# These 19 companies are racing to put driverless cars on the road by 2020



## RamzFanz

These 19 companies are racing to put driverless cars on the road by 2020

*







*

*http://www.businessinsider.com/comp...ave-its-driverless-technology-ready-by-2018-1*


----------



## Allegro Acura

RamzFanz said:


> These 19 companies are racing to put driverless cars on the road by 2020
> 
> *
> View attachment 60569
> *
> 
> *http://www.businessinsider.com/comp...ave-its-driverless-technology-ready-by-2018-1*


and it will happen. technology is linear. if u don't accept it, it will run u over.

many naysayer on the forum. mostly baby-boomers and gen x are cynical, suspicious, fearful of change, technology and millennials aka Gen Y.
Fighting change, standing your ground in America makes u look old, out of touch, an outcast and friendless.

There will be jobs for us once driverless hit the street. Example: Currently with Zip cars and cars-2-go have roaming crews visit the parked cars to clean exteriors and interiors. I would speculate Uber will need former drivers to clean the vomit covered interiors after party nights. interior sensors will alerts which vehicles need what.

Maybe not. Johnny Cab might automatically return to a recharging station where windows retract and robotic cleaning is engaged with final process of pine scented deodorizing.










I'm very excited about my future vomit cleaning prospects.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

Allegro Acura said:


> Johnny Cab might automatically return to a recharging station where windows retract and robotic cleaning is engaged with final process of pine scented deodorizing.


Do not laugh.

Why not?

If robots can build cars, why can they not clean them or even repair them? As it is, and, has been for quite some time, there have been very few mechanics. They are now wrench turners and part replacers. The OBD port has been with us for some time. There are all sorts of electronic sensors and senders on your car these days.

The car suffers a mechanical breakdown. The OBD (or its equivalent) knows what the problem is, already. It notifies the garage, which sends out a driverless tow truck with an electromagnetic boom on it (scrappers have had those things since the 1930s--just larger). The crane picks up the driverless car, returns to the garage, booms it into the service bay, the lift engages, if necessary, a robot(s) goes to the car, swaps out the defective part, the car leaves the garage, goes onto the street to await its next summons.

The car suffers a technological failure. If it can get back to the garage, it goes on its own. If not, the crane comes for it. The computer program already has identified the problem. The car gets into the service bay. A robot comes, swaps out the bad electronic module. The car returns to the street to await its next summons.

Cleaning is similar. Robotic arms open the doors, a robot(s) goes in, cleans off everything, back to the street it goes. As it will be automated, sometimes something will be missed, but, you can program in criteria that state if a vehicle is sent back as dirty by three passengers in a given amount of time, a human being must inspect it and clean it, or cause it to be cleaned, as appropriate. The seats will be vinyl covered (or something similar that is non-absorbent) and the floors will be rubber, or something similar.

To be sure, this is an oversimplification but it is a bare bones description of how it could work.


----------



## Mr Magoo

Per auto driving car capital expenditure: $80K or $2K per month on a 5 year financing plan. 200,000 miles in 2 years depreciating the vehicle to below $10K a loss of $70K in equity and another replacement has to hit the road while the 1st self driver still has to be paid off. Higher than normal maintenance costs due to pax feeling free to eat their fully loaded burritos in the back.

Garage storage costs on top of the car. Variable gas costs and dead heads back to the garage so a robot can fill the tank or the car can auto charge. Expense of the robot gas person/auto-electric hookups split among 12 vehicles needing 2 hour charges every 24 hours. Detailing crew deft at removing the smell of forgotten milk and ASU vomit.

Insurance costs, fines for not moving out of the airport rise share pick up zone after 2 minutes and no pax. Dead time sitting in the airport lots.

Declining customer satisfaction due to the self driver being only point to point, no waiting at the Dispensary, Circle K, No Round trips home, Cars driving away with Groceries, no "amenities", No advice as to where the nearest strip club happens to be....

Average hourly income per car $25.

This works how?


----------



## Gung-Ho

Has anybody put a price on these things yet? Tesla has a nice high tech ride if you want to pony up $120,000. 

Instead of reading articles on the computer and letting your imagination run wild take a step outside. Look closely at the world you live in. Observe all the different vehicles on the road...cars, trucks, motorcycles. How about convertibles??? Will there be SDC convertibles? Look at the people who are driving the vehicles on the road today. Take a close look at all the odd road configurations you encounter on a daily basis. Then HONESTLY come back and give a real estimate when you think these cars will get to even just 10% of all vehicles on the road.

I'll go first. 10 years for driver assisted self driving partially autonomous
25 years fully autonomous no driver assist.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

It is possible, even, to equip these things with instant self-cleaners. The passenger gets out and leaves the spillings and crumbs from his fully loaded burrito on the floor and seat. Vents open, an arm comes out, wipes off the seats, the mess goes onto the floor. The arm retracts, a vacuum sucks up the debris into a bag, When the sensor detects that the bag is full or close to it, or, when the car goes in for charging, a robot changes out the bag.

Cab companies already have garage costs. Truthfully, I can not see the TNCs wanting to own the vehicles. Instead, they will contract with fleet or even individual owners. All of those things will be the problem of the owner. If it is a small fleet, say five or fewer vehicles, the owner will simply park them on the street. He will make a deal with a garage/service centre to service and clean the vehicles. Fleet owners of cabs did that here for years.

Despite what the TNC elitists here would have you believe, none of this is anything new. The only thing that changes is the chess pieces.

In the horsey days, the owner made a deal with a livery stable to keep, water and feed the horsies. Often, the livery stable offered a smith and a wheelwright, as well. If not, there were smithies and wheelwright shops to be found. If the horses became ill, the livery stable would summon the veterinarian, or, if the owner noticed it, he would take his horses to the veterinarian.

*It really ain't that big a deal.*

Yes, there are costs. Some of these costs will go down as there is more demand for the services. Vehicle owners can form cartels to negotiate prices.

This can be done. It will be done. The only thing that one can debate is the timetable. I expect to see these things prevalent in my lifetime, although I expect to see only a few for as long as I am driving. I expect that they will be prevalent after I have stopped driving.


----------



## andaas

Another Uber Driver said:


> Vehicle owners can form cartels to negotiate prices.


Just like Uber drivers can form cartels to negotia... er, wait.


----------



## Cole Hann

Efficient and Low Maintenance Interiors
I can envision hard plastic seating with slight body contours. Similar to Spartan Subway and Bus seating/interiors.

The entire interior, seats, floors, dash and headliner able to be hosed down by robotic arm with high pressure spray then disinfectant
followed by super blast of hot air to dry with drains in foot wells, then back on the road to earn $$$$.

Maybe the transports will have multiple interior high pressure water nozzles and an on board water tank to self clean without returning to base or wait for former uber human driver to arrive and clean.

I suspect for safety each "transport" will have a secure interior camera monitor as a deterrent to whatever nonsense passengers may cook up.
But u can't predict nor prevent all deviant behavior. "Driverless Car used in Bank Robbery" With doors secured vehicle transported Suspects to nearest police precinct.

I'd like to own a dozen. sit home and watch them make bank on my laptop.


----------



## Cole Hann

i suspect in the beginning the Fares will be dirt cheep where u can't afford not to take a driver-less uber.
$5 Dulles to DC. $2 fare anywhere in DC.


