 1 to 3.
> 
> But they won't be private, the will be TNCs.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> People always talk about deaths. Deaths have been reduced by safety requirements. Injuries, however, are astronomical.
> 
> You just keep going in circles. We've covered this a dozen times. SDCs will ALREADY break the laws as needed. It's over, move on.
> 
> They don't need anything of the kind. They will be tested and certified on proving grounds already under construction. However many miles, live and simulated, they need to pass these tests is up to the manufacturer.


I make a point not to argue with people who sound smarter than me and people who take the time to make their voice prominent. Can never win the argument even with proof.


----------



## RamzFanz

elelegido said:


> Please post the price list for self driving cars, and evidence that Uber will not own its SDC.
> 
> _Hint: "It's on the web" is not a valid answer_


The initial SDCs will be urban glorified golf carts. The actual technology package for self driving is not expensive.

Google used a 70,000 Lidar on its first prototype. A much improved Lidar now costs hundreds.

We don't know how much they will cost yet because the price keeps dropping.

However, you need to note:


These Urban electric vehicles do not need to meet safety standards.
The fleet will be provided for Uber and _at the manufacturer's cost, not retail._
Electric vehicles have as few as 2 moving parts. IC engines have thousands. Maintenance is a fraction of the cost.
Now subtract the 75%-80% driver costs and driver recruitment and support costs.



Fubernuber said:


> I make a point not to argue with people who sound smarter than me and people who take the time to make their voice prominent. Can never win the argument even with proof.


Self driving is already a reality. That's my point.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> Waymo went 7 months in 2015 without a single required human takeover.


I see no evidence that Waymo went 7 months in 2015 without a disengagement.



RamzFanz said:


> The initial SDCs will be urban glorified golf carts. The actual technology package for self driving is not expensive.
> 
> Google used a 70,000 Lidar on its first prototype. A much improved Lidar now costs hundreds.
> 
> We don't know how much they will cost yet because the price keeps dropping.
> 
> However, you need to note:
> 
> 
> These Urban electric vehicles do not need to meet safety standards.
> The fleet will be provided for Uber and _at the manufacturer's cost, not retail._
> Electric vehicles have as few as 2 moving parts. IC engines have thousands. Maintenance is a fraction of the cost.
> Now subtract the 75%-80% driver costs and driver recruitment and support costs.
> 
> Self driving is already a reality. That's my point.


Please post the price list for self driving cars, and evidence that Uber will not own its SDC.


----------



## RamzFanz

heynow321 said:


> guys like him and ramz never present any actual evidence. they just try to describe their simplistic sci-fi based futuristic fantasies without any break down of numbers or anything. Hell even maven just posted something saying some major players are doubting their previous thought-out road to profitability with this nonsense.


You haven't read my blog.

I think it's time for an update using even more hard numbers.


----------



## heynow321

elelegido said:


> Please post the price list for self driving cars, and evidence that Uber will not own its SDC.
> 
> _Hint: "It's on the web" is not a valid answer_


 He never posts any information. He just posts his opinion and pretends it's hard fact. The guy installs sprinkler systems, he is in no way an expert on anything regarding this topic despite trying to present himself as so. Be careful about engaging him as it will be a big waste of your time


----------



## RamzFanz

swingset said:


> Here's the 900lb gorilla of driverless car obstaclaes:
> 
> 1. Liability. No one has a solution for this. 100% of all accidents, deaths and injuries falls directly on the maker. That's never the case with normal transportation, and it's unprecedented. It can, and probably will, crush companies to get this going. Anyone got an answer that will precede the incidents? Yep, thought so.


It's called insurance. Insurance on cars that crash less, cause less injuries, and fewer deaths. Hence, cheaper insurance.

In fact, it's projected to be so cheap, Musk is talking about throwing it in with the car sale.



swingset said:


> 2. Infrastructure and accuracy. It's nearly impossible to get non-point-to-point accurate systems of navigation because the mapping and address data is often voluntarily built, changes faster than the computers will have access to it, and no one has an answer for this. It's not just coordinates. Any of us should know the difficulty/impassibility of this by heart, we deal with it every day. The best navigation systems, combined, aren't even close to being accurate enough for a self-driving Uber to work reliably.


You're not up on how this works. The cars create their own 3D laser accurate maps, they don't rely on GPS or public maps. When one SDC sees something new, all of the fleet can learn it instantly.



swingset said:


> 3. For something like a self-driving Uber, you have radically change (for the better) the customers. They are too stupid, lazy, entitled to find their car as it sits passively where it thinks they should be. Imagine 200 white UberJohnnyCabs showing up to a crowded event where pedestrians are dumping out into the street finding pax and vice versa. I'd pay per view that cluster just for laughs.


Then they don't ride, pay a fee for not showing, and the car moves on. Your problem just became a profit center.



swingset said:


> 4. Even if it works, would YOU want to ride in the back of an UberJohnnyCab? Can you imagine the rolling health hazard in that back seat? Crap, puke, jizz and trash. People will be shooting up, screwing, and letting their animals have their way with it. Whoever gets paid to clean the fleet car at the end of the night will need a Hazmat suit.


The interiors will be auto-monitored and passangers charged for messes. Your problem just became a profit center.



swingset said:


> 5. For Uber to replace us, they'd need about 200,000 cars at the minimum. Do you realize the cost, logistics, complexity and control something like that would take? Verses just running the app and a few greenlight hubs? As it stands now, they've shifted almost the entire operating expense onto us, which is a brilliant model. Putting 100% back on the company is lunacy, frankly. With, honestly, nothing to gain from it except more risk, liability and operating costs based on a HUNCH that people want that. Most I talk to would not be cool getting in the back of one. I wouldn't.


Another brilliant model is shifting the fleet onto the manufacturer who can provide it at their manufacturing costs. You should look into it.



elelegido said:


> Not quite sure why you insist on posting responses that are not relevant to what I posted. Google making some self-driving cars available for employee use does not address, in any way, my point that there is no target date for _driverless_ cars from manufacturers.


Self driving and driverless are the same thing, level 4. The target dates vary from next year to 2o21 for most major companies.

Autonomous, level 5, is a long way off but it's just not necessary to take most of our jobs.


----------



## tomatopaste

elelegido said:


> Another strawman from you - I never said that sdc won't work because the car didn't cut off the cyclist and run him over. Looks like you still don't know what a strawman is. Here's some help for you:
> 
> straw man
> ˌstrô ˈman/
> _noun_
> noun: *strawman*
> 
> *1*.
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> If you _still_ don't get it, it's also known in simpler terms as putting words into other people's mouths. Saying that other people said things which they did not say. Come on; it's really not that difficult a concept.
> 
> If you disagree with what I said, then disagree with something I actually did say. For example, I said that passengers will not want to stop and wait 30 seconds when a cyclist is near the vehicle. If you think otherwise then say why I am wrong. But making things up and then disagreeing with them is just silly.
> 
> You do have a few valid/intelligent thoughts and show a degree of reasoning, but then you go and cast doubt on yourself with comments like this. Let me try to put it in an even simpler way. A video in which there is no snow does not demonstrate that the vehicle can drive itself in snow. True or false?


noun: *strawman*

an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Strawman number 1. Self driving cars won't work cause the self driving car in the beta test is programmed to yield to pedestrians and cyclists.

