Lyft Self-Driving(lyft.com)
lyft.com
Lyft Self-Driving
https://www.lyft.com/self-driving-vehicles
175 comments
High-density housing with shopping and offices in walking distance would be massive steps towards solving Americas transportation problem. But this goes against the current US culture, so I'm not holding my breath.
Better public transit is also great, but that's also hard to deliver in low-density suburbia.
I agree that autonomous vehicles and Uber/Lift won't make travel times shorter. But they might help make the trip better because you can use the time better despite being in a car.
Better public transit is also great, but that's also hard to deliver in low-density suburbia.
I agree that autonomous vehicles and Uber/Lift won't make travel times shorter. But they might help make the trip better because you can use the time better despite being in a car.
Self driving cars are the mass transit of low-density suburbia. Electric AVs in the next 10 years would be a significantly cheaper solution than remaking US infrastructure & political culture to be more transit friendly. That is why americans are especially excited about them.
What's wrong with having a bus + driver service low density suburbia today, than a number of self driving cars? Even a minibus.
Usage is low enough and destinations are various and sparse and distant enough that sufficient coverage to be useful would be prohibitively expensive, while incredibly under-utilized. You really need something more on-demand that will take you door-to-door.
Far too expensive to operate a sufficiently useful transit system for insufficient ridership to support it. The density does not allow the economics to work out.
Busses don't get cleaned often, lack modern creature comforts like leather surfaces and music, have distractingly bad noise/vibration/harshness, etc.
All of those concerns are much more easily addressed individually than by developing a vehicle that drives itself. There is no reason why a 14-passenger 8 ton Mercedes minivan could not be used as a small, relatively frequent bus as opposed to the huge, noisy MAN 40 ton chassis.
America doesn’t want this. We vote against these designs time and time again. Nothing short of China style totalitarian urban restructuring will make US cities walking utopias.
I live in a US city, and I still don't understand why this is the case. It completely baffles me why people would prefer to sit behind the wheel in stop-and-go city traffic, deal with pedestrians, cyclists, traffic lights, one-way streets, and parking, instead of designing and developing the city so everything they need is a short walk or at worst a quick transit ride away. It just seems like madness, like people are deliberately making their lives significantly worse, and they see the effects of that decision literally every day.
Because sleep deprivation is a major ailment. Nothing says good life like the neighbor above having a late night party, the heavy traffic starting about five am or the shrieks of the late night ambulances.
Cramped living. Been there done that, hated it. I love the silence at night. Having a big living room and a little garden. Being able to actually look up the sky and see stars.
I do like trains, but they can't get everywhere. I take a bus to work everyday but they don't operate 24h a day and not frequently enough.
I'm the most excited about self driving buses. Even in predefined routes on special self driving lanes. Then its just a train carriage on a road :)
I do like trains, but they can't get everywhere. I take a bus to work everyday but they don't operate 24h a day and not frequently enough.
I'm the most excited about self driving buses. Even in predefined routes on special self driving lanes. Then its just a train carriage on a road :)
Sure, but you've made the choice to live in a place with low enough density that you have a lot of indoor and outdoor space and enough distance from neighbors that you get a lot of quiet.
I live in a place where you don't get any of that that (unless you have $2M+ to spend on a house and land, which still doesn't fix the noise problem), and yet people still object to modest density increases and investment in public transit.
And in this case, I'd expect an increase in density to mean prices will drop, therefore enabling people to own more space at a lower price. This does mean more vertical building, so you lose private outdoor space, but that's really the only downside vs. the status quo.
I live in a place where you don't get any of that that (unless you have $2M+ to spend on a house and land, which still doesn't fix the noise problem), and yet people still object to modest density increases and investment in public transit.
And in this case, I'd expect an increase in density to mean prices will drop, therefore enabling people to own more space at a lower price. This does mean more vertical building, so you lose private outdoor space, but that's really the only downside vs. the status quo.
> "I'm the most excited about self driving buses."
Agreed. Self-driving cars may be a sham "solution" to American's transportation woes....however self-driving busses should be considered as a very practical mass transit alternative to rail since the road infrastructure is already built. I've heard they are testing this out in Las Vegas:
https://blog.caranddriver.com/letting-it-ride-las-vegas-puts...
Agreed. Self-driving cars may be a sham "solution" to American's transportation woes....however self-driving busses should be considered as a very practical mass transit alternative to rail since the road infrastructure is already built. I've heard they are testing this out in Las Vegas:
https://blog.caranddriver.com/letting-it-ride-las-vegas-puts...
