# 6 surprising ways driverless cars will change our world



## tomatopaste

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061

"I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.


with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.

Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense

Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights

And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.

Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.

But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable


----------



## uberdriverfornow

about as believable as this

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

and the only way that happens if we all become slaves and instead of going where we want to go, the communists that rule the world just tell us where to go instead

not going to happen

lol I actually did just read that article instead of just skimming the front and this guy must be high on LSD lmao

is that you, Timothy Leary ? lmao


----------



## tomatopaste

tomatopaste said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061
> 
> "I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.
> 
> 
> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.
> 
> Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense
> 
> Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights
> 
> And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.
> 
> Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.
> 
> But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable





uberdriverfornow said:


> about as believable as this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
> 
> and the only way that happens if we all become slaves and instead of going where we want to go, the communists that rule the world just tell us where to go instead
> 
> not going to happen
> 
> lol I actually did just read that article instead of just skimming the front and this guy must be high on LSD lmao
> 
> is that you, Timothy Leary ? lmao



spending less on transportation needs - bad
being able to safely cross street where it's convenient - bad
no need for traffic lights - bad
able to repurpose parking lots - bad
have stores come to you - bad
being able to sleep during your commute - bad
day drinking before the sun comes up - bad.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> spending less on transportation needs - bad
> being able to safely cross street where it's convenient - bad
> no need for traffic lights - bad
> able to repurpose parking lots - bad
> have stores come to you - bad
> being able to sleep during your commute - bad
> day drinking before the sun comes up - bad.


Is that you, Timothy Leary ?


----------



## iheartuber

uberdriverfornow said:


> about as believable as this
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
> 
> and the only way that happens if we all become slaves and instead of going where we want to go, the communists that rule the world just tell us where to go instead
> 
> not going to happen
> 
> lol I actually did just read that article instead of just skimming the front and this guy must be high on LSD lmao
> 
> is that you, Timothy Leary ? lmao


This "study" was bought and paid for.

How do I know this? Simple math.

It says using SDC taxis instead of owning a car is "low cost". Crunch the numbers. If you pay $1/mile and travel the average of 15,000 miles a year you're paying $15,000/year for your rideshare bill. You can almost buy a brand new car in cash every year for that much.

A little weird how a "study" publishes "facts" that defy common sense but fit almost verbatim with the corporate talking points, yes?

Tomato please do not reply to this, just go home. You're drunk.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Tomato please do not reply to this, just go home. You're drunk.


Tomato please do not reply to this, just go home. You're drunk. = Tomato please don't slap me around again, even members of the vaunted UP are starting to point and laugh.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Tomato please do not reply to this, just go home. You're drunk. = Tomato please don't slap me around again, even members of the vaunted UP are starting to point and laugh.


The only one getting laughed at here is you


----------



## Drivincrazy

The sdc's will be too slow and people love their cars and acceleration on their terms.


----------



## getawaycar

The article sounds like something straight out of Popular Science. Does the author write science fiction for a living? I bet you a hundred dollars this Stanford guy's "studies" are funded by corporate grants.



tomatopaste said:


> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.


This is the most popular talking point among the proponents, and most laughable. Yet it gets repeated endlessly and mindlessly over and over like a broken record. 90% of Americans live in suburbia. Are they all going to be taking a driverless taxi to and from work every morning? Only in fantasyland. The idea might be somewhat plausible in a place like New York City. But again 90% of Americans don't live in a place like NYC, which already has an excellent transit system and plenty of taxis. So having driverless rideshare cars there would be rather redundant.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> The article sounds like something straight out of Popular Science. Does the author write science fiction for a living? I bet you a hundred dollars this Stanford guy's "studies" are funded by corporate grants.
> 
> This is the most popular talking point among the proponents, and most laughable. Yet it gets repeated endlessly and mindlessly over and over like a broken record. 90% of Americans live in suburbia. Are they all going to be taking a driverless taxi to and from work every morning? Only in fantasyland. The idea might be somewhat plausible in a place like New York City. But again 90% of Americans don't live in a place like NYC, which already has an excellent transit system and plenty of taxis. So having driverless rideshare cars there would be rather redundant.


Yes, they will be taking self driving taxis on their two hour commute to Los Angeles.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-new-self-driving-pool-wont-be-uber-will-be-glorious-watch.223122/


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> Yes, they will be taking self driving taxis on their two hour commute to Los Angeles.
> 
> https://uberpeople.net/threads/the-new-self-driving-pool-wont-be-uber-will-be-glorious-watch.223122/


LOL. The idea of everyone in the LA area taking a glorifed bus to work and back every day is almost as ridiculous as the hyperloop.


----------



## jester121

getawaycar said:


> The article sounds like something straight out of Popular Science. Does the author write science fiction for a living? I bet you a hundred dollars this Stanford guy's "studies" are funded by corporate grants.


I was going to say it sounded like it was written by a 7th grader.

Counterpoints:

Idiots stepping out into traffic up and down the block will lead to absolute gridlock for an entire city, with cars never able to go faster than about 7 mph. Dumb.
Great more parks - we need lots of greenery to soak up all the CO2 from generating all that electricity that's going to come from.... somewhere. Then later, let's face it, all the parks and parking lots (and the rest of the city) are going to be blanketed with solar panels, and above that, wind turbines. We won't even be able to look up and see blue skies thanks to increased demand for power for these dumb cars puttering around the city.
Why would there be a long commute? With no traffic I should be able to blaze downtown to my office at 90-120 mph no problem.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> LOL. The idea of everyone in the LA area taking a glorifed bus to work and back every day is almost as ridiculous as the hyperloop.


The idea that everyone would have a computer in their pocket, that would also double as a phone and a tv is ridiculous too.



jester121 said:


> I was going to say it sounded like it was written by a 7th grader.
> 
> Counterpoints:
> 
> Idiots stepping out into traffic up and down the block will lead to absolute gridlock for an entire city, with cars never able to go faster than about 7 mph. Dumb.
> Great more parks - we need lots of greenery to soak up all the CO2 from generating all that electricity that's going to come from.... somewhere. Then later, let's face it, all the parks and parking lots (and the rest of the city) are going to be blanketed with solar panels, and above that, wind turbines. We won't even be able to look up and see blue skies thanks to increased demand for power for these dumb cars puttering around the city.
> Why would there be a long commute? With no traffic I should be able to blaze downtown to my office at 90-120 mph no problem.


Only reason there will be no traffic is due to cars being taken off the road by self driving cars. Go for it. Then when you lisence gets suspended you can take a self driving car. It's all good.


----------



## Friendly Jack

"Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense"...
That lady crossing the street "where it made sense" in Las Vegas must have read the same article.


----------



## tomatopaste

Friendly Jack said:


> "Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense"...
> That lady crossing the street "where it made sense" in Las Vegas must have read the same article.