----------



## Gung-Ho

O.K. You got me. This is a gag thread right? Self cleaning cars? Vacuums out of vents? I fell for it....ha ha. Yep I thought you were all serious.



Cole Hann said:


> Efficient and Low Maintenance Interiors
> *I can envision hard plastic seating with slight body contours. Similar to Spartan Subway and Bus seating/interiors.
> 
> The entire interior, seats, floors, dash and headliner able to be hosed down by robotic arm with high pressure spray then disinfectant
> followed by super blast of hot air to dry with drains in foot wells, then back on the road to earn $$$$.*
> 
> I'd like to own a dozen. sit home and watch them make bank on my laptop.


That sounds like a comfortable ride. Sign me up. I want to sit in a car with uncomfortable plastic seats like a jitney shuttle.

As I've said before about owning a 5 10 or a dozen of these to make money. Someone else or a group of investors will have 500 to 1000 to more in your area also. At least in the year 2050 when this might start to happen if you can wait that long.


----------



## Allegro Acura

Cole Hann said:


> Efficient and Low Maintenance Interiors
> I can envision hard plastic seating with slight body contours. Similar to Spartan Subway and Bus seating/interiors.
> 
> The entire interior, seats, floors, dash and headliner able to be hosed down by robotic arm with high pressure spray then disinfectant
> followed by super blast of hot air to dry with drains in foot wells, then back on the road to earn $$$$.
> 
> Maybe the transports will have multiple interior high pressure water nozzles and an on board water tank to self clean without returning to base or wait for former uber human driver to arrive and clean.
> 
> I suspect for safety each "transport" will have a secure interior camera monitor as a deterrent to whatever nonsense passengers may cook up.
> But u can't predict nor prevent all deviant behavior. "Driverless Car used in Bank Robbery" With doors secured vehicle transported Suspects to nearest police precinct.
> 
> I'd like to own a dozen. sit home and watch them make bank on my laptop.


Elementary my dear Hann, Elementary


----------



## Cole Hann

Gung-Ho said:


> O.K. You got me. This is a gag thread right? Self cleaning cars? Vacuums out of vents? I fell for it....ha ha. Yep I thought you were all serious.
> 
> That sounds like a comfortable ride. Sign me up. I want to sit in a car with uncomfortable plastic seats like a jitney shuttle.
> 
> As I've said before about owning a 5 10 or a dozen of these to make money. Someone else or a group of investors will have 500 to 1000 to more in your area also. At least in the year 2050 when this might start to happen if you can wait that long.


----------



## Jermin8r89

SDC are comeing but there will always be a person behind them. You will be essentially a cheap chafer


----------



## RamzFanz

Jermin8r89 said:


> SDC are comeing but there will always be a person behind them. You will be essentially a cheap chafer


Zero chance they will have a human for driving in 2 years from introduction, IMHO. A human for assistance in some cases.


----------



## RamzFanz

Mr Magoo said:


> Per auto driving car capital expenditure: $80K or $2K per month on a 5 year financing plan. 200,000 miles in 2 years depreciating the vehicle to below $10K a loss of $70K in equity and another replacement has to hit the road while the 1st self driver still has to be paid off. Higher than normal maintenance costs due to pax feeling free to eat their fully loaded burritos in the back.
> 
> Garage storage costs on top of the car. Variable gas costs and dead heads back to the garage so a robot can fill the tank or the car can auto charge. Expense of the robot gas person/auto-electric hookups split among 12 vehicles needing 2 hour charges every 24 hours. Detailing crew deft at removing the smell of forgotten milk and ASU vomit.
> 
> Insurance costs, fines for not moving out of the airport rise share pick up zone after 2 minutes and no pax. Dead time sitting in the airport lots.
> 
> Declining customer satisfaction due to the self driver being only point to point, no waiting at the Dispensary, Circle K, No Round trips home, Cars driving away with Groceries, no "amenities", No advice as to where the nearest strip club happens to be....
> 
> Average hourly income per car $25.
> 
> This works how?


First you start with 80K. That's silly. SDC TNCs will begin as small electric urban people movers. Maybe $20-$25K. IF they were 80K, they would still pay off the first year easy.

Second, they will come as TNCs probably provided and funded by the auto company partner AT COST.

Garage storage for slow times will be next to nothing because you send them out of area. In the end, when most Urbanites give up cars, parking will be much cheaper.

Why would pax leave burritos when they get charged a fee? And who cares since the fee covers the cost plus a nice profit?

You don't have gas cars, they are electric. They don't stop to charge, you hot swap the batteries and they are back on the road.

Insurance is nothing since they don't crash.

There are zero rules or limitations that say the pax won't control where the car goes or waits. Where did you get the idea they had to be A to B? Here probably.

And last, but not least, the car will be PAID to tell you where the nearest stripclub is.

People think there are these big roadblocks, there aren't.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gung-Ho said:


> Has anybody put a price on these things yet? Tesla has a nice high tech ride if you want to pony up $120,000.
> 
> Instead of reading articles on the computer and letting your imagination run wild take a step outside. Look closely at the world you live in. Observe all the different vehicles on the road...cars, trucks, motorcycles. How about convertibles??? Will there be SDC convertibles? Look at the people who are driving the vehicles on the road today. Take a close look at all the odd road configurations you encounter on a daily basis. Then HONESTLY come back and give a real estimate when you think these cars will get to even just 10% of all vehicles on the road.
> 
> I'll go first. 10 years for driver assisted self driving partially autonomous
> 25 years fully autonomous no driver assist.


Price? The same or less than the average human driven car most likely. The technology isn't expensive and they will be introduced as TNCs at cost.

Sure, there could be SDC convertibles. Not that anyone wants them today, but sure. Why not?

I'm looking at the road conditions and I'm saying 10% happens no later than 2022. Experts predict no more human driven cars being mass produced by 2025.


----------



## RamzFanz

For SDC TNCs, I would design an easily swappable interior compartment. No more human controls means hot swappable interiors. Undo a single electronics harness and use a new interior to push the dirty one onto a conveyer belt. The car is gone and the old interior is going through a washing and sanitation system, dry and ready to go at the other end. Just like a carwash but better.

No need for self cleaning or in car robotics. Drive to depot, push it out, charge the customer for the cleaning fee, clean one in, back on the road.

Self in car cleaning assumes pax can do what they want. They can't, just as it is today. If they do, they pay for the drive to the depot and the swap and cleaning.

Each passenger narcs on the last. Popup, your car is here, is it clean? Yes? Off you go. No? pick a reason, new car headed your way, past pax is charged for cleaning.


----------



## Kalee

Allegro Acura said:


> and it will happen. technology is linear. if u don't accept it, it will run u over.
> 
> many naysayer on the forum. mostly baby-boomers and gen x are cynical, suspicious, fearful of change, technology and millennials aka Gen Y.
> Fighting change, standing your ground in America makes u look old, out of touch, an outcast and friendless.
> 
> There will be jobs for us once driverless hit the street. Example: Currently with Zip cars and cars-2-go have roaming crews visit the parked cars to clean exteriors and interiors. I would speculate Uber will need former drivers to clean the vomit covered interiors after party nights. interior sensors will alerts which vehicles need what.
> 
> Maybe not. Johnny Cab might automatically return to a recharging station where windows retract and robotic cleaning is engaged with final process of pine scented deodorizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very excited about my future vomit cleaning prospects.