What you'd be arguing for is, instead of revamping the way cars work, revamp the cities themselves. I feel like the market tends to side with whatever is the "lowest initial cost of entry" when picking which direction to go in, as much as I don't agree. So, between the choices currently available - what is the option that is the lowest barrier of entry financially?
While it seems obvious that autonomous driving is not a solution to urban transportation (cities are already crowded with cars), it can be a great one for long distance transportation. Roads are simple / cheaper to build than vacuumed tubes or railroads.
Walking and mass transit suck for people who are: traveling with kids, obese, disabled, short on time, carrying groceries, elderly, and/or in a place with bad weather. That's not even mentioning people who can't afford to live in dense, central urban environments.
Self-driving, solar cars solve all problems of mass transit and are far cheaper, since they use existing roads.
Self-driving, solar cars solve all problems of mass transit and are far cheaper, since they use existing roads.
The NYC subway accounts for 5 million trips each day, taking millions of cars off the road because they don’t need to exist in the first place.
Traveling with kids? Something people do with public transit and walking every day.
Promoting walking encourages healthy lifestyles; promoting driving (or just sitting in a car and not doing anything) encourages the opposite.
Elderly or disabled people take public transit all the time.
Short on time or carrying a bunch of groceries? Live out in the far suburbs? Then public transit isn’t for you. But it takes passengers who aren’t short on time off the roads, making your trip faster.
Edit: Cities with bad weather have adapted the cities to support public transit and walking (think covered, elevated walkways in Asia).
It’s not a zero sum game. Self driving cars will be great. Public transit is great (and can be great in more places 0if cities made more investment). Both can and should exist.
Traveling with kids? Something people do with public transit and walking every day.
Promoting walking encourages healthy lifestyles; promoting driving (or just sitting in a car and not doing anything) encourages the opposite.
Elderly or disabled people take public transit all the time.
Short on time or carrying a bunch of groceries? Live out in the far suburbs? Then public transit isn’t for you. But it takes passengers who aren’t short on time off the roads, making your trip faster.
Edit: Cities with bad weather have adapted the cities to support public transit and walking (think covered, elevated walkways in Asia).
It’s not a zero sum game. Self driving cars will be great. Public transit is great (and can be great in more places 0if cities made more investment). Both can and should exist.
We have had self driving vehicles for a long time - they're called busses, taxis and trains, and can take many people at once who don't need to drive or own the transport. We're just automating that last one human who needs to hold the wheel of the bus/taxi/train and extending the reach of the network.
I'm a little bit worried about self driving cars being used for auto-detaining people and delivering them to police/terrorists. When you get into a sdc, you lose your ability to get off anywhere you want, it might lock up the doors and deliver you to the mafia or police for all you know.
Remember "auto-detention" I invented it here and now. :-)
I'm a little bit worried about self driving cars being used for auto-detaining people and delivering them to police/terrorists. When you get into a sdc, you lose your ability to get off anywhere you want, it might lock up the doors and deliver you to the mafia or police for all you know.
Remember "auto-detention" I invented it here and now. :-)
The only way to travel in a SDC is with a set of diagonal pliers and screwdriver in you pocket.
I agree both can exist. The original article argues against SDC investment in favor of mass transit.
I agree public transit is unequivocally great and important. I don't agree that most of our investment dollars should go to mass public transit over SDC public fleets.
NYC is an exception and can't be replicated in most places, and the lack of transit options are still a burden on the groups I mentioned.
I agree public transit is unequivocally great and important. I don't agree that most of our investment dollars should go to mass public transit over SDC public fleets.
NYC is an exception and can't be replicated in most places, and the lack of transit options are still a burden on the groups I mentioned.
>Self-driving, solar cars solve all problems of mass transit and are far cheaper, since they use existing roads.
They don't solve the arguably most important issue: road capacity. A bus that takes the same space on the road as 2-3 cars seats 30 people (and holds another 30 standing). Self-driving cars enable somewhat more efficient traffic patterns, but they will have a hard time overcoming the order-of-magnitude lead that buses have.
And that's not even mentioning subways, those don't impact roads at all and move staggering amounts of people
They don't solve the arguably most important issue: road capacity. A bus that takes the same space on the road as 2-3 cars seats 30 people (and holds another 30 standing). Self-driving cars enable somewhat more efficient traffic patterns, but they will have a hard time overcoming the order-of-magnitude lead that buses have.