She chose to cross in front of an Uber self driving car. Always check to see if it's an Uber or a Waymo.


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> The idea that everyone would have a computer in their pocket, that would also double as a phone and a tv is ridiculous too.


Bad analogy.

But anyway, less than 1% of commuters currently use rideshare carpooling (with a human driver) to get to and from work. If commuter carpooling is so rare now, what makes you think having a vehicle that drives itself would do anything to change that? The problem is, the logistics of commercial carpooling are simply not workable or feasible for 99% of the people. If it were feasible, commercial carpooling (with human drivers) would have become popular and widespread years ago, but it hasn't. And getting rid of the human driver does nothing at all to change the fundamental problem of logistics.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> Bad analogy.
> 
> But anyway, less than 1% of commuters currently use rideshare carpooling (with a human driver) to get to and from work. If commuter carpooling is so rare now, what makes you think having a vehicle that drives itself would do anything to change that? The problem is, the logistics of commercial carpooling are simply not workable or feasible for 99% of the people. If it were feasible, commercial carpooling (with human drivers) would have become popular and widespread years ago, but it hasn't. And getting rid of the human driver does nothing at all to change the fundamental problem of logistics.


What is it about carpooling people don't like? 1. Less convenient 2. Less private. I would never carpool but I would take a self driving van configured with 6 private cabins where I could be productive or sleep the entire way. Plus the cost is half of what you're currently paying for your car and you're taking 5 other cars off the road. It's no longer a 2 hour commute but half an hour.


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> What is it about carpooling people don't like? 1. Less convenient 2. Less private. I would never carpool but I would take a self driving van configured with 6 private cabins where I could be productive or sleep the entire way. Plus the cost is half of what you're currently paying for your car and you're taking 5 other cars off the road. It's no longer a 2 hour commute but half an hour.


1. Commuters don't do it because it isn't practical or even logistically possible.

2. It isn't profitable to run a carpooling business. Uber tried doing a carpooling business and look where it has gotten them. They are losing billions every year.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> 1. Commuters don't do it because it isn't practical or even logistically possible.
> 
> 2. It isn't profitable to run a carpooling business. Uber tried doing a carpooling business and look where it has gotten them. They are losing billions every year.


Uber loses billions, carpool or no carpool. If you have separate cabins it's no longer carpool in the traditional sense. You get in your cabin turn on the tv, end up falling asleep, and a voice comes on half an hour later saying: arriving at your destination.


----------



## iheartuber

getawaycar said:


> 1. Commuters don't do it because it isn't practical or even logistically possible.
> 
> 2. It isn't profitable to run a carpooling business. Uber tried doing a carpooling business and look where it has gotten them. They are losing billions every year.


Carpooling takes away your freedom. If you drive your car to work and then all of a sudden some girl from accounting says "let's get outta here..." you can go "ok, I'll drive". It's probably never going to happen of course but just the possibility is what we like to call in this country FREEDOM

what you're talking about (better efficiency for the greater good) sounds a lot like communism

I thought you were the anti lefty right wing guy?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Carpooling takes away your freedom. If you drive your car to work and then all of a sudden some girl from accounting says "let's get outta here..." you can go "ok, I'll drive". It's probably never going to happen of course but just the possibility is what we like to call in this country FREEDOM
> 
> what you're talking about (better efficiency for the greater good) sounds a lot like communism
> 
> I thought you were the anti lefty right wing guy?


You understand the Chrysler Pacifica mini van is a van, right? You understand the concept of stow-and-go-seating, right?


----------



## Rat

tomatopaste said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061
> 
> "I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.
> 
> 
> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.
> 
> Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense
> 
> Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights
> 
> And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.
> 
> Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.
> 
> But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable


Most won't want to use cars that others use for a toilet
We saw how autonomous cars run over pedestrians 
You will still need control at intersections
All those cars will need gigantic parking lots every night instead of sitting scattered throughout the countryside in private driveways
So instead of one gym serving hundreds of people, you'll have hundreds of gyms traveling the streets
Everyone ignores the fact that rideshare nearly doubles the number of vehicles on the road


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> You understand the Chrysler Pacifica mini van is a van, right? You understand the concept of stow-and-go-seating, right?


What about your love for communist ideas from an otherwise self-proclaimed pro-business anti lefty right wing guy like yourself?


----------



## Rat

tomatopaste said:


> spending less on transportation needs - bad
> being able to safely cross street where it's convenient - bad
> no need for traffic lights - bad
> able to repurpose parking lots - bad
> have stores come to you - bad
> being able to sleep during your commute - bad
> day drinking before the sun comes up - bad.


Why do you assume it would be cheaper?
Gridlocked traffic because of pedestrians crossing randomly and no traffic control
Still will need parking lots
Bring a whole store to your home and fuel use will skyrocket. So will food poisoning
The extra sleep might be good, but laying in the filth that a thousand people have left behind won't be
I plan on taking my morning dump in those things



iheartuber said:


> The only one getting laughed at here is you


Sadly, you are wrong. His material is dull and laughless



tomatopaste said:


> What is it about carpooling people don't like? 1. Less convenient 2. Less private. I would never carpool but I would take a self driving van configured with 6 private cabins where I could be productive or sleep the entire way. Plus the cost is half of what you're currently paying for your car and you're taking 5 other cars off the road. It's no longer a 2 hour commute but half an hour.


How do you know what the cost will be?


----------



## iheartuber

Rat said:


> Most won't want to use cars that others use for a toilet
> We saw how autonomous cars run over pedestrians
> You will still need control at intersections
> All those cars will need gigantic parking lots every night instead of sitting scattered throughout the countryside in private driveways
> So instead of one gym serving hundreds of people, you'll have hundreds of gyms traveling the streets
> Everyone ignores the fact that rideshare nearly doubles the number of vehicles on the road


I have said every single one of these thing to the tomato and his reply for each one? You're gonna laugh.

He said.. "you're crazy! These are all non-issues"

I can't make this stuff up


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> Uber loses billions, carpool or no carpool. If you have separate cabins it's no longer carpool in the traditional sense. You get in your cabin turn on the tv, end up falling asleep, and a voice comes on half an hour later saying: arriving at your destination.


Name one company that presently offers this fantastic service you describe. Sounds like something from a 1950s Popular Science magazine. If it were a viable business model, commercial carpooling (with human drivers) would already have been widespread by now. But it isn't, and never was. And probably never will be. Like the hyperloop, an idea that sounds great in theory but in practice simply does not work.


----------



## iheartuber

getawaycar said:


> Name one company that presently offers this fantastic service you describe. Sounds like something from a 1950s Popular Science magazine. If it were a viable business model, commercial carpooling (with human drivers) would already have been widespread by now. But it isn't, and never was. And probably never will be. Like the hyperloop, an idea that sounds great in theory but in practice simply does not work.