Strawman number 2. Self driving cars won't work because the video didn't show it driving in snow or dealing with a herd of wild buffalo from Wyoming.

Strawman number 3. Intentionally splitting hairs on the meaning of the word 'strawman' to deflect from having to argue your weak arguments.


----------



## elelegido

RamzFanz said:


> You haven't read my blog.
> 
> I think it's time for an update using even more hard numbers.


Ok, you admit in your own blog:

_So, to answer the big question, this novice's guess as to when human Uber driving will be encroached upon at a noticeable level is about 3-4 years from today with the large metros being the first impacted.
_


Novice's guesses are all well and good, but you present your guesses as if they were fact.



tomatopaste said:


> noun: *strawman*
> 
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> Strawman number 1. Self driving cars won't work cause the self driving car in the beta test is programmed to yield to pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> Strawman number 2. Self driving cars won't work because the video didn't show it driving in snow or dealing with a herd of wild buffalo from Wyoming.
> 
> Strawman number 3. Intentionally splitting hairs on the meaning of the word 'strawman' to deflect from having to argue your weak arguments.


Can someone explain it to this guy, please? This is embarrassing.

RamzFanz , you're an intelligent guy - can you tell Tomatopaste what a strawman is?


----------



## RamzFanz

jfinks said:


> So you are saying that these cars will self maintain? Tires, brakes, oil (if not electric), grease, general checks, body work, general repair.... It is just a shift of paying drivers to paying mechanics. Mechanics command higher wages than uber drivers also, probably a 2 to 1 ratio.


They will be small electric vehicle so very little maintenance with part swapping techs, not mechanics.



WaveRunner1 said:


> Self-driving cars is an excellent idea however it is very idealistic at this point. There are many factors that will delay a roll out on a national level. For example, roads are not made for these types of vehicles. It would take a decade for all state and local governments to make the proper modifications. Think about the single middle lanes that have two way turns.


No infrastructure changes need to be made. That' one of the main points.



WaveRunner1 said:


> This coupled with the factor most cars on the road would still be driven by humans, many who don't know how to drive properly. You get the point.


They are designed to drive with humans on the road. If they weren't, we would already have them as it would be way easier.



WaveRunner1 said:


> Assuming Uber survives at all, I don't think they will be able to compete with Apple and Google and all auto manufacturers (many historic brands will fold sadly) and others will merge and form alliances. Many companies are rejoicing at Uber's current self-inflicted problems.


The alliances are already forming including with Uber. They are the golden calf.



elelegido said:


> I see no evidence that Waymo went 7 months in 2015 without a disengagement.


The report is no longer showing with a casual search. It was the one and only long term report they made public before they moved to monthly reports and then dropped them. You can accept my word as a person who does my research and has for years or rely on what you know. They went 7 months without a necessary human takeover years ago. That's what happened. I've linked it here many times.



elelegido said:


> Please post the price list for self driving cars, and evidence that Uber will not own its SDC.


Uber won't own their own fleet nor will Lyft. GM has already stated they will provide Lyft with a fleet. Uber is partnered with several auto companies who want a share of the estimated $14T TNC market. There's zero chance they will have to provide their own SDC technology or fleet. This is my opinion.



elelegido said:


> Ok, you admit in your own blog:
> 
> _So, to answer the big question, this novice's guess as to when human Uber driving will be encroached upon at a noticeable level is about 3-4 years from today with the large metros being the first impacted.
> _
> 
> 
> Novice's guesses are all well and good, but you present your guesses as if they were fact.


When I guess, I try to say so. The vast majority of experts and corporations say 1-3 years. Musk is alone in the 1 year prediction as far as I know, but if Waymo announced tomorrow they were ready, I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> The initial SDCs will be urban glorified golf carts. The actual technology package for self driving is not expensive.
> 
> Google used a 70,000 Lidar on its first prototype. A much improved Lidar now costs hundreds.
> 
> We don't know how much they will cost yet because the price keeps dropping.
> 
> However, you need to note:
> 
> 
> These Urban electric vehicles do not need to meet safety standards.
> The fleet will be provided for Uber and _at the manufacturer's cost, not retail._
> Electric vehicles have as few as 2 moving parts. IC engines have thousands. Maintenance is a fraction of the cost.
> Now subtract the 75%-80% driver costs and driver recruitment and support costs.
> 
> Self driving is already a reality. That's my point.


So is uber tipping. That only took 7 years to integrate but the biggest technological chellenge like s.d.c.s is just a few more years away. Let me know when you purchased that toll booth in the midtown tunnel


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> noun: *strawman*
> 
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> Strawman number 1. Self driving cars won't work cause the self driving car in the beta test is programmed to yield to pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> Strawman number 2. Self driving cars won't work because the video didn't show it driving in snow or dealing with a herd of wild buffalo from Wyoming.
> 
> Strawman number 3. Intentionally splitting hairs on the meaning of the word 'strawman' to deflect from having to argue your weak arguments.


Nothing from Ramzfanz on this. Ok, I will explain it in s i m p l e terms.

Jack says to Jill that they should go up the hill to fetch a pail of water.

Jack - "Jill, let's go up the hill to fetch a pail of water"
Jill - "No, if you think I'm going up the hill with you to fetch 20 gallons of water, you've got another thing coming."

What Jill has done here is create a strawman argument. She altered what Jack said (fetch a pail of water) and misrepresented it as 20 gallons of water. She then balks at the proposition she herself made up.

This is a strawman. It is usually used by people with weaker arguments because distorting what the other person said and then attacking those distortions is easier than attacking what the other person actually said. That is what you did above when you said,



tomatopaste said:


> I love how you guys come up with the most minuscule insignificant bs to try to prove self driving cars won't work. "Well, what if a herd of wild buffalo come down from Wyoming and block the road until they get some Double Chalupas from Taco Bell? Self driving cars don't speak buffalo but a human driver could get out and use hand signals."


Nobody here, except you, said anything about herds of buffalo or Wyoming or blocking roads. And I never said SDC won't work. And I didn't say that SDC won't work because the car didn't run a cyclist over, as you claim.

Now, if you _still_ don't get it, then you're on your own.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fubernuber said:


> So is uber tipping. That only took 7 years to integrate but the biggest technological chellenge like s.d.c.s is just a few more years away. Let me know when you purchased that toll booth in the midtown tunnel


Uber isn't even in the running. They will not, in my opinion, ever produce self driving cars or self driving technology. One or more of the major auto companies worldwide will for them.


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> Uber isn't even in the running. They will not, in my opinion, ever produce self driving cars or self driving technology. One or more of the major auto companies worldwide will for them.