And that's not even mentioning subways, those don't impact roads at all and move staggering amounts of people
Buses are not always full. Their average capacity does not have an order of magnitude advantage.
neither are roads.
it doesn't matter how full the bus is when the road is empty, but the number of cars that a bus is taking off the road at peak road usage time is pretty close to the full capacity of the bus, in any bus system i've ever ridden.
it doesn't matter how full the bus is when the road is empty, but the number of cars that a bus is taking off the road at peak road usage time is pretty close to the full capacity of the bus, in any bus system i've ever ridden.
Good point - maybe buses will stay around just for peak usage, but will be replaced by rented, right-sized self-driving cars for the rest of the time.
This is assuming that everyone who is on the bus would be driving/riding in a car instead, which I'm not sure is true.
[deleted]
And anyone with more than a handbag to carry. Many workers travel with tools. Im going to training next month and have to bring about 80lbs of various stuff with me. Hauling that in and out of busses, not to mention finding places to secure it while i sleep/eat, wouldnt be much fun. But it all fits in my car nicely. And no, i cannot send it by courier.
No one is suggesting that there aren't special cases where using a car is the right move. But the vast majority of cases where people take cars, replacing that experience with better public transit is entirely reasonable. Hell, improving public transit would improve your use-case as well; you'd have less traffic to compete with while driving.
Unless the goal is to pay for public transit by making car travel more expensive/painful. Then it is unfair to force all the carpenters to cover the costs for the office workers.
That's a bit disingenuous, trying to invoke a blue vs. white collar dichotomy where none exists. Many office workers have equipment to lug around regularly, and many more types of people than office workers would be taking transit.
Regardless, transit should pay for itself in the same proportion that roads pay for themselves. Transit has per-use or per-distance fees around using it, but are also subsidized by the government. Road travel has per-use or per-distance fees (tolls, gasoline taxes), and are also subsidized by the government. I'm sure we can continue to find a balance for all of those numbers so no one is disproportionately burdened to support their needed mode of transportation.
Regardless, transit should pay for itself in the same proportion that roads pay for themselves. Transit has per-use or per-distance fees around using it, but are also subsidized by the government. Road travel has per-use or per-distance fees (tolls, gasoline taxes), and are also subsidized by the government. I'm sure we can continue to find a balance for all of those numbers so no one is disproportionately burdened to support their needed mode of transportation.
That's an incomplete view of the problem.
Public transportation is used by people from all walks of life. Not just office workers - cooks, nurses, artists, school teachers, police officers, even employees of trade companies... and every citizen benefits from reduced traffic, lower infrastructure costs, and better health.
Using car taxes to fund public transportation would not materially impact the carpenter. They'd just charge a little more. An absurdly high $1000/year tax spread across 50 clients is merely $20 per job - a more realistic $200/y tax would add $4 per job. Considering that public transportation increase average disposable income, the market can easily absorb that cost.
Public transportation is used by people from all walks of life. Not just office workers - cooks, nurses, artists, school teachers, police officers, even employees of trade companies... and every citizen benefits from reduced traffic, lower infrastructure costs, and better health.
Using car taxes to fund public transportation would not materially impact the carpenter. They'd just charge a little more. An absurdly high $1000/year tax spread across 50 clients is merely $20 per job - a more realistic $200/y tax would add $4 per job. Considering that public transportation increase average disposable income, the market can easily absorb that cost.
>> They'd just charge a little more.
And so too can the office workers. To charge one group for the benefit of another, based solely on the manner of their employ, is the definition of unfair. This is what progressive taxation is for, not use taxes.
And so too can the office workers. To charge one group for the benefit of another, based solely on the manner of their employ, is the definition of unfair. This is what progressive taxation is for, not use taxes.
What? You either selectively read my response, or you're being deliberately obtuse with your focus on office workers. Car taxes ensure the market accurately captures negative externalities. There is no discrimination - if a doctor, CEO, and a plumber use cars equally, they are taxed equally. In contrast, low/absent car taxes are discriminatory subsidies.
For businesses that require car usage, the tax is merely an operating cost. There is no impact on profit as operating costs are passed on to the consumer.
Of course, allocating that revenue is still subject to local voters' wishes.
For businesses that require car usage, the tax is merely an operating cost. There is no impact on profit as operating costs are passed on to the consumer.
Of course, allocating that revenue is still subject to local voters' wishes.
We need to distinguish between mass and public transit.
I agree that public transit should be improved. Transit should be free to the poorest people. It should also be accessible.
My point is just that existing mass transit is unpleasant or not viable for many people. Public transit in the form of solar SDCs has the advantages without the disadvantages.
I agree that public transit should be improved. Transit should be free to the poorest people. It should also be accessible.
My point is just that existing mass transit is unpleasant or not viable for many people. Public transit in the form of solar SDCs has the advantages without the disadvantages.