For what it's worth I'd kinda like to see the hyperloop happen.

Wanna know why? Because Elon Musk is not an A-Hole. Take a lesson Tomato


----------



## getawaycar

iheartuber said:


> For what it's worth I'd kinda like to see the hyperloop happen.
> 
> Wanna know why? Because Elon Musk is not an A-Hole. Take a lesson Tomato


Musk continues to blame the victims who were killed by his vehicles in autopilot/self-driving mode. If that's not A-holery with a capital A I don't know what is. When his hyperloop kills a whole bunch of people I'm sure he will find a way to put the blame on them too.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> Name one company that presently offers this fantastic service you describe. Sounds like something from a 1950s Popular Science magazine. If it were a viable business model, commercial carpooling (with human drivers) would already have been widespread by now. But it isn't, and never was. And probably never will be. Like the hyperloop, an idea that sounds great in theory but in practice simply does not work.


How many companies were doing rideshare before the introduction of the iphone?



getawaycar said:


> Musk continues to blame the victims who were killed by his vehicles in autopilot/self-driving mode. If that's not A-holery with a capital A I don't know what is. When his hyperloop kills a whole bunch of people I'm sure he will find a way to put the blame on them too.


self driving cars and flying cars make the Hyperloop obsolete. Not that it was ever a good idea in the beginning



Rat said:


> Why do you assume it would be cheaper?


math



Rat said:


> Bring a whole store to your home and fuel use will skyrocket. So will food poisoning


you don't bring the entire store. Have you ever heard of online shopping?


----------



## Pedro Paramo66

tomatopaste said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061
> 
> "I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.
> 
> 
> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.
> 
> Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense
> 
> Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights
> 
> And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.
> 
> Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.
> 
> But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable


uber self driving car is the last thing Uber is interested on, the main asset Travis has is the bunch of stupid creepy losers brainwashed willing to drive for charity and donations, Uber don't have to worry about, clean up, insurance, maintenance, repairs, parking, gas......... Uber know they have the stupid drivers willing to do that for charity and donations or less
Self driving car is a hoax Uber invented to threat the drivers: "you better keep driving for such ridiculous cheap fares because I'm about to replace you" and the stupid drivers believe so
Lol


----------



## tomatopaste

Rat said:


> The extra sleep might be good, but laying in the filth that a thousand people have left behind won't be


You do realize the plane you're getting on to fly across country just came from across country, right?


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> 1. Commuters don't do it because it isn't practical or even logistically possible.
> 
> 2. It isn't profitable to run a carpooling business. Uber tried doing a carpooling business and look where it has gotten them. They are losing billions every year.


How is it not practical to have the van pick you up at your house? How is it not profitable to drive 6 pax at 35 cents per mile? The car is making 2.10 a mile. Long commutes are low hanging fruit for self driving car companies.


----------



## iheartuber

getawaycar said:


> Musk continues to blame the victims who were killed by his vehicles in autopilot/self-driving mode. If that's not A-holery with a capital A I don't know what is. When his hyperloop kills a whole bunch of people I'm sure he will find a way to put the blame on them too.


I didn't know that

Maybe Musk is a professional a-hole

And the Tomato is an amateur



tomatopaste said:


> How is it not practical to have the van pick you up at your house? How is it not profitable to drive 6 pax at 35 cents per mile? The car is making 2.10 a mile. Long commutes are low hanging fruit for self driving car companies.


The only way you can profit from this is by having 6 pax in the vehicle at all times. Good luck with that.

That kinda high level demand is going to be impossible.

Maybe it might slowly turn around when these fantasy private cabin cars become available but when will that be?
Lemme guess... decades? I'm sure in your demented mind you think those kinds of vehicles will just magically appear "within weeks" but in the real world, they more than likely will take decades to become a reality.



Pedro Paramo66 said:


> uber self driving car is the last thing Uber is interested on, the main asset Travis has is the bunch of stupid creepy losers brainwashed willing to drive for charity and donations, Uber don't have to worry about, clean up, insurance, maintenance, repairs, parking, gas......... Uber know they have the stupid drivers willing to do that for charity and donations or less
> Self driving car is a hoax Uber invented to threat the drivers: "you better keep driving for such ridiculous cheap fares because I'm about to replace you" and the stupid drivers believe so
> Lol


Again it must be made clear that if SDCs became widely avail it would be a huge difference if you would have a situation where you can walk into a dealer and buy one or if some company got themselves a fleet and used it as the basis for a taxi service.

The whole reason why the idea of SDC taxis are being thrown around so easily by the Tomato is because his logic goes like this:

SDC technology is here --> running a taxi biz is super easy -> put the two together and voila.

That's like saying well helicopters exist... so why can't we have a helicopter taxi service take us all to work everyday?


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The only way you can profit from this is by having 6 pax in the vehicle at all times.


6 x .35 x 60 miles x 2 (return trip) = $252. You're profitable with just one trip up and one trip back. See if this helps.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> 6 x .35 x 60 miles x 2 (return trip) = $252. You're profitable with just one trip up and one trip back. See if this helps.
> 
> View attachment 224364


So first you gotta find 6 people who commute 60 miles each way who actually want to ride in a lame-o carpool experience

Then you gotta find a LOT of these people because just one car ain't gonna cut it

Lemme know if you need help understanding the difference between theory and reality.


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> How is it not practical to have the van pick you up at your house? How is it not profitable to drive 6 pax at 35 cents per mile? The car is making 2.10 a mile. Long commutes are low hanging fruit for self driving car companies.


If it is so profitable why hasn't any company offered a commuter carpool service? What is the commuter van going to do for eight hours after it drops off all the commuters, while you are working? Just sits there in the parking lot all day doing nothing, losing money until its time to take you back home? What if you have to work late or overtime that day, as people often do? The van cannot wait for you because it has to go take the other carpoolers home. So how are you going to get home? What if your company wants you to work Saturday that week? People's schedules are always changing for whatever reason. What if someone works two or more part-time jobs per day?

Not to mention how incredibly hard it is to find six people with almost the exact same schedule as you, who all live near and work near you. Real estate agent, lawyers, salespeople are constantly driving around all day long to meet clients. People in construction require their own truck to carry around their tools. Many types of jobs require you to have your own vehicle. Not having your own vehicle is not an option. These people are not going to be taking an Uber ride to see their clients.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> So first you gotta find 6 people who commute 60 miles each way who actually want to ride in a lame-o carpool experience
> 
> Then you gotta find a LOT of these people because just one car ain't gonna cut it
> 
> Lemme know if you need help understanding the difference between theory and reality.