You stealing my opinion there! Progress. We agree on something


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> noun: *strawman*
> 
> an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
> Strawman number 1. Self driving cars won't work cause the self driving car in the beta test is programmed to yield to pedestrians and cyclists.
> 
> Strawman number 2. Self driving cars won't work because the video didn't show it driving in snow or dealing with a herd of wild buffalo from Wyoming.
> 
> Strawman number 3. Intentionally splitting hairs on the meaning of the word 'strawman' to deflect from having to argue your weak arguments.


It's quite simple.
*Opponents argument*: Self driving cars are not only going to happen but are, for all intents and purposes, already here, as this video illustrates.


RamzFanz said:


> They will be small electric vehicle so very little maintenance with part swapping techs, not mechanics.
> 
> No infrastructure changes need to be made. That' one of the main points.
> 
> They are designed to drive with humans on the road. If they weren't, we would already have them as it would be way easier.
> 
> The alliances are already forming including with Uber. They are the golden calf.
> 
> The report is no longer showing with a casual search. It was the one and only long term report they made public before they moved to monthly reports and then dropped them. You can accept my word as a person who does my research and has for years or rely on what you know. They went 7 months without a necessary human takeover years ago. That's what happened. I've linked it here many times.
> 
> Uber won't own their own fleet nor will Lyft. GM has already stated they will provide Lyft with a fleet. Uber is partnered with several auto companies who want a share of the estimated $14T TNC market. There's zero chance they will have to provide their own SDC technology or fleet. This is my opinion.
> 
> When I guess, I try to say so. The vast majority of experts and corporations say 1-3 years. Musk is alone in the 1 year prediction as far as I know, but if Waymo announced tomorrow they were ready, I wouldn't be surprised.


What do Uber and Lyft bring to the table? GM bought Cruise's self driving technology for 500 million that has its own Uber/Lyft software for hailing SDC's. Obviously GM sees some value in also partnering with Lyft but I don't see what it is.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fubernuber said:


> You stealing my opinion there! Progress. We agree on something


Hey! I said it first!

"Forget Uber's self driving cars, they're infants in the SDC world. What we have to worry about is the massive group of companies that are closing in on the SDC goal."


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> Hey! I said it first!
> 
> "Forget Uber's self driving cars, they're infants in the SDC world. What we have to worry about is the massive group of companies that are closing in on the SDC goal."


Cant argue a dude with 3 times as many posts as me. I can agree with you but i can still dislike your ideology.


----------



## elelegido

tomatopaste said:


> *Opponents argument*: Self driving cars are not only going to happen but are, for all intents and purposes, already here, as this video illustrates.


Then say that, instead of trying to ridicule the idea that buffalo will block self driving cars, or that SDC will fail because they don't run over cyclists, neither of which anyone mentioned but you. By trying to put words into other people's mouths you just make yourself look foolish.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fubernuber said:


> Cant argue a dude with 3 times as many posts as me. I can agree with you but i can still dislike your ideology.


My ideology is science.



tomatopaste said:


> It's quite simple.
> *Opponents argument*: Self driving cars are not only going to happen but are, for all intents and purposes, already here, as this video illustrates.
> 
> What do Uber and Lyft bring to the table? GM bought Cruise's self driving technology for 500 million that has its own Uber/Lyft software for hailing SDC's. Obviously GM sees some value in also partnering with Lyft but I don't see what it is.


Market share.

Which is why Uber isn't going to have any trouble getting a fleet. They own 80%+ of the market. Uber is a verb. Companies see Uber as a way to leap to the front of the pack.


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> My ideology is science.
> 
> Market share.
> 
> Which is why Uber isn't going to have any trouble getting a fleet. They own 80%+ of the market. Uber is a verb. Companies see Uber as a way to leap to the front of the pack.


Its a 4 letter word kind of like $hit.


----------



## RamzFanz

Fubernuber said:


> Its a 4 letter word kind of like $hit.


Most passangers love Uber's service. It doesn't much matter what we think of them. They are in the best possible position to win this race as long as they clean up their reputation, which they are working hard at, and partner with strong auto companies, which they have.

I wouldn't buy their stock today if they were public, but I might change my mind when they do go public.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> My ideology is science.
> 
> Market share.
> 
> Which is why Uber isn't going to have any trouble getting a fleet. They own 80%+ of the market. Uber is a verb. Companies see Uber as a way to leap to the front of the pack.


Who will be the most valuable players. 
1. Hardware/car companies? 
2. SDC software companies
3. Market share guys like Uber Lyft?


----------



## RamzFanz

tomatopaste said:


> Who will be the most valuable players.
> 1. Hardware/car companies?
> 2. SDC software companies
> 3. Market share guys like Uber Lyft?


Right now, in my mind, it's definitely hardware companies. They are gearing up to make a killing. Lidar companies. Processor companies like NVIDIA. Some up and comers out there.

Down the road, I really like Lyft. Partnered with GM, has a solid reputation, and with enough market share to come on strong with backing. If they were public, I would buy today.

Auto companies are a tougher nut but I like GM's stances, positions, and moves.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> Right now, in my mind, it's definitely hardware companies. They are gearing up to make a killing. Lidar companies. Processor companies like NVIDIA. Some up and comers out there.
> 
> Down the road, I really like Lyft. Partnered with GM, has a solid reputation, and with enough market share to come on strong with backing. If they were public, I would buy today.
> 
> Auto companies are a tougher nut but I like GM's stances, positions, and moves.


This is a very high stakes game. Intel bought mobileye for 15.3 BILION! dollars. You have all the heavy hitters in there now. The mapping software alone is worth billions. Intel and the Europeans are not going to roll over to Uber and partners even if they jump out to an early lead. Your thoughts?


----------



## Fubernuber

RamzFanz said:


> Most passangers love Uber's service. It doesn't much matter what we think of them. They are in the best possible position to win this race as long as they clean up their reputation, which they are working hard at, and partner with strong auto companies, which they have.
> 
> I wouldn't buy their stock today if they were public, but I might change my mind when they do go public.


Most shoppers like amazons service. Its ironic because amazon offers 0 service. Literally no service


----------



## tomatopaste

heynow321 said:


> He never posts any information. He just posts his opinion and pretends it's hard fact. The guy installs sprinkler systems, he is in no way an expert on anything regarding this topic despite trying to present himself as so. Be careful about engaging him as it will be a big waste of your time


Heynow doesn't like to be told he's wrong. You'd think he'd be used to it by now. Eh, what are ya gonna do?


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> You haven't read my blog.
> 
> I think it's time for an update using even more hard numbers.


I just read your blog and it's excellent. And 100 percent accurate. Yes please update with more hard numbers. This whole thing is fascinating. Self driving cars will also change how we shop. I see Wal-Mart becoming an Amazon type warehouse with no storefront, if they can even compete with Amazon. Why would you go to Wal-Mart and stand in line when you can have it delivered for free or for just pennies.


----------



## RamzFanz

tomatopaste said:


> This is a very high stakes game. Intel bought mobileye for 15.3 BILION! dollars. You have all the heavy hitters in there now. The mapping software alone is worth billions. Intel and the Europeans are not going to roll over to Uber and partners even if they jump out to an early lead. Your thoughts?