I agree ... there will be jobs created by Uber. As you said, there will be plenty of "roaming crews" driving to self driving cars that need puke detail.
And Uber will pay you 75¢ per mile to get to those cars plus a dime per minute while you're cleaning the puke.
Oh ... and of course ...no tip.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> small electric urban people movers. Maybe $20-$25K. IF they were 80K, they would still pay off the first year easy.
> 
> Why would pax leave burritos when they get charged a fee? And who cares since the fee covers the cost plus a nice profit?
> 
> They don't stop to charge, you hot swap the batteries and they are back on the road.
> 
> Insurance is nothing since they don't crash.
> 
> There are zero rules or limitations that say the pax won't control where the car goes or waits. Where did you get the idea they had to be A to B? Here probably.
> 
> And last, but not least, the car will be PAID to tell you where the nearest stripclub is.
> 
> People think there are these big roadblocks, there aren't.





RamzFanz said:


> For SDC TNCs, I would design an easily swappable interior compartment. No more human controls means hot swappable interiors. Undo a single electronics harness and use a new interior to push the dirty one onto a conveyer belt. The car is gone and the old interior is going through a washing and sanitation system, dry and ready to go at the other end. Just like a carwash but better.
> 
> No need for self cleaning or in car robotics. Drive to depot, push it out, charge the customer for the cleaning fee, clean one in, back on the road.
> 
> Self in car cleaning assumes pax can do what they want. They can't, just as it is today. If they do, they pay for the drive to the depot and the swap and cleaning.
> 
> Each passenger narcs on the last. Popup, your car is here, is it clean? Yes? Off you go. No? pick a reason, new car headed your way, past pax is charged for cleaning.


While Eighty large is a bit much, twenty to twenty-five is optimistic.........certainly no more than forty. Paying off eighty in one year could work if you do not account for costs the first year. This would, of course, require that you account for the first year's costs in the second year. Putting *PAID* to it after two years is certain, assuming rates comparable to to-day's rates.

Passengers will dispute the fees, as they do, now. These Boards are full of topics where the drivers complain that they submitted photographs of messes, the TNC charged the customer, the customer denied it, the TNC took the money from the driver. The TNCs could wind up eating the costs of more than a few clean-ups. If that were to happen, they would increase the prices, which would be unpopular, as well. Still, that does not mean that there might not be an answer out there. I would be interested to know how many disputed "smoking fees" the wrent-a-wreck companies and hotels refund annually. I have read a number of articles where disgruntled travellers who swear that they do not smoke have contested a smoking fee successfully, but I would be interested to know if there are any numbers out there on that one. I have tried to look, but never found any.

The battery hot-swap is something about which I had forgotten. In the early days of the wireless telephones, they used to sell chargers that had a place for the telephone and one or two extra batteries. I have not seen one of those in some time. As quickly as these smart telephones discharge batteries, you would think that they would have returned, but I have not seen one in some time.

You are far too optimistic on their not crashing, if for no other reason than Murphy's Law. Murphy was an optimist. Add to that: they have crashed.

It will be "paid" in the sense that the strip clubs will pay to have their fine establishment listed in the directory. Yes, I know, advertising is a cost of doing business, and if you want your business to succeed, people must know that it is out there and all of the rest of that Business 101, but blah, blah, blah all that you will, some people do put more faith in word of mouth. Further, the advertising will not tell you which one is the best, which of them are good and which ones to avoid. That might be something that some would be not unwilling to sacrifice, though.

Roadblocks? No. Matters to address? Yes. Matters that could be addressed or at least compensated for? Likely.

Swappable interior compartment? It could be done. You have a hatch at either end, the robot undoes a few bolts or clips, the new one slides in through the front and pushes the old one out the back. It could be done. This m ight be an oversimplification, but the concept is not unthinkable.

Interior robotics might be better thing for smaller messes, such as the burrito slopped all over the floor. It might take time (READ: money) for the thing to get back to the garage and have the swapout done. The question would be could the time saved amortise the cost of the self-contained robotics? In order to keep down costs, manufacturers have cut corners for quite some time.

As for charging the passengers, again, the number of disputes might put a damper on that.

I do not share your faith in the infallibility of these things nor your timetable, but none of the problems are untreatable.

.........as for the collisions, I would expect that NTHSA, or something equivalent, would monitor these things in their early years to make sure that the statistics are at least not worse than the human driven vehicles. If there are fewer collisions, collisions with injuries and deaths, they work. If it is the same, likely they work. If it is worse, it is back to the proverbial drawing board.

Interesting.


----------



## Gung-Ho

RamzFanz said:


> First you start with 80K. That's silly. SDC TNCs will begin as small electric urban people movers. Maybe $20-$25K. IF they were 80K, they would still pay off the first year easy.
> 
> Second, they will come as TNCs probably provided and funded by the auto company partner AT COST.
> 
> Garage storage for slow times will be next to nothing because you send them out of area. In the end, when most Urbanites give up cars, parking will be much cheaper.
> 
> Why would pax leave burritos when they get charged a fee? And who cares since the fee covers the cost plus a nice profit?
> 
> You don't have gas cars, they are electric. They don't stop to charge, you hot swap the batteries and they are back on the road.
> 
> Insurance is nothing since they don't crash.
> 
> There are zero rules or limitations that say the pax won't control where the car goes or waits. Where did you get the idea they had to be A to B? Here probably.
> 
> And last, but not least, the car will be PAID to tell you where the nearest stripclub is.
> 
> People think there are these big roadblocks, there aren't.


Insurance is _NOTHING? _Tell that to the insurance companies.


----------



## Jermin8r89

RamzFanz said:


> Zero chance they will have a human for driving in 2 years from introduction, IMHO. A human for assistance in some cases.


Your prolly right as its a capitalist country. Big buisnesses are corupt always going around the backdoor why not. Legal system dont work just be like travis find something that people will like evan if its illegal. There was this kid in florida who become a dr without takeing courses but he did learn threw people and online without needing to wait 8+ years and go into debt and from what i saw he was good with his patiance.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

Jermin8r89 said:


> SDC are comeing but there will always be a person behind them. You will be essentially a cheap chafer


I don't always chafe, but when I do I charge handsomely for it.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> First you start with 80K. That's silly. SDC TNCs will begin as small electric urban people movers. Maybe $20-$25K. IF they were 80K, they would still pay off the first year easy.


The concept of self-driving cars selling for $20-25 is laughable for the next decade.



> Garage storage for slow times will be next to nothing because you send them out of area. In the end, when most Urbanites give up cars, parking will be much cheaper.


Ah, the parking space argument again! So strange. Where exactly will these legions of SDCs be sent to park? The suburbs? Municipalities will come up with "No SDC parking on our streets" laws within months.

Otherwise you need huge warehouses where these things will park. NIMBY. And then they'll use tons of gas or electricity getting from those warehouses to their destinations.

You haven't thought this through very well.



> Why would pax leave burritos when they get charged a fee?


You obviously haven't driven a "CAR2GO" which often have junk left behind in them.