Yeah, finding commuters in Southern California is going to be hard. Hell, every seat will be pre-sold six months in advance.



getawaycar said:


> If it is so profitable why hasn't any company offered a commuter carpool service?


because drivers



getawaycar said:


> What is the commuter van going to do for eight hours after it drops off all the commuters


What does an Uber driver do?



getawaycar said:


> What if you have to work late or overtime that day


then you order a self driving car



getawaycar said:


> Not to mention how incredibly hard it is to find six people with almost the exact same schedule as you


Nonsense. That's why it's call rush hour. You go to Lockhead Martin and sign people up that all live in Moreno Valley. Next question.



getawaycar said:


> Many types of jobs require you to have your own vehicle.


Many types of jobs don't.



getawaycar said:


> If it is so profitable why hasn't any company offered a commuter carpool service? What is the commuter van going to do for eight hours after it drops off all the commuters, while you are working? Just sits there in the parking lot all day doing nothing, losing money until its time to take you back home? What if you have to work late or overtime that day, as people often do? The van cannot wait for you because it has to go take the other carpoolers home. So how are you going to get home? What if your company wants you to work Saturday that week? People's schedules are always changing for whatever reason. What if someone works two or more part-time jobs per day?
> 
> Not to mention how incredibly hard it is to find six people with almost the exact same schedule as you, who all live near and work near you. Real estate agent, lawyers, salespeople are constantly driving around all day long to meet clients. People in construction require their own truck to carry around their tools. Many types of jobs require you to have your own vehicle. Not having your own vehicle is not an option. These people are not going to be taking an Uber ride to see their clients.


Are you sure? Eli Lilly signs a contract with Waymo for x number of rides for their sales reps and no longer needs to own and maintain a fleet of cars.


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> What does an Uber driver do?


The commuter van is going to operate as an Uber while you are working? Haha.



tomatopaste said:


> then you order a self driving car


A ride for only one passenger who lives 20 to 30 miles away?
At $2.10 per mile you're paying $40 to $60 for that ride home.


----------



## KD_LA

7) More collisions
8) More deaths


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> People in construction require their own truck to carry around their tools.


What if the plumbing company with 100 trucks no longer needs 100 trucks? What will that mean to their bottom line? They instead have 100 small trailers with all the tools and a self driving Dodge Ram pickup takes the trailer to the next job and drops it off.



getawaycar said:


> The commuter van is going to operate as an Uber while you are working? Haha.
> 
> A ride for only one passenger who lives 20 to 30 miles away?
> At $2.10 per mile you're paying $40 to $60 for that ride home.


Nope. He takes a self driving car to the closest transfer station (El Segundo and N. Sepulveda) then gets in a van going to Moreno Valley, then at the Moreno Valley transfer station he take a self driving car to his house. Next question.


----------



## getawaycar

iheartuber said:


> I didn't know that
> 
> Maybe Musk is a professional a-hole


Musk said it was the driver's fault because he didn't have his hands on the steering wheel when his Model X slammed into the barrier. But almost no one puts their hands on the steering wheel in autopilot mode because it is awkward and impractical to do so. As usual Musk is spewing a load of BS. But the driver is not blameless, having complained to his wife on several ocaasions that the autopilot was was not working right, and yet he stupidly kept using it. Tesla and the driver are both at fault.



tomatopaste said:


> Many types of jobs don't.


And people are always changing jobs. The days when people would have one job for life are long gone. What if the Lockheed employee wants to quit Lockheed, or is laid off, to become a real estate agent or construction contractor, or open his or her own business? These jobs require your own vehicle, so we're back where we started from. In the end, the idea that in the future almost no one will own their own car is a myth. Even if it were somehow true, it will not reduce the amount of cars on the road by a significant amount, because the number of car trips people need to take in their daily lives will still be the same. Either way it doesn't improve anything.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> What if the Lockheed employee wants to quit Lockheed


Then he quits Lockheed.



getawaycar said:


> become a real estate agent or construction contractor, or open his or her own business?


Is Teen Vogue a success even though not everyone buys Teen Vogue?



getawaycar said:


> These jobs require your own vehicle, so we're back where we started from. In the end, the idea that in the future almost no one will own their own car is a myth


Now they do, down the road they won't.



getawaycar said:


> ven if it were somehow true, it will not reduce the amount of cars on the road by a significant amount


Yes it will. Commuters taking a 6 cabin self driving van from Moreno Valley to downtown LA will take 5 cars off the road. That essentially eliminates traffic jams. I can see the day when it will cost you 10 bucks to drive solo during rush hour.


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> Yes it will. Commuters taking a 6 cabin self driving van from Moreno Valley to downtown LA will take 5 cars off the road. That essentially eliminates traffic jams. I can see the day when it will cost you 10 bucks to drive solo during rush hour.


In the near future we will colonize the moons of Saturn, and will all be commuting to our jobs on Europa, onboard a Space-X spaceship traveling at light speed. How cool is that! Now I qualify to be a writer at Popular Science.


----------



## iheartuber

getawaycar said:


> In the near future we will colonize the moons of Saturn, and will all be commuting to our jobs on Europa, onboard a Space-X spaceship traveling at light speed. How cool is that! Now I qualify to be a writer at Popular Science.


The Tomato is like the Energizer Bunny- he just keeps going. The only way to shut him up is to wait a period of time and then point out that his fantasy isn't coming true. At any point in any of our lifetimes none of the Tomato's stories will come to pass.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> The Tomato is like the Energizer Bunny- he just keeps going. The only way to shut him up is to wait a period of time and then point out that his fantasy isn't coming true. At any point in any of our lifetimes none of the Tomato's stories will come to pass.


There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that heed the Tomato's warnings, and dumbasses.


----------



## Rat

tomatopaste said:


> How many companies were doing rideshare before the introduction of the iphone?
> 
> self driving cars and flying cars make the Hyperloop obsolete. Not that it was ever a good idea in the beginning
> 
> math
> 
> you don't bring the entire store. Have you ever heard of online shopping?


What math? He did say "the store". We have online shopping now


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that heed the Tomato's warnings, and dumbasses.


The Tomato is so wise at the ripe old age of 28


----------



## Ant-Man

getawaycar said:


> Musk continues to blame the victims who were killed by his vehicles in autopilot/self-driving mode. If that's not A-holery with a capital A I don't know what is. When his hyperloop kills a whole bunch of people I'm sure he will find a way to put the blame on them too.


----------



## UberLaLa

tomatopaste said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061
> 
> "I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.
> 
> 
> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.
> 
> *Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense*
> 
> Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights
> 
> And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.
> 
> Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.
> 
> But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable


I was a big believer in SDC's until this:


----------



## getawaycar

How does a driverless taxi or rideshare vehicle know exactly where to pick up or drop someone off? For example, if you work in a large office building or sprawling facility there will often be multiple entrances and exits located on more than one side of the building. How does the car know which one to pick you up or drop you off at, or even which side of the building to go? A shopping mall usually has half a dozen or more entrances all around it, for example.

Even if there is just one entrance to a large building, how does the car know where it is? A human driver can recognize something that looks like a door, but a machine cannot.