So there you go. The hardware companies and SDC startups are being gobbled up. You have to wonder if these bold moves aren't just to keep competition from having access to those products.

Roll over how? Do you think they will try to keep SDCs out or Uber?



tomatopaste said:


> I just read your blog and it's excellent. And 100 percent accurate. Yes please update with more hard numbers. This whole thing is fascinating. Self driving cars will also change how we shop. I see Wal-Mart becoming an Amazon type warehouse with no storefront, if they can even compete with Amazon. Why would you go to Wal-Mart and stand in line when you can have it delivered for free or for just pennies.


Thanks!

Walmart has a real chance of blockbustering if they don't act in a timely manner. Amazon is building warehouses everywhere. The future is on-demand product delivery.


----------



## tomatopaste

RamzFanz said:


> So there you go. The hardware companies and SDC startups are being gobbled up. You have to wonder if these bold moves aren't just to keep competition from having access to those products.
> 
> Roll over how? Do you think they will try to keep SDCs out or Uber?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Walmart has a real chance of blockbustering if they don't act in a timely manner. Amazon is building warehouses everywhere. The future is on-demand product delivery.


I don't think they'll try to keep SDC's out of Uber cause they know that's not possible. I do think the Waymo lawsuit is a serious threat to Uber though. Sometimes it's not good to be on the top of the mountain taking fire from all sides.

I saw were Chris Urmson, Google's former head of SDC's said he thinks in the end there will only be a couple of players, like in aviation with just Boeing and Airbus. Of course he's now running his own show with Aurora and maybe this is just marketing. Your thoughts?


----------



## El Janitor

There was a time when driving was a skill. Not everybody can drive, so they didn't or , wait we still have terrible drivers. Some people remember cars that carburetors, and how warmly computer controlled fuel injection was welcomed by some. Manual transmissions are dissapearing, but are still an option on some models of cars. Rear brake lights flash obnoxiously on a car so the photo sensors on the car behind it knows that car is stopping. Accidents may become fewer and fewer, and this really could be a good thing.

So we went from horses, to hose drawn carriages, to horseless carriages, and soon someday driver less cars. The days of knowing what gear to select, how to brake properly, safe traveling speeds in different kinds of weather will be a thing of the past. I'm sure auto racing will dissapear as well. Driving will be as boring as sitting in an elevator, and we can all surf the web from our car while we travel to our destinations.

All I can say is whatever to most of it. The future of driving sounds pretty boring.


----------



## tomatopaste

El Janitor said:


> There was a time when driving was a skill. Not everybody can drive, so they didn't or , wait we still have terrible drivers. Some people remember cars that carburetors, and how warmly computer controlled fuel injection was welcomed by some. Manual transmissions are dissapearing, but are still an option on some models of cars. Rear brake lights flash obnoxiously on a car so the photo sensors on the car behind it knows that car is stopping. Accidents may become fewer and fewer, and this really could be a good thing.
> 
> So we went from horses, to hose drawn carriages, to horseless carriages, and soon someday driver less cars. The days of knowing what gear to select, how to brake properly, safe traveling speeds in different kinds of weather will be a thing of the past. I'm sure auto racing will dissapear as well. Driving will be as boring as sitting in an elevator, and we can all surf the web from our car while we travel to our destinations.
> 
> All I can say is whatever to most of it. The future of driving sounds pretty boring.


It will open up a market for more things like the Mario Andretti Racing Experience, where you can actually enjoy driving. No one enjoys driving in bumper to bumper traffic on the freeway. There'll also be a market where you can rent a Porche and drive on a scenic road outside the city.


----------



## Yam Digger

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


Psssssst. Hey Bud: I got a bridge down the street that I'm selling. Cheap, cheap! You can buy it off me and make a ton of money when you put up a toll booth on it. Don't miss this great opportunity; I've got suckers.....ahhhm, I mean prospective buyers showing up on my doorstep with money in hand to close the deal. But you're my special friend. So I'm going to cut you a sweet deal on this golden opportunity.


----------



## tomatopaste

Yam Digger said:


> Psssssst. Hey Bud: I got bridge down the street that I'm selling. Cheap, cheap! You can buy it off me and make a ton of money when you put up a toll booth on it. Don't miss this great opportunity; I've got suckers.....ahhhm, I mean prospective buyers showing up on my doorstep with money in hand to close the deal. But you're my special friend. So I'm going to cut you a sweet deal on this golden opportunity.


You could have just said, 'I don't believe self driving cars will ever happen' and come across a lot less gay


----------



## Spotscat

Yam Digger said:


> Psssssst. Hey Bud: I got bridge down the street that I'm selling. Cheap, cheap! You can buy it off me and make a ton of money when you put up a toll booth on it. Don't miss this great opportunity; I've got suckers.....ahhhm, I mean prospective buyers showing up on my doorstep with money in hand to close the deal. But you're my special friend. So I'm going to cut you a sweet deal on this golden opportunity.


Is that the bridge that goes to the oceanfront property you're selling in Wichita?


----------



## Bevital

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


1. What happens when two self driving vehicles get into an accident? Who pays?
2. Do you really think self driving vehicles can navigate on icy roads?
3. If kids decide to prank the autobot, how does it respond? i.e. slams on the brakes, speeds up, slams on the brakes, or better yet, drives really really slow and won't let the autobot pass. (Oh yeah, kids of the future would never do that).
4. Are self driving cars the new flying cars? Remember the dream from the 1960s that was supposed to be here by the year 2001?
5. What about hackers, you think no hacker would ever try to lock the steering into a donut?
6. How about hijackers, bet those autobots will be worth stealing. 
7. There is already talk of using drones to smuggle drugs, how about autobots?
8. Anyone remember "Johnny Cab", from Total Recall?


----------



## tomatopaste

Bevital said:


> 1. What happens when two self driving vehicles get into an accident? Who pays?
> 2. Do you really think self driving vehicles can navigate on icy roads?
> 3. If kids decide to prank the autobot, how does it respond? i.e. slams on the brakes, speeds up, slams on the brakes, or better yet, drives really really slow and won't let the autobot pass. (Oh yeah, kids of the future would never do that).
> 4. Are self driving cars the new flying cars? Remember the dream from the 1960s that was supposed to be here by the year 2001?
> 5. What about hackers, you think no hacker would ever try to lock the steering into a donut?
> 6. How about hijackers, bet those autobots will be worth stealing.
> 7. There is already talk of using drones to smuggle drugs, how about autobots?
> 8. Anyone remember "Johnny Cab", from Total Recall?


1. This is the the thing that keeps them up at night. If this happens there's a real chance the earth could fall off its axis, spin out of control and explode.
2. 1000 times better than the average human.




3. Kids as well as adults will be on camera anytime they get near a SDC and will soon learn not to F with SDC's.
4. No, Lilium is the new flying car.