> You don't have gas cars, they are electric. They don't stop to charge, you hot swap the batteries and they are back on the road.


Meaning the car has to drive to a place for that hot-swap to happen, or the battery has to be driven to the car. That'll get expensive fast.



> Insurance is nothing since they don't crash.












Too bad RamzFanz got banned and has resorted to sock puppets. His ridiculous statements are so easy to refute that I was beginning to enjoy his posts.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gung-Ho said:


> Insurance is _NOTHING? _Tell that to the insurance companies.


They are telling us.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> Passengers will dispute the fees, as they do, now. These Boards are full of topics where the drivers complain that they submitted photographs of messes, the TNC charged the customer, the customer denied it, the TNC took the money from the driver. The TNCs could wind up eating the costs of more than a few clean-ups.


The difference being that these cars could have a full view and recording of what the passengers are doing so disputes will go nowhere. If there's a mess or damage, they roll back to the person who did it and charge them.



Another Uber Driver said:


> You are far too optimistic on their not crashing, if for no other reason than Murphy's Law. Murphy was an optimist. Add to that: they have crashed.


They will crash. They probably won't be at fault almost ever. Self-driving cars have crashed, but no at-faults. Teslas aren't self-driving. The bus incident, while Google stated they contributed by misjudging what the bus would do, they technically had right of way.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Swappable interior compartment? It could be done. You have a hatch at either end, the robot undoes a few bolts or clips, the new one slides in through the front and pushes the old one out the back. It could be done. This m ight be an oversimplification, but the concept is not unthinkable.


I was thinking more side to side, but yeah, if they know what we know about messes and behavior, they would be fools not to make an automated cleaning system of some type.


----------



## RamzFanz

Jermin8r89 said:


> Legal system dont work just be like travis find something that people will like evan if its illegal.


As it should be. The regulations should serve the people, not their lackeys and themselves.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> The concept of self-driving cars selling for $20-25 is laughable for the next decade.


Really? And where did you get this idea? Thin air?

*You Can Buy This Self-Driving Car for $20,000*

Now, in fairness, that's just another clickbait article that quickly admits it's not self-driving. But if you add about $5,000 in technology, it could be. What does that add up to? Now consider that TNC SDCs will be far simpler electric vehicles than my example and I'll have to agree, my estimate was probably too high. I don't know why people think this technology is expensive anymore. The days of $70,000 LIDARs are long gone. They are hundreds now and should be about $60 in the next year or two. When every auto manufacturer in the world is ordering the same parts, the price goes down. The supply is easy, they just needed demand.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Ah, the parking space argument again! So strange. Where exactly will these legions of SDCs be sent to park? The suburbs? Municipalities will come up with "No SDC parking on our streets" laws within months.
> 
> Otherwise you need huge warehouses where these things will park. NIMBY. And then they'll use tons of gas or electricity getting from those warehouses to their destinations.
> 
> You haven't thought this through very well.


Mostly they will go from ride to ride. Otherwise, they can be sent to garages in less desirable areas. With no passengers, they can park inches away from each other making better use of the space. As people abandon car ownership, massive parking frees up and eventually can be repurposed.

SDC TNCs won't be gas for the most part and electricity is cheap and only getting cheaper. With solar reaching the tipping point in a few years, becoming the cheapest energy source available, the tops of those garages are perfect for solar panels.

Haven't I thought this through? I have, and so have tens of thousands of people far smarter than you are I. Your imaginary roadblocks aren't roadblocks.



4736353377384555736 said:


> You obviously haven't driven a "CAR2GO" which often have junk left behind in them.


What part of _it doesn't matter if they make messes_ don't you get? They get charged a fee with built in profit, problem solved. It's now a profit center. They now _want you_ to make a mess.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Meaning the car has to drive to a place for that hot-swap to happen, or the battery has to be driven to the car. That'll get expensive fast.


Car drives up, remove the battery, replace the battery, SDC is back on the road. _Unlike_ a human, who has to rest for hours. Do you want to pay a person to swap 40 batteries an hour or watch them sleep for 8 hours? Which do you think is more efficient?

By the way, this can be automated too. Electricity is cheap and getting cheaper.



4736353377384555736 said:


> Too bad RamzFanz got banned and has resorted to sock puppets. His ridiculous statements are so easy to refute that I was beginning to enjoy his posts.


More ad hominem attacks? You refute nothing. You pretend you have some original idea that wasn't solved in the planning long ago. You don't.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> The bus incident, while Google stated they contributed by misjudging what the bus would do, they technically had right of way.


Maybe, but human drivers know that when they come across a bus, especially a municipal bus, there's a high degree of probablility that it's going to be driven by an asshat. Humans look at the type of vehicle they encounter and make a judgment call. Classic erratic drivers who need to be given a wide berth on the roads are found driving buses, beaten up ricers composed of several differently colored panels, the 20 year old Merc driven by the 80 year old who bought it new 20 years ago as her retirement car when she was a sprightly 60 year old, etc etc. Car drivers can do this; machines cannot.


> they would be fools not to make an automated cleaning system of some type.


Just like they would be fools to alienate their drivers, whom they very much still depend on, or be fools to threaten journalists, or charge passengers airport fees and tips and then simply pocket the money, therefore practically begging drivers, passengers and individual state governments to sue them. What the average Joe on the street would consider foolish behavior cannot be used as a yardstick / predictor for what Uber may or may not do.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> The difference being that these cars could have a full view and recording of what the passengers are doing so disputes will go nowhere.
> 
> They will crash. They probably won't be at fault almost ever. Self-driving cars have crashed, but no at-faults. Teslas aren't self-driving. The bus incident, while Google stated they contributed by misjudging what the bus would do, they technically had right of way.
> 
> I was thinking more side to side, but yeah, if they know what we know about messes and behavior, they would be fools not to make an automated cleaning system of some type.


They have dash cameras now, but fees are still disputed, and successfully. It is not as cut and dried as you would like to believe. On the surface, you would think that it would be, but, it does not always play out that way. If applied properly, though, and if the providers could agree, you could use this to blacklist abusers across all companies. A user makes a mess out of one provider's vehicle, the blame is laid, the user disputes, the process goes through, the user disputes with his bank, the bank rules in the user's favour, the provider notes this, notifies other providers and BOOM-O! There, are, however, other darker implications. In the interest of brevity, I will pass over them, for now, at least.

As I read the report and saw the video, it appears that the bus had control of the lane, thus the Googlemobile was at fault.

Google has stated that most of the crashes were their vehicles' getting rear-ended while they waited for a red light to turn green.

Here is the link to the article that I read:

www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-self-driving-car-may-caused-first-crash/

There are other similar articles out there, but it has been a long time since I read them.

Side -to-side would work. The vehicle has sliding doors similar to a mini-van. Again, the robot undoes the clips or bolts, another robotic arm pushes in the new one which pushes out the old one onto a platform which packs it off to a cleaning line.

One drawback would be something similar to your putting dishes into a dishwasher. If you fail to rinse, adequately, before putting in the dishes, sometimes the mess does not all wash off and gets baked onto the dish. Something similar could happen here. The lettuce and the peppers from the burrito would get blown off by the steam jets. The sauce, perhaps not, and sauce is an excellent candidate for getting baked onto a surface. There would have to be some way to inspect in an efficient and reliable manner. This does not mean that it could not be done, marry, Sirrah, I am sure that it could be done. It is only that I have not put too much thought into how.