Ant-Man said:


>


It's not a laughing matter. There are at least three people killed by driverless cars that I know of, and many close calls.

Luckily this Tesla in autopilot mode slammed into an empty parked fire truck instead of a minivan with a family inside it.


----------



## Ant-Man

getawaycar said:


> It's not a laughing matter. There are at least three people killed by driverless cars that I know of, and many close calls.


On the contrary, it absolutely is; as is how you conveniently disregard my valid and salient point in your appeal to the Luddite. This argument goes back to Bacon and Decartes (and likely much further, as in the mastery of fire, the transition from nomadic to sedentary communities...), you're just putting a modern face on it.



getawaycar said:


> How does a driverless taxi or rideshare vehicle know exactly where to pick up or drop someone off? For example, if you work in a large office building or sprawling facility there will often be multiple entrances and exits located on more than one side of the building. How does the car know which one to pick you up or drop you off at, or even which side of the building to go? A shopping mall usually has half a dozen or more entrances all around it, for example.


BTW, it helps to have a basic comprehension of modern tech when arguing against innovation. Do you really think figuring out which side of a building a car should be on is a difficult problem to solve when Facebook can predict how you _will_ behave, what you _will_ buy, what you _will_ think? [1]

The obvious answer to the questions you posed is machine learning. Here's an extrapolation and another case of innovation: *How Uber moves the 'blue dot' to improve GPS accuracy in big cities
*
[1] FACEBOOK USES ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO PREDICT YOUR FUTURE ACTIONS FOR ADVERTISERS, SAYS CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT



getawaycar said:


> In the near future we will colonize the moons of Saturn, and will all be commuting to our jobs on Europa, onboard a Space-X spaceship traveling at light speed. How cool is that! Now I qualify to be a writer at Popular Science.


False equivalency in a really bad way. Tearing up the theory of relativity =/= overcoming adversarial inputs.


----------



## KD_LA

In other (more realistic) news: VERNE TROYER, actor best known for his role as "Mini-Me" in the 'Austin Powers' movies, has passed away at age 49.

That's the 4th celebrity who passed away this week.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> How does a driverless taxi or rideshare vehicle know exactly where to pick up or drop someone off?


The self driving car has an onboard map accurate to within four inches. It's up to the pax to put in the correct location where they want to be picked up. If there's an issue they call the command center and speak to a human. Next question.


----------



## getawaycar

Accurate within four inches? LOL yeah right. 

Do you work for the industry? I heard the PR people are paid more than the engineers.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> Accurate within four inches? LOL yeah right.
> 
> Do you work for the industry? I heard the PR people are paid more than the engineers.


Facts are not that important to you, are they?


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> Facts are not that important to you, are they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 224506


The guy in the vid is talking about recognizing a solid object on the road against empty space, which radar can easily do. It has nothing to do with distinguishing a door that is flush against a wall, which it cannot do.


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> The guy in the vid is talking about recognizing a solid object on the road against empty space, which radar can easily do. It has nothing to do with distinguishing a door that is flush against a wall, which it cannot do.


The pax phone when they make the request is what determines where the pickup point is. It's accurate to within 4 inches. If the pax wants to be picked up at a side door, they need to move the pickup point.


----------



## iheartuber

getawaycar said:


> Accurate within four inches? LOL yeah right.
> 
> Do you work for the industry? I heard the PR people are paid more than the engineers.


Yes the Tomato works in the industry

Although he's so bad at his job I wonder how he keeps it


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> The pax phone when they make the request is what determines where the pickup point is. It's accurate to within 4 inches. If the pax wants to be picked up at a side door, they need to move the pickup point.


I don't know if it would be accurate to four inches, but fair enough. More challenging issues would be recognizing a fire hydrant and other no parking zones, when the car has to park and sit. If it can't read a sign that says Street Sweeping On Tuesdays and Thursdays, Resident Parking Only, recognize a red painted curb, etc. it could get a ticket or get towed away. If the car can't recognize a parking meter it could get a ticket for unlawful parking, and have no way to put money in it anyway.

What if the car runs low on gas? How does it fill up without a human driver?
Or recharge if fully electric?


----------



## KD_LA

tomatopaste said:


> If there's an issue they call the command center and speak to a human. Next question.


Ring ring...
"Thank you for calling the command center. For English press 1. For Spa..."
[1]
"For a navigation issue press 1. For an..."
[1]
"This is Angelica at the command center, may I have your name and date of..."
_SCREECH
CRASH_
[Pax dead]
[Pedestrian dead]
_Film at eleven_


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Yes the Tomato works in the industry
> 
> Although he's so bad at his job I wonder how he keeps it


Translation: Tomato makes sense, he's obviously cheating.



getawaycar said:


> I don't know if it would be accurate to four inches, but fair enough. More challenging issues would be recognizing a fire hydrant and other no parking zones, when the car has to park and sit. If it can't read a sign that says Street Sweeping On Tuesdays and Thursdays, Resident Parking Only, recognize a red painted curb, etc. it could get a ticket or get towed away. If the car can't recognize a parking meter it could get a ticket for unlawful parking, and have no way to put money in it anyway.
> 
> What if the car runs low on gas? How does it fill up without a human driver?
> Or recharge if fully electric?


What makes you think it can't read signs?




Next question.


----------



## KD_LA

tomatopaste said:


>


Lovely. How many kilowatts of radiated electromagnetic energy is that thing putting out? I smell new cancers developing...


----------



## getawaycar

tomatopaste said:


> Translation: Tomato makes sense, he's obviously cheating.
> 
> What makes you think it can't read signs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next question.


The car is not reading a sign, but recognizing a sensor on the charging unit telling the car what it is. There are no words on the charging unit to read. Which seems to imply that every sign on the road would have to have a sensor on it for SDCs to recognize them, a very expensive proposition.

Who is going to build all those wireless charging units? You would have to build thousands of them all across the country. A wireless charging station would likely be several times the cost of a wired station. Who is going to pay for all that?

The wireless charging station in the video appears to be proprietary to BMW, and probably wouldn't even work with other brand of cars.


----------



## tomatopaste

KD_LA said:


> Lovely. How many kilowatts of radiated electromagnetic energy is that thing putting out? I smell new cancers developing...


Are you a shut-in?


----------



## HotUberMess

How driverless cars will ACTUALLY change the future:

1. It will take you twice as long to get anywhere because they won’t drive over the speed limit.

2. When the autopilot fails, inexperienced drivers will take the wheel and promptly crash

3. There will still be beaters on the road with drunks behind the wheel because not everyone will be able to afford a fancy driverless car

4. You will be expected to work IN the car, now that you don’t have to drive. Modern conveniences lead to more work, not more leisure. Ask anyone with a washing machine what they do with all that free time now that they don’t have to scrub their laundry upon a rock in the river every day.