5. They will try. They won't be successful.
6. How do you go about stealing an autobot that has video inside and out 360 degrees? As well as localization sensors showing exactly where it is on the earth at all times within millimeters? You need your code to unlock the door. Let me repeat, Helen Keller could solve this crime in less than ten seconds. And she's dead.
7. Cause that's what smugglers look for, isn't it? A car with cameras everywhere, recording everything that goes on and exactly where the car started and where it ended.
8. Well you got me there. I mean if it was in a science fiction movie, you pretty much have to just give up and throw in the towel.


----------



## Spotscat

tomatopaste said:


> 2. 1000 times better than the average human.


You really should listen to the video, especially at the 1:06 mark when the engineer states "...even though the ground was snow-covered and the vehicles were able to operate under some level of snow conditions and maintain the performance of the sensors, in the real world you don't always have the perfect setting... weather."

Being able to operate an autonomous vehicle on a closed test track in a light snowstorm is a long way from being able to operate on I-80 in Wyoming in near blizzard conditions, or being able to operate on I-25 from Omaha to St. Joseph, MO in freezing fog, or being able to operate on I-40 across the panhandle of Texas in freezing rain.

I drive an International tractor with the Meritor OnGuard Collision Mitigation and Adaptive Cruise Control system. On the positive side, it has reduced the number of rear-end collisions our company has by over 30%. On the negative side, any of the weather circumstances I described above will cause the system to fault out and become inoperable.

In any of those situations, I have to use my eyes, ears, and almost 3,000,000 miles of driving experience and do what the computer can't do - safely drive the truck.


----------



## tomatopaste

Spotscat said:


> You really should listen to the video, especially at the 1:06 mark when the engineer states "...even though the ground was snow-covered and the vehicles were able to operate under some level of snow conditions and maintain the performance of the sensors, in the real world you don't always have the perfect setting... weather."
> 
> Being able to operate an autonomous vehicle on a closed test track in a light snowstorm is a long way from being able to operate on I-80 in Wyoming in near blizzard conditions, or being able to operate on I-25 from Omaha to St. Joseph, MO in freezing fog, or being able to operate on I-40 across the panhandle of Texas in freezing rain.
> 
> I drive an International tractor with the Meritor OnGuard Collision Mitigation and Adaptive Cruise Control system. On the positive side, it has reduced the number of rear-end collisions our company has by over 30%. On the negative side, any of the weather circumstances I described above will cause the system to fault out and become inoperable.
> 
> In any of those situations, I have to use my eyes, ears, and almost 3,000,000 miles of driving experience and do what the computer can't do - safely drive the truck.





Spotscat said:


> You really should listen to the video, especially at the 1:06 mark when the engineer states "...even though the ground was snow-covered and the vehicles were able to operate under some level of snow conditions and maintain the performance of the sensors, in the real world you don't always have the perfect setting... weather."
> 
> Being able to operate an autonomous vehicle on a closed test track in a light snowstorm is a long way from being able to operate on I-80 in Wyoming in near blizzard conditions, or being able to operate on I-25 from Omaha to St. Joseph, MO in freezing fog, or being able to operate on I-40 across the panhandle of Texas in freezing rain.
> 
> I drive an International tractor with the Meritor OnGuard Collision Mitigation and Adaptive Cruise Control system. On the positive side, it has reduced the number of rear-end collisions our company has by over 30%. On the negative side, any of the weather circumstances I described above will cause the system to fault out and become inoperable.
> 
> In any of those situations, I have to use my eyes, ears, and almost 3,000,000 miles of driving experience and do what the computer can't do - safely drive the truck.


"and then when we have to do something, like say, make an evasive maneuver, we can train the vehicle to do that maneuver... in a way that a highly trained driver would have."

They are now testing the last piece of the puzzle, driving in snow. At this point, today, it's only 500 times better at driving in snow than humans. Tomorrow it will be 520.

You're comparing level two to level five, fully autonomous. There is no comparison. You are an expert driver with 3 million miles of experience and yet even you only have your eyes and ears as sensors. Fully autonomous has 10 times that many and thus will be far superior to even the best human driver.


----------



## Spotscat

tomatopaste said:


> "and then when we have to do something, like say, make an evasive maneuver, we can train the vehicle to do that maneuver... in a way that a highly trained driver would have."
> 
> They are now testing the last piece of the puzzle, driving in snow. At this point, today, it's only 500 times better at driving in snow than humans. Tomorrow it will be 520.
> 
> You're comparing level two to level five, fully autonomous. There is no comparison. You are an expert driver with 3 million miles of experience and yet even you only have your eyes and ears as sensors. Fully autonomous has 10 times that many and thus will be far superior to even the best human driver.


500 times better at driving in snow than humans? I say it's hardly at the level of a novice driver and has a long way to go.

It drove in a light snow storm, nothing more than a snow squall. Let's see it encounter freezing rain than coats and disables two of the four sensors. My On Guard system is operational state of the art, and it is far from reliable. Misaligned sensors, false reads, and software malfunctions are all common issues across the fleet (5,000+ units in service).

Plus, I have one thing the computer doesn't have - intelligence. I have the ability to judge the situation as it develops and make appropriate decisions based upon circumstances - not only prseen conditions, but the future as well. I know when the weather is safe enough for me to travel, and when it isn't - the computer doesn't.

The computer is capable of dealing with 99.9% of circumstances that arise. It's the .1% that it doesn't know that will get people killed.


----------



## tomatopaste

Spotscat said:


> 500 times better at driving in snow than humans? I say it's hardly at the level of a novice driver and has a long way to go.
> 
> It drove in a light snow storm, nothing more than a snow squall. Let's see it encounter freezing rain than coats and disables two of the four sensors. My On Guard system is operational state of the art, and it is far from reliable. Misaligned sensors, false reads, and software malfunctions are all common issues across the fleet (5,000+ units in service).
> 
> Plus, I have one thing the computer doesn't have - intelligence. I have the ability to judge the situation as it develops and make appropriate decisions based upon circumstances - not only prseen conditions, but the future as well. I know when the weather is safe enough for me to travel, and when it isn't - the computer doesn't.
> 
> The computer is capable of dealing with 99.9% of circumstances that arise. It's the .1% that it doesn't know that will get people killed.


Do you really think snow or slush on the sensors is an insurmountable problem? The new lidar sensors are solid state and much smaller, but even the old ones figured out how to deal with crap on the sensor.


http://imgur.com/09a4O


Do you have the ability to know which one of your eighteen wheels is starting to slip? Are you able to see around corners? Are you able to know instantaneously when the car five cars in front of you is starting to slide on ice?

Will your tires instantaneously deploy studs when it hits ice?


----------



## Bevital

tomatopaste said:


> 1. This is the the thing that keeps them up at night.


I love the part where he says "we can train the vehicle for a particular situation". He didn't say "we can train the vehicle to react to any possible situation". Additionally, one car on a snow covered road? How about hundreds of cars. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong.

A car that can't be stolen, I'll believe it when I see it.