----------



## ubershiza

RamzFanz said:


> And last, but not least, the car will be PAID to tell you where the nearest stripclub is.


 or where the nearest mutant bar is...


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Maybe, but human drivers know that when they come across a bus, especially a municipal bus, there's a high degree of probablility that it's going to be driven by an asshat. Humans look at the type of vehicle they encounter and make a judgment call.


Like the human driver in the Google car that agreed with the car's decision?



DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Car drivers can do this; machines cannot.


Yes, yes they can. And they will far better than humans. They can track the possible moves by every object they see and build scenarios on the fly for avoiding them in milliseconds.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> They have dash cameras now, but fees are still disputed, and successfully. It is not as cut and dried as you would like to believe. On the surface, you would think that it would be, but, it does not always play out that way. If applied properly, though, and if the providers could agree, you could use this to blacklist abusers across all companies. A user makes a mess out of one provider's vehicle, the blame is laid, the user disputes, the process goes through, the user disputes with his bank, the bank rules in the user's favour, the provider notes this, notifies other providers and BOOM-O! There, are, however, other darker implications. In the interest of brevity, I will pass over them, for now, at least.


Yes, a single dash cam would be insufficient. Multiple angles from several cameras could prove it just about every time. I volunteered for the up skirt cam review duties because I'm a team player.

I like your idea though, just ban them and black book them. If other companies still want them, let them.

However, I think Uber will have more pull _when they have the evidence_ than CC customers.



Another Uber Driver said:


> As I read the report and saw the video, it appears that the bus had control of the lane, thus the Googlemobile was at fault.


It was a single lane and the Uber car was in front and demonstrating its intentions to exercise it's right of way. We can agree to disagree.



Another Uber Driver said:


> Side -to-side would work. The vehicle has sliding doors similar to a mini-van. Again, the robot undoes the clips or bolts, another robotic arm pushes in the new one which pushes out the old one onto a platform which packs it off to a cleaning line.


That's what I was thinking about sliding doors. A couple of clips, one pushes the other onto a conveyer belt, reclip, good to go. The other advantage to sliding doors is they don't get taken off in traffic when the drunk pax exits into traffic.

The exterior body could also be a few clamps, pop off the damaged one, crane it off, drop on the new one, it's rolling again.



Another Uber Driver said:


> One drawback would be something similar to your putting dishes into a dishwasher. If you fail to rinse, adequately, before putting in the dishes, sometimes the mess does not all wash off and gets baked onto the dish. Something similar could happen here. The lettuce and the peppers from the burrito would get blown off by the steam jets. The sauce, perhaps not, and sauce is an excellent candidate for getting baked onto a surface. There would have to be some way to inspect in an efficient and reliable manner. This does not mean that it could not be done, marry, Sirrah, I am sure that it could be done. It is only that I have not put too much thought into how.


Yep. When I was a kid I did dishes in a restaurant and they had a glass cleaning machine. Lipstick survives everything. Pretreating was a must.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Yes, yes they can. And they will far better than humans. They can track the possible moves by every object they see and build scenarios on the fly for avoiding them in milliseconds.


Yeah, except when there's a bus involved, evidently.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> Multiple angles from several cameras. I volunteered for the up skirt cam review duties because I'm a team player.
> 
> That's what I was thinking about sliding doors. A couple of clips, one pushes the other onto a conveyer belt, reclip, good to go. The other advantage to sliding doors is they don't get taken off in traffic when the drunk pax exits into traffic.
> 
> The exterior body could also be a few clamps, pop off the damaged one, crane it off, drop on the new one, it's rolling again.
> 
> Yep. When I was a kid I did dishes in a restaurant and they had a glass cleaning machine. Lipstick survives everything.


DAMN, Samn, ya' beat me to it! I wanted that job! I guess that I will have to apply for the baked on burrito sauce review job.

....now, if you could invent something that would stop the drunk passenger from exiting into traffic and getting clipped....................

Ya' know, on the body-lift, I always did wonder why Detroit never did that with automobile bodies. Would you believe that the concept is nothing new and that General Motors started to use it in the 1930s; on *diesel-electric locomotives?* Think back to the days of the streamlined cab locomotives and look at the streamlined shell (or you can look up something like an EMD E-unit or F-unit, if you are not old enough to have seen the things--I am). At any rate, that streamlined shell could be lifted right off the locomotive chassis to allow access to everything: power plant, electric motors, generator, controls and wiring. All that they had to do was pull the thing into the shop bay, undo a bunch of bolts, hook the chain falls to rings on the shell, throw the switch and the chain falls would lift the thing right off the chassis.

An automobile body shell would require far fewer bolts and a shop would require maybe one motorised chain fall with four to eight chains that the mechanic could hook to rings on the body. A lighter weight automobile body would require only a few clips, which could be undone more quickly than could bolts. Further, likely it would not require the chain fall, Likely a claw could grab it and pick up the thing.

If the body is mostly plastic, fibreglass or something similar, I do wonder about the structural integrity of a repaired shell. Further, if science can address the weakness of plastic manufactured from recycled plastic, that would open up further possibilities. Ferrous metals do not share that disadvantage, thus it matters not if a manufacturer uses scrap steel or newly milled steel. In fact, for years, even newly milled steel has been made partly of scrap.

Interesting.

I have had more than one restaurant untensil, dish or glass with lipstick or sauce baked onto it. If you ask the waitress/waiter nicely, usually they get you another one.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Yeah, except when there's a bus involved, evidently.


Yes. You are correct. In testing, they (car AND human) failed to grasp that a bus wouldn't yield right of way and they learned. That's why it's called testing.

(psssst, then they fixed it,)


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> DAMN, Samn, ya' beat me to it! I wanted that job! I guess that I will have to apply for the baked on burrito sauce review job.
> 
> ....now, if you could invent something that would stop the drunk passenger from exiting into traffic and getting clipped....................
> 
> Ya' know, on the body-lift, I always did wonder why Detroit never did that with automobile bodies. Would you believe that the concept is nothing new and that General Motors started to use it in the 1930s; on *diesel-electric locomotives?* Think back to the days of the streamlined cab locomotives and look at the streamlined shell (or you can look up something like an EMD E-unit or F-unit, if you are not old enough to have seen the things--I am). At any rate, that streamlined shell could be lifted right off the locomotive chassis to allow access to everything: power plant, electric motors, generator, controls and wiring. All that they had to do was pull the thing into the shop bay, undo a bunch of bolts, hook the chain falls to rings on the shell, throw the switch and the chain falls would lift the thing right off the chassis.
> 
> An automobile body shell would require far fewer bolts and a shop would require maybe one motorised chain fall with four to eight chains that the mechanic could hook to rings on the body. A lighter weight automobile body would require only a few clips, which could be undone more quickly than could bolts. Further, likely it would not require the chain fall, Likely a claw could grab it and pick up the thing.
> 
> If the body is mostly plastic, fibreglass or something similar, I do wonder about the structural integrity of a repaired shell. Further, if science can address the weakness of plastic manufactured from recycled plastic, that would open up further possibilities. Ferrous metals do not share that disadvantage, thus it matters not if a manufacturer uses scrap steel or newly milled steel. In fact, for years, even newly milled steel has been made partly of scrap.
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I have had more than one restaurant untensil, dish or glass with lipstick or sauce baked onto it. If you ask the waitress/waiter nicely, usually they get you another one.