5. The cost of cars will continue to go up.

6. Uber will still be driven by humans as Uber’s crap business model does not allow for it to purchase driverless cars for the UberX market. Select, however, may feature driverless cars. 

7. When driverless cars finally make it to the secondhand market, Uber will start buying them and using them for the UberX and Pool markets. (PoolExpress will have died out.) Riders will experience the joy of accidentally sitting in a stranger’s urine and stepping in a stranger’s vomit. 

8. You may expect to hear about pax-on-pax sex crimes and violence on Pool rides as there is no driver in the vehicle to control the situation. Uber will install a panic button that works 60% of the time. 

I’m sure I can think of more, give me a little time


----------



## tomatopaste

getawaycar said:


> The car is not reading a sign, but recognizing a sensor on the charging unit telling the car what it is. There are no words on the charging unit to read. Which seems to imply that every sign on the road would have to have a sensor on it for SDCs to recognize them, a very expensive proposition.
> 
> Who is going to build all those wireless charging units? You would have to build thousands of them all across the country. A wireless charging station would likely be several times the cost of a wired station. Who is going to pay for all that?
> 
> The wireless charging station in the video appears to be proprietary to BMW, and probably wouldn't even work with other brand of cars.


Waymo is working with Witricity.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Translation: Tomato makes sense, he's obviously cheating.


Sense is the last thing you make


----------



## rex jones

Yeah I am rewatching Escape From L.A. right now. Some of the shit on this sounds about as far fetched.


----------



## uberdriverfornow

tomatopaste said:


> Translation: Tomato makes sense, he's obviously cheating.
> 
> What makes you think it can't read signs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next question.


The best part of that video is the person driving that car.


----------



## mach7

No one wants driverless. Consumers don't want it. This is pushed onto us by governments who subsidize this technology for one reason... CONTROL.

Look who hypes this technology.. the mainstream media. The same outlets that said Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the election. 

They are full of shit. No one knows the future. Anyone who tells you they do has an agenda.


----------



## tomatopaste

mach7 said:


> No one wants driverless. Consumers don't want it. This is pushed onto us by governments who subsidize this technology for one reason... CONTROL.
> 
> Look who hypes this technology.. the mainstream media. The same outlets that said Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the election.
> 
> They are full of shit. No one knows the future. Anyone who tells you they do has an agenda.


No one wanted iphones either until the day they went on sale.


----------



## iheartuber

mach7 said:


> No one wants driverless. Consumers don't want it. This is pushed onto us by governments who subsidize this technology for one reason... CONTROL.
> 
> Look who hypes this technology.. the mainstream media. The same outlets that said Hillary had a 95% chance of winning the election.
> 
> They are full of shit. No one knows the future. Anyone who tells you they do has an agenda.


Actually it's not even governments

It's greedy corporations



tomatopaste said:


> No one wanted iphones either until the day they went on sale.


Steve Jobs is rolling over in his grave at the idea that you're comparing this stuff with the iPhone


----------



## KD_LA

tomatopaste said:


> No one wanted iphones either until the day they went on sale.


Fruitphones don't have the potential of wandering off and killing people.


----------



## tomatopaste

KD_LA said:


> Fruitphones don't have the potential of wandering off and killing people.


How many deaths do human drivers cause in the U.S. annually? 40k. How many deaths has Waymo caused in over 5 million self driving miles? Zero.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> How many deaths do human drivers cause in the U.S. annually? 40k. How many deaths has Waymo caused in over 5 million self driving miles? Zero.


How many human-driven cars are there on the road?
About 100 million

How many Waymo cars are there?
About 600.

If the numbers were equal we would have a fairer way to compare

600 compared to 100 million is like comparing a bucket of water to a lake


----------



## KD_LA

tomatopaste said:


> How many deaths do human drivers cause in the U.S. annually? 40k. How many deaths has Waymo caused in over 5 million self driving miles? Zero.


My statement wasn't meant to compare death-by-car statistics. I was comparing the consumer demand for a Fruitphone versus that of a driverless car.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> How many human-driven cars are there on the road?
> About 100 million
> 
> How many Waymo cars are there?
> About 600.
> 
> If the numbers were equal we would have a fairer way to compare
> 
> 600 compared to 100 million is like comparing a bucket of water to a lake


Numbers of cars in the US in 2016 - 268 799 080 according to https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/


----------



## driverdoug

How does a SDC deal with a door left open by a passenger? Can it help with luggage?


----------



## KD_LA

driverdoug said:


> How does a SDC deal with a door left open by a passenger? Can it help with luggage?


Or... a door opened into oncoming traffic, a cop banging at the window, an emergency lane closure... soooo so many things that can go wrong.

I for one do not want these death traps anywhere near me on the road.


----------



## driverdoug

How about robots driving the cars we have now?


----------



## KD_LA

driverdoug said:


> How about robots driving the cars we have now?


A portable death trap that slips into different skins!


----------



## iheartuber

KD_LA said:


> Or... a door opened into oncoming traffic, a cop banging at the window, an emergency lane closure... soooo so many things that can go wrong.
> 
> I for one do not want these death traps anywhere near me on the road.


Exactly.

So many things can go wrong.

Don't believe me? Wait til Jan 1, 2019

(It's not that far from now)

Either one of two things will happen by then:

1. Waymo will launch in Phoenix and all these things we have said will start to happen 
Or
2. Waymo won't even launch in Phoenix (probably because they will see the writing on the wall)

And Tomato I don't wanna hear your tired reply of "no way, you're wrong"

Let's just wait til January and I'll see it with my own eyes thank you.


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> How many human-driven cars are there on the road?
> About 100 million
> 
> How many Waymo cars are there?
> About 600.
> 
> If the numbers were equal we would have a fairer way to compare
> 
> 600 compared to 100 million is like comparing a bucket of water to a lake


Think about what you just said. Waymo has 600 self driving cars that have been driving since Nov with no one in the drivers seat and not so much as a fender bender. Which means they work. If they won't it's over. Your last ditch hope to kill self driving cars is to prove they don't work. You failed. It's over, done, fini, kaput. Phoenix Uber drivers are walking dead. SF Uber drivers are walking with a serious limp.



KD_LA said:


> My statement wasn't meant to compare death-by-car statistics. I was comparing the consumer demand for a Fruitphone versus that of a driverless car.


You are comparing the demand for a product that hasn't been released yet with a product that has 100 percent market saturation. 1. Why are you doing that? 2. Is that a smart thing to do?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Think about what you just said. Waymo has 600 self driving cars that have been driving since Nov with no one in the drivers seat and not so much as a fender bender. Which means they work. If they won't it's over. Your last ditch hope to kill self driving cars is to prove they don't work. You failed. It's over, done, fini, kaput. Phoenix Uber drivers are walking dead. SF Uber drivers are walking with a serious limp.
> 
> You are comparing the demand for a product that hasn't been released yet with a product that has 100 percent market saturation. 1. Why are you doing that? 2. Is that a smart thing to do?