As for the flying car, yup I see them wiz by everyday. I'm sure you do as well.

Keep dreaming. Its healthy, but I expect to be able to drive for Uber for as many years as I want.


----------



## tomatopaste

Bevital said:


> I love the part where he says "we can train the vehicle for a particular situation". He didn't say "we can train the vehicle to react to any possible situation". Additionally, one car on a snow covered road? How about hundreds of cars. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong.
> 
> A car that can't be stolen, I'll believe it when I see it.
> 
> As for the flying car, yup I see them wiz by everyday. I'm sure you do as well.
> 
> Keep dreaming. Its healthy, but I expect to be able to drive for Uber for as many years as I want.


If the car starts to skid it will turn into the skid. It won't spend precious fractions of a second saying: OH CRAP! do I turn into the skid or away from the skid? OH CRAP OH CRAP OH CRAP.

That's what they are doing now, training the vehicle to react to any possible situation.



Bevital said:


> I love the part where he says "we can train the vehicle for a particular situation". He didn't say "we can train the vehicle to react to any possible situation". Additionally, one car on a snow covered road? How about hundreds of cars. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong.
> 
> A car that can't be stolen, I'll believe it when I see it.
> 
> As for the flying car, yup I see them wiz by everyday. I'm sure you do as well.
> 
> Keep dreaming. Its healthy, but I expect to be able to drive for Uber for as many years as I want.


What could possibly go wrong with 100 humans driving on the road in snow? Human drivers are not match to a SDC with 30 sensors able to react in a faction of the time.


----------



## Spotscat

tomatopaste said:


> Do you really think snow or slush on the sensors is an insurmountable problem? Do you have the ability to know which one of your eighteen wheels is starting to slip? Are you able to see around corners? Are you able to know instantaneously when the car five cars in front of you is starting to slide on ice? Will your tires instantaneously deploy studs when it hits ice?


At the present moment, snow and ice on the sensors causes inactivation of the system. Is this insurmountable? Well, airplanes have been flying since the 1900's and ice on the wings can cause a crash, so...

No, I don't know which tire of 18 is starting to slip. I do know which axle - steer, drive, or tandem - is starting to feel mushy and I can take appropriate action.

No, I can't see around a corner. Neither can a computer.

No, I don't know instantaneously when a car five vehicles ahead starts to slide on ice, neither does the computer. We both have to wait until we are given updated information - either through a computer network, or direct visual observation.

No, my tires don't automatically deploy studs on ice - studs are not practical for a class-8 CMV. However, I can automatically deploy chains as I deem necessary.

Does the computer have the ability to understand a weather forecast and alter the route accordingly? No.

Does the computer have the ability to know what events may be happening 3-4 hours in the future and plan a trip accordingly? No.

Does the computer have the ability to learn and react to new and previously unknown situations? No.

Despite what you may believe, artificial intelligence won't be taking over for humans anytime soon.

And all it takes is for one unforseen tragic incident to end the program. Remember Chevrolet Corvair? Ford Pinto? Firestone tires? Air France Concorde?


----------



## tomatopaste

Spotscat said:


> At the present moment, snow and ice on the sensors causes inactivation of the system. Is this insurmountable? Well, airplanes have been flying since the 1900's and ice on the wings can cause a crash, so...
> 
> No, I don't know which tire of 18 is starting to slip. I do know which axle - steer, drive, or tandem - is starting to feel mushy and I can take appropriate action.
> 
> No, I can't see around a corner. Neither can a computer.
> 
> No, I don't know instantaneously when a car five vehicles ahead starts to slide on ice, neither does the computer. We both have to wait until we are given updated information - either through a computer network, or direct visual observation.
> 
> No, my tires don't automatically deploy studs on ice - studs are not practical for a class-8 CMV. However, I can automatically deploy chains as I deem necessary.
> 
> Does the computer have the ability to understand a weather forecast and alter the route accordingly? No.
> 
> Does the computer have the ability to know what events may be happening 3-4 hours in the future and plan a trip accordingly? No.
> 
> Does the computer have the ability to learn and react to new and previously unknown situations? No.
> 
> Despite what you may believe, artificial intelligence won't be taking over for humans anytime soon.
> 
> And all it takes is for one unforseen tragic incident to end the program. Remember Chevrolet Corvair? Ford Pinto? Firestone tires? Air France Concorde?


_"Well, airplanes have been flying since the 1900's and ice on the wings can cause a crash, so..."_

No system will ever be 100 percent fail-safe. Your current crash avoidance system has reduced accidents by 30 percent. Going from level 2 to level 4/5 will reduce it to 95 - 99 percent.

_"No, I don't know which tire of 18 is starting to slip"_

The self-driving car will know which tire is slipping and be able to take the correct action.

_"No, I can't see around a corner. Neither can a computer"
_
Actually it can.
"Velten and his lab have developed and patented a camera that can reconstruct a 3D image of an object that is situated around a corner."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...around-corners-180961502/#KHkrEr57yUbEDVLb.99

_"No, I don't know instantaneously when a car five vehicles ahead starts to slide on ice, neither does the computer"
_
Actually it will. Info from every car will be sent to the cloud in real time. In an emergency like this the cloud will send out a warning to all cars nearby.

_"No, my tires don't automatically deploy studs on ice - studs are not practical for a class-8 CMV. However, I can automatically deploy chains as I deem necessary?"_

On passenger cars though, the system will deploy studs instantaneously when it hits ice, or just before it hits ice. (ie. info from the cloud)

_"Does the computer have the ability to understand a weather forecast and alter the route accordingly? No"
_
Yes.

_"Does the computer have the ability to know what events may be happening 3-4 hours in the future and plan a trip accordingly? No."
_
Yes.

_"Does the computer have the ability to learn and react to new and previously unknown situations? No."
_
This is debatable. But it won't have to. The computer has the ability to compare the current situation to situations it has already seen, or very similar situations, and react. Just like we do.

_"Despite what you may believe, artificial intelligence won't be taking over for humans anytime soon."
_
Scientists disagree if 'artificial intelligence' actually exists. You can load the rules for English in seconds and the computer speaks English. Same with German. But can you load English and have the computer "learn" German? That's the debate. But that's not what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with a computer system reacting to info it has already seen. This is what computers do (process large amounts of data in a short period of time) better the smartest human could ever hope to do.

_"And all it takes is for one unforseen tragic incident to end the program. Remember Chevrolet Corvair? Ford Pinto? Firestone tires? Air France Concorde?"_

None of these accidents "ended the program." We still have: cars, tires, and airplanes.