Excellent thoughts. Just as I imagined, prefabricated lifting points, every part accessible. It's all about engineering for maintenance. You could electric motor swap or part swap in seconds, quick system test, and send it on its way.


----------



## LA Cabbie

RamzFanz said:


> Like the human driver in the Google car that agreed with the car's decision?
> 
> Yes, yes they can. And they will far better than humans. They can track the possible moves by every object they see and build scenarios on the fly for avoiding them in milliseconds.


No they can't. You are speaking of an omnipresent artificial intillegence. Hate to break it to you, but programs are only as good as their human programmers. You are balancing machine with code. If there is a malfunction with the hardware than the code will act on faulty data. That air France plane that fell in the ocean was because the sensors malfunctioned. The pilots who share your mentality followed the computer and caused the plane to stall and nose dive.

That tesla that crashed into a semi in Florida the machine reported the right visuals but the code could not properly interpret the data and thus the car crashed into the semi at full speed.

Listen bob, the human brain is the greatest computer of all. It only fails when we decide to get on social media and see what Kim k had for breakfast.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

RamzFanz said:


> (psssst, then they fixed it,)


What did they do? (This is an honest question. I am curious as to how they fixed it.)



LA Cabbie said:


> programs are only as good as their human programmers.


"Garbage in/garbage out" is one way I often have heard and seen it phrased.


----------



## RamzFanz

LA Cabbie said:


> No they can't. You are speaking of an omnipresent artificial intillegence. Hate to break it to you, but programs are only as good as their human programmers. You are balancing machine with code. If there is a malfunction with the hardware than the code will act on faulty data. That air France plane that fell in the ocean was because the sensors malfunctioned. The pilots who share your mentality followed the computer and caused the plane to stall and nose dive.
> 
> That tesla that crashed into a semi in Florida the machine reported the right visuals but the code could not properly interpret the data and thus the car crashed into the semi at full speed.
> 
> Listen bob, the human brain is the greatest computer of all. It only fails when we decide to get on social media and see what Kim k had for breakfast.


Self-learning. One car sees a squirrel express a look and behavior and now all cars know what that is. Shampoo, rinse, repeat. No additional programming necessary. It's 360-degree multi-sensor observation with V2V communication, not omnipresence.

Air France? 447? Apples and oranges. The autopilot is not sophisticated or advanced and it had no redundancy. It was dependent on pilots, the same pilots it handed off to when the pitot tube froze, and who crashed it. An SDC that detects a faulty sensor or reading can still pull over, a plane can't.

That plane could have easily stayed in the air with today's technology and a redundant airspeed system like GPS. It could also have determined it was at the correct speed based on altitude, throttle setting, and engine speed if that were a part of the system, but it wasn't. Blaming a system that did exactly what it was designed to do makes no sense.

The tesla is not a self-driving car and didn't have the complimentary sensors that would have alerted it to the truck like Lidar.

Of course an SDC can fail. Anything can fail. The question is how often and what are the results. The human brain causes 1.2M deaths a year and over 2M injuries. It's great at many things, but driving isn't one of them.


----------



## RamzFanz

Another Uber Driver said:


> What did they do? (This is an honest question. I am curious as to how they fixed it.


They programmed it to not expect large vehicles to decelerate just to yield right of way, as I recall.


----------



## CrazyTaxi

A computer, machine, whatever, can most certainly be programmed to react and process information better than a human being. The flip side of this, is that we can't be too arrogant to think we can program a machine to adapt safely to every one of the millions of situations it will encounter on the road with unpredictability. This is where a human trumps the machine, the human can look at a situation with a conscious mind and adapt on the fly to something that may not be preprogrammed in the machines. With that said, the majority of situations will be basic enough routine traffic maneuvers which the machines can do easily, it is just going to be those random weird events that the machines are just going to look really silly that will probably get blasted all over the news. When the time comes that these cars are mixing with the general population, we will truly see all the things that weren't really thought of during development. I personally think they will become a target for high school kids trying to have a good time, they will put fake red lights in the road to stop the car, put objects in front and laugh as it sits there not knowing what to do etc.


----------



## RamzFanz

CrazyTaxi said:


> A computer, machine, whatever, can most certainly be programmed to react and process information better than a human being. The flip side of this, is that we can't be too arrogant to think we can program a machine to adapt safely to every one of the millions of situations it will encounter on the road with unpredictability. This is where a human trumps the machine, the human can look at a situation with a conscious mind and adapt on the fly to something that may not be preprogrammed in the machines. With that said, the majority of situations will be basic enough routine traffic maneuvers which the machines can do easily, it is just going to be those random weird events that the machines are just going to look really silly that will probably get blasted all over the news. When the time comes that these cars are mixing with the general population, we will truly see all the things that weren't really thought of during development. I personally think they will become a target for high school kids trying to have a good time, they will put fake red lights in the road to stop the car, put objects in front and laugh as it sits there not knowing what to do etc.


Yep, we are humans and we will mess with the cars because that's our nature. People already do. I would assume laws will be passed to prevent it, they won't completely work, but it will reduce them. Existing laws like false imprisonment may come into play if there are passengers. Is it going to be a huge deal? I doubt it. The novelty will wear off. Most people don't do these things.

Yes, humans are better at grasping new situations. Computers are better at learning from and communicating those situations. A google car came across a woman in a wheelchair chasing a duck. It was not programmed to deal with it specifically, it simply knew to stop and wait. Now every Google car knows this is a possibility. I think the perception is every possible scenario has to be programmed which isn't correct. The decision making process has to be programmed.

Humans can trump machines in a very small number of situations as you said, but in the vast majority of them, they can't even come close, which is why SDCs will be safer. Imperfect, to be sure, but to what degree? I think it will be very small and near non-existent once we get rid of human driving.


----------



## CrazyTaxi

RamzFanz said:


> Humans can trump machines in a very small number of situations as you said, but in the vast majority of them, they can't even come close, which is why SDCs will be safer. Imperfect, to be sure, but to what degree? I think it will be very small and near non-existent once we get rid of human driving.


I will trust an SDC in very common situations, but complex situations like a twisty bumpy mountain road, I would much rather drive myself or have the option to at least.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Yes. You are correct.


I know I'm correct. I said that humans can make allowances for and avoid drivers with poor driving skills (beaten-up ricer drivers, BMW/Audi/Evo/Impreza drivers, bus drivers etc), while machines do not, as evidenced by the bus vs. Uber crash.

Oh, and you have no idea what they "fixed" or didn't "fix" after the bus incident. Just more guessing from you.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

RamzFanz said:


> A google car came across a woman in a wheelchair chasing a duck. It was not programmed to deal with it specifically, it simply knew to stop and wait. Now every Google car knows this is a possibility.


This statement makes little sense. Cars don't "know" what women, ducks or wheelchairs are. They shoot Lidar around and see stationary or moving blobs of various sizes. Attributing human concepts to them is bizarre. You're just parroting what some Google marketing person said to the media.

This is one reason they have problems interpreting human hand signals. These computers can calculate, but they're not very "intelligent."