Are you drinking again?

40,000 accidents spread out over 268,000,000 cars means there is one accident every 6.7 million cars

With only 600 Waymo cars the number is way too small to compare to the frequency of accidents in human-driven cars.



tomatopaste said:


> You are comparing the demand for a product that hasn't been released yet with a product that has 100 percent market saturation. 1. Why are you doing that? 2. Is that a smart thing to do?


Yeah well according to you the market saturation in Phoenix is about to flip from Uber to Waymo within one or two years.

Don't mind me while I check back in with you at that time and say "see? Didn't happen!"


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Are you drinking again?
> 
> 40,000 accidents spread out over 268,000,000 cars means there is one accident every 6.7 million cars
> 
> With only 600 Waymo cars the number is way too small to compare to the frequency of accidents in human-driven cars.


Try 10 million accidents. 40k end in death. Thanks for playing.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Try 10 million accidents. 40k end in death. Thanks for playing.


Give it Time. There have been plenty of SDC accidents including the one death.

If you tell me "but those other SDCs were not Waymo, and Waymo is the best!" I swear I'll vomit


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Give it Time. There have been plenty of SDC accidents including the one death.
> 
> If you tell me "but those other SDCs were not Waymo, and Waymo is the best!" I swear I'll vomit


iheart the puker.



iheartuber said:


> Give it Time. There have been plenty of SDC accidents including the one death.
> 
> If you tell me "but those other SDCs were not Waymo, and Waymo is the best!" I swear I'll vomit


should MLB stats include little league?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> iheart the puker.
> 
> should MLB stats include little league?


Also keep in mind- it's much easier to keep the accident count low when you're in "early rider mode" and only 600 cars...

You wanna compare apples to apples, put the same # of cars in Phoenix on the road as Uber has and compare how many accidents Waymo has then compared to how many Uber has

Get that info then talk to me

Otherwise, all you are doing is taking data out of context


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Also keep in mind- it's much easier to keep the accident count low when you're in "early rider mode" and only 600 cars...
> 
> You wanna compare apples to apples, put the same # of cars in Phoenix on the road as Uber has and compare how many accidents Waymo has then compared to how many Uber has
> 
> Get that info then talk to me
> 
> Otherwise, all you are doing is taking data out of context


Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? The avg human drives 400k miles in a lifetime. Waymo does twice that every 3 months. Not so much as a fender bender.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Also keep in mind- it's much easier to keep the accident count low when you're in "early rider mode" and only 600 cars...
> 
> You wanna compare apples to apples, put the same # of cars in Phoenix on the road as Uber has and compare how many accidents Waymo has then compared to how many Uber has
> 
> Get that info then talk to me
> 
> Otherwise, all you are doing is taking data out of context


Allow me to cut through the BS again.

Trolls say in case a robot will get vandalized or damaged, Waymo will use inside or outside cameras to identify who did the damage and take them to court to recover the losses.

*That is false*. The robots have *no* cameras to record the surroundings other than the ones used by the robot to drive forward - cameras facing forwards.

Now let's explain how do I know this.

On California DMV - Report of Traffic Collision Involving Autonomous Vehicles where are posted all the accident reports all the companies testing their self driving cars in California need to submit to the DMV of state of California, a report is shown for a collision involving a WAYMO car on April 6th 2018. You can download the report and open it with a PDF reader or you can take a look here.




























On this 3 pages is your evidence Waymo has no clue who damages their primitive robots.

As the Waymo representative reported on page 2 (on the bottom surrounded with green ink) - "A Waymo autonomous vehicle ("Waymo AV")* in autonomous mode* was rear-ended while stopped at a red light at the intersection of north Grant Rd and Covington Rd in Mountain View, CA. The Waymo AV was stopped for approximately 9 seconds when a vehicle approaching from behind made contact with the rear bumper of the A V at approximately 3 mph. There were no injuries reported at the scene by either party. The police were notified that *the driver of the other vehicle left the scene without exchanging vehicle and insurance information*."

Well, Waymo delusional supporters will say Waymo cars have 360 degrees cameras recording everything it happens to their robots. FALSE.

On the same page 2 on the top, I've marked the only information Waymo has - the other car was a Mercedes ML 350, where driver's name is unknown, license plate car is unknown, and pretty much EVERYTHING ELSE regarding that Mercedes ML 350 is UNKNOWN.

Well, well, well...... And what is going to happen to this robots cannot be described in the English language...


----------



## tomatopaste

jocker12 said:


> Allow me to cut through the BS again.
> 
> Trolls say in case a robot will get vandalized or damaged, Waymo will use inside or outside cameras to identify who did the damage and take them to court to recover the losses.
> 
> *That is false*. The robots have *no* cameras to record the surroundings other than the ones used by the robot to drive forward - cameras facing forwards.
> 
> Now let's explain how do I know this.
> 
> On California DMV - Report of Traffic Collision Involving Autonomous Vehicles where are posted all the accident reports all the companies testing their self driving cars in California need to submit to the DMV of state of California, a report is shown for a collision involving a WAYMO car on April 6th 2018. You can download the report and open it with a PDF reader or you can take a look here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On this 3 pages is your evidence Waymo has no clue who damages their primitive robots.
> 
> As the Waymo representative reported on page 2 (on the bottom surrounded with green ink) - "A Waymo autonomous vehicle ("Waymo AV")* in autonomous mode* was rear-ended while stopped at a red light at the intersection of north Grant Rd and Covington Rd in Mountain View, CA. The Waymo AV was stopped for approximately 9 seconds when a vehicle approaching from behind made contact with the rear bumper of the A V at approximately 3 mph. There were no injuries reported at the scene by either party. The police were notified that *the driver of the other vehicle left the scene without exchanging vehicle and insurance information*."
> 
> Well, Waymo delusional supporters will say Waymo cars have 360 degrees cameras recording everything it happens to their robots. FALSE.
> 
> On the same page 2 on the top, I've marked the only information Waymo has - the other car was a Mercedes ML 350, where driver's name is unknown, license plate car is unknown, and pretty much EVERYTHING ELSE regarding that Mercedes ML 350 is UNKNOWN.
> 
> Well, well, well...... And what is going to happen to this robots cannot be described in the English language...


Is this shut-ins weekend? I thought that was in October


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Is this shut-ins weekend? I thought that was in October


Tomato, jocker makes a good point here. Do you have anything substantial to say in reply to this?

I'm 99% sure the answer is no


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> Tomato, jocker makes a good point here. Do you have anything substantial to say in reply to this?
> 
> I'm 99% sure the answer is no


I'm 100 percent sure you're both a couple of space cadets.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Tomato, jocker makes a good point here. Do you have anything substantial to say in reply to this?
> 
> I'm 99% sure the answer is no


If they would have had footage with that Mercedes they would have been obligated to report it to the DMV. I am sure they got the Mercedes model from the front cameras or most likely, from the monitor that was inside the Waymo robot.