----------



## Rat

tomatopaste said:


> You went from 'Uber is a 50 billion dollar behemoth' to 'You think they have money to buy the fleet, maintain it and warehouse it?" in under two sentences. I'm checking to see if that's a new world record.
> 
> "The expense of having an actual driver is about the same as driverless." Come on, that's patently absurd. The largest cost for almost all businesses is people. Avg being 60 percent. With Uber it's probably more like 80%. Uber doesn't have to own the cars, people could lease their car to Uber, have it pulls itself out of the garage, drives someone to the airport, do a few more runs and tuck itself back in. Most people only use their cars 4 percent of the time. But my guess is the self-driving taxi company will prefer to own the cars. Also, it won't be Uber. Uber is not going to win the self-driving car race.
> 
> 2017: "You see any private driverless cars yet?"
> 1903: "Wilbur and Orville are trying to build a contraption that will allow men to fly like birds. What a bunch of idiots"
> 
> Select, Black do


Uber doesn't have $50 billion, that's a valuation based on what the stock sells for. The stock sold so far has raised $16 billion, they've spent at least $8 billion. Owning the cars should be cheaper than leasing the cars, otherwise nobody would buy the cars to lease them to Uber. Owning and maintaining the cars will be more expensive than running ICs cars into the ground. Vandalism will be a huge expense. Most markets don't even have select or black



tomatopaste said:


> Driving jobs altogether will become obsolete. But 200 years ago 90 percent of the population worked on the farm. Automation allowed them to do other things
> 
> Everything that happens inside the vehicle will be on camera, as well as outside. The ho gets arrested within the first five minutes.


Without the driver present, the pax have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Filming them will be illegal. But a boon for YouTube videos



tomatopaste said:


> That's absurd. Most cars are used 4 percent of the time. The self driving taxi service, it won't be Uber, buy the fleet or cars at half price or less. They'll be able to put a million miles on them with proper maintenance.


Why would you assume anyone can buy the cars at 50% or less?



tomatopaste said:


> My guess is less than 10k per car. You have to realize, eventually people won't own cars. It will be far cheaper and more convenient to order a self driving taxi
> 
> And how are these cars any more vulnerable than the 100 cars currently sitting in the Wal-Mart parking lot? Except for the fact that the cars in the Wal-Mart parking lot don't have cameras?
> 
> The self driving cab company will buy or lease current parking lots, such as a Wal-Mart parking lot and when the cars are not in use there will be security. The lot will also be fenced


$10k per car is unrealistic. Those will be more vulnerable than private cars because there will be 1/2 million disgruntled ex-drivers, not looking for valuables, but merely looking to damage. A ski mask and a hammer and lunch break from the guard equals $50k in damage. This assumes Uber is willing to take on the added expense of leasing thousands of acres and hiring thousands of guards.



tomatopaste said:


> Wrought Iron fence: $3,213.16
> 8 security cameras: $1,522.87
> Security robot to monitor the robot cars: 5,330.88
> Total: $10,066.91
> 
> Yes Tesla does have something to do with this. There 5 levels of self driving cars. 4 and 5 are fully autonomous. There is virtually no difference between 4 and 5. Tesla is a 2
> 
> That's Nissan. Waymo and Aurora can
> 
> If you're spending $1,000 a month for; car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, to travel x amount of miles. And the same miles only cost you $200 with a self driving taxi service. The change happens very quickly
> 
> A fuel cell car. Very few moving parts
> 
> Nice strawman. Who cares if they don't bake in Japan? The fact that cars are only utilized four percent of the time means that if you can take the driver out of the equation, taxis become cheaper than owning your own car.





tomatopaste said:


> No, you're talking about driver assistance, like Teslsa, vs self driving that requires no human interaction. Self driving will hit the roads within 5 yrs
> 
> Did ATM's, self checkout put people out of business? Should we all move to Pennsylvania and become Amish?





tomatopaste said:


> Wrought Iron fence: $3,213.16
> 8 security cameras: $1,522.87
> Security robot to monitor the robot cars: 5,330.88
> Total: $10,066.91
> 
> Yes Tesla does have something to do with this. There 5 levels of self driving cars. 4 and 5 are fully autonomous. There is virtually no difference between 4 and 5. Tesla is a 2
> 
> That's Nissan. Waymo and Aurora can
> 
> If you're spending $1,000 a month for; car payment, insurance, maintenance, gas, to travel x amount of miles. And the same miles only cost you $200 with a self driving taxi service. The change happens very quickly
> 
> A fuel cell car. Very few moving parts
> 
> Nice strawman. Who cares if they don't bake in Japan? The fact that cars are only utilized four percent of the time means that if you can take the driver out of the equation, taxis become cheaper than owning your own car.


Forgot lot rent, $50k/yr or more. Security robot $100k-200k. Fencing 1/2 acre w/field fencing, the cheapest there is, cost me $3k, 6ft chain link was $6,500.
Waymos travel 10 mph...
Don't spend $1k/mo on my car, ridiculous assumption, as is $200 for DC
Fuel cell cars require someone to refuel them, electric can just drive into charging port



tomatopaste said:


> If the car starts to skid it will turn into the skid. It won't spend precious fractions of a second saying: OH CRAP! do I turn into the skid or away from the skid? OH CRAP OH CRAP OH CRAP.
> 
> That's what they are doing now, training the vehicle to react to any possible situation.
> 
> What could possibly go wrong with 100 humans driving on the road in snow? Human drivers are not match to a SDC with 30 sensors able to react in a faction of the time.


Most of those sensors are for stuff like tire pressure, air temp, engine temp, etc. No use in emergency situations



Wil_Iam_Fuber'd said:


> I agree with this sentiment, but ,"the human mind can't be hacked"? Seriously, you believe this? The human mind is ridiculously easy to hack. How else can one explain Religion or Republicans??


I see that your mind has already been hacked by Democrats


----------



## Sydney Uber

tomatopaste said:


> Even if Uber ever got their act together, driving jobs are going the way of the chimney sweep. And that's not a bad thing.
> 1. Traffic jams become a thing of the past
> 2. Everything becomes valet
> 3. Turn your garage into a man-cave
> 4. Fatal accidents become very rare. In the long run
> 5. No more need for large parking lots. Frees up land.
> 6. Delivery of everything will be free. Or very very cheap
> 7. Most people won't own cars. It'll be cheaper to subscripe to a self-driving taxi service
> 8. You'll have access to a SUV, truck, van, depending on what you need for that trip.
> It's going to be great.


I also look forward to driverless cars. It may seem strange for a Chauffeur of 22 years to have this view. But you can't stand in the way of progress.

I've bought a Tesla with the full autopilot suite, and I see so many challenges still in the way all autonomous cars. It may be our narrow lanes here in Sydney and our lack of consistent road markings, it's a long way off.

But driverless cars are a part of my retirement plan.


----------



## Sydney Uber

canyon said:


> 9. Maybe by 2040 but a lot can happen in between those years. By then I wont care. The American people wont let this happen. Just be patient and watch. These cars are going to be vandalized like you never seen. But good luck.


They may be vandalised once, but onboard CCTV will upload the imagery to a Police Agency.

Anyone onboard will have been identified by facial recognition before being allowed on board.

******** in a Ute trying to run a Robot car off the road, just for sport (no driver in the car to hurt right)? That will be a common occurance - in the beginning. Until the ******** are shown the footage of their driving behaviour (taken from numerous angles and other robots). The vision uploaded to Police agency's will provide all the evidence they will need for a conviction.