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

CrazyTaxi said:


> I personally think they will become a target for high school kids trying to have a good time, they will put fake red lights in the road to stop the car, put objects in front and laugh as it sits there not knowing what to do etc.


I thought this too. Drunks are going to find it hilarious to stop SDC with cones and other obstacles.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Im thinking that drug overdose will go up and violence. More and more tech makes us lazzy and souless. Can anyone think about this "Take humans out of control to go where they want" think about that. Also ontop of that the internet is getting handed over to the EU. I can already see heavy sensorship more past couple of months more then any other time. Just know internet is going into foreign land where freedom of speech is gone. Can ypu see a pattern? Pretty soon they will make us move where they want them us to go


----------



## Gi joe

RamzFanz said:


> The difference being that these cars could have a full view and recording of what the passengers are doing so disputes will go nowhere. If there's a mess or damage, they roll back to the person who did it and charge them.
> 
> They will crash. They probably won't be at fault almost ever. Self-driving cars have crashed, but no at-faults. Teslas aren't self-driving. The bus incident, while Google stated they contributed by misjudging what the bus would do, they technically had right of way.
> 
> I was thinking more side to side, but yeah, if they know what we know about messes and behavior, they would be fools not to make an automated cleaning system of some type.


That would be a whole lot of video to go through just to see who left a burrito wrapper... seriously that would be a ton of work and money... there are hundreds of wrappers left on the floor of an Uber with a human driver... more so with no one in it i would presume.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Gi joe said:


> That would be a whole lot of video to go through just to see who left a burrito wrapper... seriously that would be a ton of work and money... there are hundreds of wrappers left on the floor of an Uber with a human driver... more so with no one in it i would presume.


Of course. They're not going to go through 300 hours of tape to see who stuck gum on the headrest. RamzFanz arguments are so ridiculous that they're unfathomable.


----------



## Gi joe

4736353377384555736 said:


> Of course. They're not going to go through 300 hours of tape to see who stuck gum on the headrest. RamzFanz arguments are so ridiculous that they're unfathomable.


I understand some of his arguments, however i believe he is over simplifying it. Case in point of the video in the cars. There would have to be a complaint within a small window of the burrito wrapper, in order for the customer service rep to quickly role over to the correct time code of the incident.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Of course. They're not going to go through 300 hours of tape to see who stuck gum on the headrest. RamzFanz arguments are so ridiculous that they're unfathomable.


The car pulls up, you inspect it and report it not clean, pax who did it is charged. It's not rocket science.

Humans don't need to search any "tape", of course, the computer can tell them when the debris appeared there. This is old technology.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gi joe said:


> That would be a whole lot of video to go through just to see who left a burrito wrapper... seriously that would be a ton of work and money... there are hundreds of wrappers left on the floor of an Uber with a human driver... more so with no one in it i would presume.


The car pulls up, you inspect it and report it not clean, pax who did it is charged. It's not rocket science.

Humans don't need to search any "tape", of course, the computer can tell them when the debris appeared there. This is old technology.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> This statement makes little sense. Cars don't "know" what women, ducks or wheelchairs are. They shoot Lidar around and see stationary or moving blobs of various sizes. Attributing human concepts to them is bizarre. You're just parroting what some Google marketing person said to the media.
> 
> This is one reason they have problems interpreting human hand signals. These computers can calculate, but they're not very "intelligent."


I said _It was not programmed to deal with it specifically. _It doesn't need to assign it a name, it only needs to know to avoid it. Another strawman argument from you.

Who told you they have trouble interpreting human hand signals?


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> I know I'm correct. I said that humans can make allowances for and avoid drivers with poor driving skills (beaten-up ricer drivers, BMW/Audi/Evo/Impreza drivers, bus drivers etc), while machines do not, as evidenced by the bus vs. Uber crash.
> 
> Oh, and you have no idea what they "fixed" or didn't "fix" after the bus incident. Just more guessing from you.


It's a silly argument. SDCs will avoid all cars, people, and objects so they don't need to give a wider berth because they can predict and react so much faster than a human.

They, Google, stated they fixed the assumption that a bus would yield right of way. Did you not even look before fabricating your accusation? Did you not realize the entire reason they are testing is to uncover and correct issues?


----------



## RamzFanz

Gi joe said:


> I understand some of his arguments, however i believe he is over simplifying it. Case in point of the video in the cars. There would have to be a complaint within a small window of the burrito wrapper, in order for the customer service rep to quickly role over to the correct time code of the incident.


No, it's not a human task. You pull up the video and circle the pixels that represent the burrito, gum, spill, whatever and the computer jumps to the frame where it isn't there.


----------



## 4736353377384555736

Yeah... Not gonna happen RamzFanz.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> It's a silly argument. SDCs will avoid all cars, people, and objects so they don't need to give a wider berth because they can predict and react so much faster than a human.


Totally incorrect. Actually, Google itself does not agree with you that SDC differentiating between different vehicle types is "silly". After the bus incident, they said:

_"From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles"_

Breaking it down for you, this means that they will now attempt to make allowances for predicted behavior of drivers based on the type of vehicle they are driving, not, as you say avoid all vehicles indiscriminately.

If you're going to attempt to interpret what Google's policies are and act as a self-appointed mouthpiece for them, at least align yourself with their policies and viewpoints first.



> They, Google, stated they fixed the assumption that a bus would yield right of way.


Good for them. It shows that they are learning in the field what should have been obvious to them from the start, as it was to me. No field testing is required by me to know that, once again, these cars need to be able make allowances for vehicles which are likely to be driven by those with poor driving skills.

Google claims to know about buses now. That just leaves beaten-up ricers, jacked up domestics riding on big ghetto rims, 80 year old geriatrics, taxis etc etc.

Come back and see me when they've programmed all those in to their system.


----------



## DriverX

The more you know.


----------



## Gi joe

RamzFanz said:


> No, it's not a human task. You pull up the video and circle the pixels that represent the burrito, gum, spill, whatever and the computer jumps to the frame where it isn't there.


Thousands of trips per day... probably hundreds of wrappers on floors.. I honestly think your over simplifying this.


----------



## RamzFanz

4736353377384555736 said:


> Yeah... Not gonna happen RamzFanz.


What's not? People won't be charged for their messes just as they are today or that they won't use cheap and common technology to find the culprit rather than combing through video using expensive human labor?

Or is this your way of actually admitting it's not an unsolvable problem?


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Totally incorrect. Actually, Google itself does not agree with you that SDC differentiating between different vehicle types is "silly". After the bus incident, they said:
> 
> _"From now on, our cars will more deeply understand that buses (and other large vehicles) are less likely to yield to us than other types of vehicles"_
> 
> Breaking it down for you, this means that they will now attempt to make allowances for predicted behavior of drivers based on the type of vehicle they are driving, not, as you say avoid all vehicles indiscriminately.
> 
> If you're going to attempt to interpret what Google's policies are and act as a self-appointed mouthpiece for them, at least align yourself with their policies and viewpoints first.
> 
> Good for them. It shows that they are learning in the field what should have been obvious to them from the start, as it was to me. No field testing is required by me to know that, once again, these cars need to be able make allowances for vehicles which are likely to be driven by those with poor driving skills.
> 
> Google claims to know about buses now. That just leaves beaten-up ricers, jacked up domestics riding on big ghetto rims, 80 year old geriatrics, taxis etc etc.
> 
> Come back and see me when they've programmed all those in to their system.