As a potential passenger of a Waymo robot, you would think they have the surroundings of the car monitored all the time, but this report shows they are not doing that. A smart enough individual will be able to cut tires, scratch the paint, hit the car with a hard object from close proximity or with a rock from the distance with no problem whatsoever, possibly completely incapacitating the primitive machine or with other dangerous consequences, and Waymo will have no footage at all.

All the videos from Waymo cars have no footage with the rear or the sides of the vehicles. Now we know why.

Or, if they have the cameras, why is this report not providing all the information (license plate number and car color) for that Mercedes?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> I'm 100 percent sure you're both a couple of space cadets.
> 
> View attachment 224692


You're using the Hillary Clinton playbook on debating I see

When someone asks you a question you answer that question with something totally different

In this case, Jocker layed out much evidence on all the accidents SDCs were involved in which flies in the face of what you say how they are "so safe" (not to mention the fact that he also poked holes in your claim that the cars will have cameras to catch vandals).

Then when I ask you if you can give a reply to that first you make a lame joke, then you give a meme about how SDCs work. Uh, I didn't ask how they worked I asked if you could dispute the evidence about all the accidents they were involved in (and/or prove there were interior cameras to catch potential vandals- you did neither).

It's like election debates 2016 all over again!!


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> You're using the Hillary Clinton playbook on debating I see
> 
> When someone asks you a question you answer that question with something totally different
> 
> In this case, Jocker layed out much evidence on all the accidents SDCs were involved in which flies in the face of what you say how they are "so safe", then when I ask you if you can give a reply to that first you make a lame joke, then you give a meme about how SDCs work. Uh, I didn't ask how they worked I asked if you could dispute the evidence about all the accidents they were involved in.
> 
> It's like election debates 2016 all over again!!


Jockey: "*That is false*. The robots have *no* cameras to record the surroundings other than the ones used by the robot to drive forward - cameras facing forwards."

It's like having an argument with two brain damaged caterpillars.


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> Jockey: "*That is false*. The robots have *no* cameras to record the surroundings other than the ones used by the robot to drive forward - cameras facing forwards."
> 
> It's like having an argument with two brain damaged caterpillars.


1. If these exterior cameras supposedly record important info when accidents happen, how come in the actual accidents that didn't happen? (To say nothing of acts of vandalism)
2. Are there interior cameras? I think no.. I mean... you never gave a straight answer


----------



## tomatopaste

iheartuber said:


> 1. If these exterior cameras supposedly record important info when accidents happen, how come in the actual accidents that didn't happen? (To say nothing of acts of vandalism)
> 2. Are there interior cameras? I think no.. I mean... you never gave a straight answer


This is why Waymo doesn't release more videos than they do. 20 million dweebs with nothing better to do than nitpick every single frame: see see see see!



iheartuber said:


> 1. If these exterior cameras supposedly record important info when accidents happen, how come in the actual accidents that didn't happen? (To say nothing of acts of vandalism)
> 2. Are there interior cameras? I think no.. I mean... you never gave a straight answer


What is this, a toaster?


----------



## iheartuber

tomatopaste said:


> This is why Waymo doesn't release more videos than they do. 20 million dweebs with nothing better to do than nitpick every single frame: see see see see!


Hey man I don't care how many or how few videos Waymo releases.

I just want to see reality. Is this robo taxi going to be a hit or a flop? We'll know by Jan 1,2019


----------



## dirtylee

The 1 surprising way they will change the world.

Kiss democracy goodbye
If the AI can drive, it can do damn near anything else, cheaper, better, faster. Kiss your fru-fru lib arts degree administrative job goodbye.

Govt will no longer need it's citizens to generate tax revenue. 
Bye bye democracy.


----------



## Adieu

tomatopaste said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...verless-cars-will-change-our-world-ncna867061
> 
> "I think we're going to be really surprised by how many things change," says Dr. Chris Gerdes, director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University.
> 
> 
> with fleets of autonomous vehicles offering low-cost, convenient transportation that can be summoned in minutes, fewer people may want to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to own and maintain their own vehicle.
> 
> Crossing the street may be easier, too. With driverless cars watching out for pedestrians, people may be able to "cross the streets where it makes sense
> 
> Driverless cars will also make for safer intersections, and perhaps even do away with traffic lights
> 
> And with more cars spending more of their time on the road rather than parked, there will be less need for parking lots and parking garages, Kornhauser says. That could free up space for other uses, including parks.
> 
> Imagine ordering up a gym that drives to you and parks in your driveway for an hour or two before moving on to the next customer.
> 
> But once commuters are no longer required to drive and are able instead to read, sleep, or simply relax on their way to and from work, even long commutes may seem acceptable


Safer for Pedos....

Uhm... STATISTICS SAY *FALSE*



getawaycar said:


> The article sounds like something straight out of Popular Science. Does the author write science fiction for a living? I bet you a hundred dollars this Stanford guy's "studies" are funded by corporate grants.
> 
> This is the most popular talking point among the proponents, and most laughable. Yet it gets repeated endlessly and mindlessly over and over like a broken record. 90% of Americans live in suburbia. Are they all going to be taking a driverless taxi to and from work every morning? Only in fantasyland. The idea might be somewhat plausible in a place like New York City. But again 90% of Americans don't live in a place like NYC, which already has an excellent transit system and plenty of taxis. So having driverless rideshare cars there would be rather redundant.


Making suburbanites give up their cars isn't as easy as providing them cheap transportation

Cars are also portable storage lockers, places to hide your drugs from your mom or cheat on your wife, spots to loiter with a charger port and radio, places to have lunch, etc etc


----------



## iheartuber

Every single one of these points is THEORY ONLY

show it to me in the REAL WORLD

I’ll wait....

Look man, I get it: you talk all this BS so you can get investors to pony up cash.

If you make money off this more power to you. But “changing society”? That’s madness.


----------



## jocker12

iheartuber said:


> Every single one of these points is THEORY ONLY
> 
> show it to me in the REAL WORLD
> 
> I'll wait....


He lost it again and now is back trolling. The comment is a copy paste from the posted article, with no personal input. He is not adding anything to the discussion because he is only plagiarizing others. You can copy his comment, paste in Google search, and the top link will be the posted article.

I've managed to find a video with him that shows his suffering and pain:






This is bad.


----------



## Major League

2084 news release. City officials are still concerned about the new federal law banning all self driving cars from local streets. They want to know how their residents are supposed to get home from the autocar highways. Mayor crappants gave a statement today complaining that no one knows how to drive anymore. Though he did admit that the damage and injuries caused by the self driving cars will be greatly reduced.


----------