"CaChing"! There will be a commercial imperative for the Robots to identify and report anti-social behaviour. Bounties will be paid, human drivers will be taken off the road providing driverless cars with more riders!


----------



## ChortlingCrison

Sydney Uber said:


> They may be vandalised once, but onboard CCTV will upload the imagery to a Police Agency.
> 
> Anyone onboard will have been identified by facial recognition before being allowed on board.
> 
> ******** in a Ute trying to run a Robot car off the road, just for sport (no driver in the car to hurt right)? That will be a common occurance - in the beginning. Until the ******** are shown the footage of their driving behaviour (taken from numerous angles and other robots). The vision uploaded to Police agency's will provide all the evidence they will need for a conviction.
> 
> "CaChing"! There will be a commercial imperative for the Robots to identify and report anti-social behaviour. Bounties will be paid, human drivers will be taken off the road providing driverless cars with more riders!


welcome back sydney uber, we missed you.


----------



## WeirdBob

Sydney Uber said:


> They may be vandalised once, but onboard CCTV will upload the imagery to a Police Agency.
> 
> Anyone onboard will have been identified by facial recognition before being allowed on board.
> 
> ******** in a Ute trying to run a Robot car off the road, just for sport (no driver in the car to hurt right)? That will be a common occurance - in the beginning. Until the ******** are shown the footage of their driving behaviour (taken from numerous angles and other robots). The vision uploaded to Police agency's will provide all the evidence they will need for a conviction.
> 
> "CaChing"! There will be a commercial imperative for the Robots to identify and report anti-social behaviour. Bounties will be paid, human drivers will be taken off the road providing driverless cars with more riders!


Another idea for SDCs and the police: If someone is wanted on warrants, or is late on child support, or the police want to speak with them as a witness, the car can lock itself tight and drive them straight to the police station.


----------



## Spotscat

WeirdBob said:


> Another idea for SDCs and the police: If someone is wanted on warrants, or is late on child support, or the police want to speak with them as a witness, the car can lock itself tight and drive them straight to the police station.


I'm sure that will do wonders to further acceptance of SDC's by the public.


----------



## tomatopaste

Rat said:


> Uber doesn't have $50 billion, that's a valuation based on what the stock sells for. The stock sold so far has raised $16 billion, they've spent at least $8 billion. Owning the cars should be cheaper than leasing the cars, otherwise nobody would buy the cars to lease them to Uber. Owning and maintaining the cars will be more expensive than running ICs cars into the ground. Vandalism will be a huge expense. Most markets don't even have select or black
> 
> Without the driver present, the pax have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Filming them will be illegal. But a boon for YouTube videos
> 
> Why would you assume anyone can buy the cars at 50% or less?
> 
> $10k per car is unrealistic. Those will be more vulnerable than private cars because there will be 1/2 million disgruntled ex-drivers, not looking for valuables, but merely looking to damage. A ski mask and a hammer and lunch break from the guard equals $50k in damage. This assumes Uber is willing to take on the added expense of leasing thousands of acres and hiring thousands of guards.
> 
> Forgot lot rent, $50k/yr or more. Security robot $100k-200k. Fencing 1/2 acre w/field fencing, the cheapest there is, cost me $3k, 6ft chain link was $6,500.
> Waymos travel 10 mph...
> Don't spend $1k/mo on my car, ridiculous assumption, as is $200 for DC
> Fuel cell cars require someone to refuel them, electric can just drive into charging port
> 
> Most of those sensors are for stuff like tire pressure, air temp, engine temp, etc. No use in emergency situations
> 
> I see that your mind has already been hacked by Democrats


----------



## Sydney Uber

Spotscat said:


> I'm sure that will do wonders to further acceptance of SDC's by the public.


How many people do you think are "running from the authorities"? Or is it a case of maybe one day you'll need to?



ChortlingCrison said:


> welcome back sydney uber, we missed you.


Just a few guest appearances now and again. Gotten busy


----------



## RedANT

Driverless cars. What nonsense. 

If I remember correctly, there are approx 250,000,000 cars in just the US. Do you people really think that people are going to replace 250 million cars in 5 years simply so that they can dick with their phones rather than pay attention to where they're going? Doubtful. (250 million cars @ $30k each =$7.5 TRILLION) Automation may sound futuristic, but people aren't going to part with their beloved cars to make up for the idiots who can't drive. For those people we have Uber and Lyft. 

When I was a little girl people said that there would be flying cars before the turn of the century. As far as i know, we're not even remotely close to achieving that goal either.


----------



## tomatopaste

RedANT said:


> Driverless cars. What nonsense.
> 
> If I remember correctly, there are approx 250,000,000 cars in just the US. Do you people really think that people are going to replace 250 million cars in 5 years simply so that they can &%[email protected]!* with their phones rather than pay attention to where they're going? Doubtful. (250 million cars @ $30k each =$7.5 TRILLION) Automation may sound futuristic, but people aren't going to part with their beloved cars to make up for the idiots who can't drive. For those people we have Uber and Lyft.
> 
> When I was a little girl people said that there would be flying cars before the turn of the century. As far as i know, we're not even remotely close to achieving that goal either.


From Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-into-the-self-driving-car-race/#d8eb6843fe5a


And what an awakening it was. Companies finally understood that the real introduction of faSDVs was going to be in the early 2020s (and maybe even a bit earlier). There would be faSDVs on the streets in five years, not fifty-five years.

And worse, these companies began to understand the economic impact of faSDV technology on their business. This faSDV tech was a probable binary event&#8230; their company might survive (even prosper), or it will die. And even the most cursory review indicates that most companies in these business segments will die. Let's look at a few of these industries.
If you don't have access to faSDVs, you can't compete. You become the dinosaur (extinct).

If you can't produce faSDVs, you go out of business. Really soon. Assuming 2020 is the date for initial volume delivery of faSDVs, any car company without a viable product by 2024 will be dead or walking dead.

If you can't make faSDVs _at least as good as Google_, you will have an increasingly difficult time selling your vehicles.
The world is changing sis, like we've never seen before. Flying cars will be here about the same time as self driving cars. Within a few years.





​


----------



## heynow321

RedANT said:


> Driverless cars. What nonsense.
> 
> If I remember correctly, there are approx 250,000,000 cars in just the US. Do you people really think that people are going to replace 250 million cars in 5 years simply so that they can &%[email protected]!* with their phones rather than pay attention to where they're going? Doubtful. (250 million cars @ $30k each =$7.5 TRILLION) Automation may sound futuristic, but people aren't going to part with their beloved cars to make up for the idiots who can't drive. For those people we have Uber and Lyft.
> 
> When I was a little girl people said that there would be flying cars before the turn of the century. As far as i know, we're not even remotely close to achieving that goal either.


That's the thing these autistic reddit nerds don't get. Millions of people enjoy driving and the type of car they have can be a big part of their identity. They're not just going to give up their cars to accommodate a handful of losers who are afraid of driving


----------