Your example, while completely contradictory to your original statement that they couldn't give a wide birth to a specific vehicle, is a good one. They absolutely will and I was wrong to make a blanket statement. For the most part, though, they won't need to because their observations, predictions, and reactions are superior. They predict possible actions by other vehicles, humans, and animals, and plan their options many times a second even while a human may be incapable or unlikely of knowing the concern is even there. I posted the video that showed them seeing a bike running a red light and stopping while the humans didn't see the bike and almost ran him down.


----------



## RamzFanz

Gi joe said:


> Thousands of trips per day... probably hundreds of wrappers on floors.. I honestly think your over simplifying this.


Thousands? Let's say they are massively more efficient than a human and can give 5 trips an hour for 24 hours. That's 120 trips.

Let's say you used an SDC and threw a wrapper on the floor. You then get a $10 charge for the cleaning. Do you think you'll keep doing it? I wouldn't. I would inspect the car before I exited. The computers using cameras could easily identify trash each trip and mark when that trash arrived to have a quick human review if they design it in to do so. It's just a matter of comparing image pixels between trip start and end. It would take millionths of a second if that.

You can also pay pax to pick up the trash if they want to. A wrapper on the floor gets you $5. I'm taking it.

You can also have in-floor or under seat vacuums to handle most common debris. Run vacuum, collect $10, it's now a profit center.

These aren't unsolvable, human nuisances have to be dealt with, but that's not a roadblock to SDCs.


----------



## Another Uber Driver

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> this means that they will now attempt to make allowances for predicted behavior of drivers based on the type of vehicle they are driving,


So the Self-Driver's sensors will have to learn to read manufacturer logos or do sikhouette IDs as they did in the two World Wars?

If it is going to ID jackwadd drivers, it will have to ID the silhouette of :

1) METRObus
2) Cement mixer
3) dump truck
4) garbage truck**********************

Further, it will have to learn the logos or silhouettes of:

A) Prius
B) Subaru Outback
C) Volvo
D)BMW
E) Acura
F) Mercedes-Benz
G) SAAB**
H) Audi*************************************************************************************

Finally, it will have to look at each Yukon, Escalade or Suburban that it encounters, If black, the flow sheet will direct it to check for tinted windows. If windows are tinted, flow sheet will direct it to look for Uber trade dress. If Uber trade dress is showing, it is an Uber SUV---LOOK OUT! HE'S ABOUT TO TURN LEFT FROM THE KERB LANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gi joe

RamzFanz said:


> Thousands? Let's say they are massively more efficient than a human and can give 5 trips an hour for 24 hours. That's 120 trips.
> 
> Let's say you used an SDC and threw a wrapper on the floor. You then get a $10 charge for the cleaning. Do you think you'll keep doing it? I wouldn't. I would inspect the car before I exited. The computers using cameras could easily identify trash each trip and mark when that trash arrived to have a quick human review if they design it in to do so. It's just a matter of comparing image pixels between trip start and end. It would take millionths of a second if that.
> 
> You can also pay pax to pick up the trash if they want to. A wrapper on the floor gets you $5. I'm taking it.
> 
> You can also have in-floor or under seat vacuums to handle most common debris. Run vacuum, collect $10, it's now a profit center.
> 
> These aren't unsolvable, human nuisances have to be dealt with, but that's not a roadblock to SDCs.


How would they know if you picked up the trash to give you your 10 bucks? Trust? Cuz again going over video 300 plus times a day is very inconvenient. Anyways listen im sure they will figure this part out, all im saying is, this isnt as simple as ur making it out to be IMHO.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Your example, while completely contradictory to your original statement that they couldn't give a wide birth to a specific vehicle, is a good one.


Not contradictory at all. Facts are facts; the SDC collided with the bus. Google now _says_ it has fixed the issue. I don't know if they have or not. Time will tell.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Not contradictory at all. Facts are facts; the SDC collided with the bus. Google now _says_ it has fixed the issue. I don't know if they have or not. Time will tell.


Why wouldn't they? It's the entire purpose of the testing.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Why wouldn't they? It's the entire purpose of the testing.


Once again, you're on the right track, but you're not _quite_ there. You are evidently not from a product development background, so I'll explain.

The "entire purpose" of testing is not to fix problems. Its purpose is to simply identify and document any product quality issues. Fixing issues is a different process entirely.

Again, Google says that the need to make allowances for the poor driving of large vehicles is fixed, but it remains to be seen if this is the case.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Once again, you're on the right track, but you're not _quite_ there. You are evidently not from a product development background, so I'll explain.
> 
> The "entire purpose" of testing is not to fix problems. Its purpose is to simply identify and document any product quality issues. Fixing issues is a different process entirely.
> 
> Again, Google says that the need to make allowances for the poor driving of large vehicles is fixed, but it remains to be seen if this is the case.


Semantics.

Yes, Google says it's fixed.


----------



## DoUHaveAnyWater?

RamzFanz said:


> Semantics.
> 
> Yes, Google says it's fixed.


Lol, you make these obvious remarks such as that testing is part of the fault rectification process and then act as if you've proven a point or said something profound.

Hey, water's wet, so there.


----------



## RamzFanz

DoUHaveAnyWater? said:


> Lol, you make these obvious remarks such as that testing is part of the fault rectification process and then act as if you've proven a point or said something profound.
> 
> Hey, water's wet, so there.


Testing is part of the fault rectification process. Step one, test to find faults. Please explain to us how you correct an error without uncovering the error, thanks.

Semantics.


----------



## Flarpy

Keep in mind RamzFanz is from an automation background, so we know what side he'll always take.

He's an automation fanboy and, like all fanboys, he can't understand how other people can't also be fanboys nor can he see any problems with whatever it is he's a fanboy of.

No matter what problems these SDCs encounter, he'll constantly be saying "they're almost perfect and it's only a few years until they're on the roads." They're his personal Jesus. He/They will be here aaaaany minute. And it'll be awesome!!!111


----------



## RamzFanz

Flarpy said:


> Keep in mind RamzFanz is from an automation background, so we know what side he'll always take.
> 
> He's an automation fanboy and, like all fanboys, he can't understand how other people can't also be fanboys nor can he see any problems with whatever it is he's a fanboy of.
> 
> No matter what problems these SDCs encounter, he'll constantly be saying "they're almost perfect and it's only a few years until they're on the roads." They're his personal Jesus. He/They will be here aaaaany minute. And it'll be awesome!!!111


Nope. I just point out when people say things that aren't true. I'll leave each to their own opinion if they can support it with facts. Knowledge is power. Foreknowledge is gold.

If someone believes they are overstating the technology, so be it. If they say all of these people are lying and hiding accidents, I'm going to call them out. It's important. Your world is about to change and you can take advantage of it or be run over by it.


----------



## Jermin8r89

Anyway any of this is acceptable is i want to see interstellar space travel. Colonize moon and mars and do it now. If these companies they can do all this complexing maping of earth with self driveing cars then put it on planets. Atleast have jetpacks. Oh wait its all an agenda to control people on earth right


----------