Maybe you really do need a vehicle, but improving public transit and walkability would get a lot of other people out of your way.
What kind of tools? Is there a functional reason for lugging your tools back and forth, or is that just how it's done?
Could you leave those tools at work/training if they had secure storage? Alternatively, could the training facility offer a set of training tools while you keep your personal set at home for training?
Could you leave those tools at work/training if they had secure storage? Alternatively, could the training facility offer a set of training tools while you keep your personal set at home for training?
Im in the military. Its a pile of cloathing, tent and other junk for survival training. A few days at a base in the woods learning to start fires. But it is 0430 now. My alarm just woke me up. I need to be at my office in an hour, where ill take over responsabilities from someone who started thier day before midnight. It's before dawn on december 26th. It's cold. The busses arent running. The uber drivers are all asleep. Some of us still have to get to work.
You clearly don’t do much work involving hand tools. The reasons to carry a portable tool locker on wheels are too numerous to mention. One, your locker, your key; theft is a major problem among contractor sites.
Sure, but office workers for example would not have your issue.
These are all examples of European mass transit users. We even have places designated fir disabled, injured and elderly people on every bus, tram and metro.
Based on their job openings [0] it looks like Level 5 is going head to head with Google, Cruise, and Uber and building a full autonomy software solution. Looks like they are close to square one though since they are hiring leads for essentially everything: localization, perception, prediction, and controls.
It's an interesting to see all the players trying to have an out if someone withholds either the transportation network, or self driving tech.
0 - https://www.lyft.com/jobs#job-openings
It's an interesting to see all the players trying to have an out if someone withholds either the transportation network, or self driving tech.
0 - https://www.lyft.com/jobs#job-openings
[deleted]
I'm skeptical about all this.
Hubert Horan [1] has done a great job exposing Uber's failed business model in 11 part series on NakedCapitalism ("Can Uber Ever Deliver?"). Same goes for Lyft.
When it comes to self driving cars, why should Uber or Lyft have any massive advantage over other players and what makes us think it won't turn into something like an airline industry which has been unprofitable for most of their history?
[1] http://horanaviation.com/Uber.html
Hubert Horan [1] has done a great job exposing Uber's failed business model in 11 part series on NakedCapitalism ("Can Uber Ever Deliver?"). Same goes for Lyft.
When it comes to self driving cars, why should Uber or Lyft have any massive advantage over other players and what makes us think it won't turn into something like an airline industry which has been unprofitable for most of their history?
[1] http://horanaviation.com/Uber.html
A hypothetical – since flights are relatively expensive, people usually just go for the cheapest option, so airlines race to the bottom and lose profits. With autonomous vehicles the cost of a ride will be very inexpensive–a few dollars probably–so consumers may focus less on cost in favor of brand loyalty, cool cars, etc, leaving room for providers upsell certain services and profit (turning a $4 ride into a $5 isn't a bad profit margin)
I’m sure they will try to hide that by offering subscriptions, loyalty cards, better chairs, larger cars, larger monitors, Netflix, faster rides, etc, but the competition will go wherever the demand is and offer that $5 ride for $4.50.
I’m not sure how well they will be able to diversify their product while keeping the economies of scale. If 10% of your customers is willing to pay for more leg space, can you get by with 10% of your fleet being larger cars, or does that affect the waiting times of that 10% too much, and do you need to make most of your cars larger?
Also, if you pay $1 extra per trip on your commute, that’s a nice smartphone each year.
I’m not sure how well they will be able to diversify their product while keeping the economies of scale. If 10% of your customers is willing to pay for more leg space, can you get by with 10% of your fleet being larger cars, or does that affect the waiting times of that 10% too much, and do you need to make most of your cars larger?
Also, if you pay $1 extra per trip on your commute, that’s a nice smartphone each year.
You would travel in reduced comfort for a year, however small the difference, to get the latest samsung/iphone?
I didn’t say that I would, nor that it would be “however small the difference”; I claim some people would. I also think that, if Uber and Lyft manage to capture the lower-income market, many of their customers will.
Also one man’s “reduced comfort” is another man’s “less luxury”. People make those choices all the times, e.g. when buying cars, train tickets, housing, or food.
Also one man’s “reduced comfort” is another man’s “less luxury”. People make those choices all the times, e.g. when buying cars, train tickets, housing, or food.
Why not?
Or, perhaps you have a small frame and the difference in leg room wouldn't impact you at all.
Or, perhaps you have a small frame and the difference in leg room wouldn't impact you at all.
I know I will. I’m not going to ride in the Crapton Expresss.
I’ll gladly ride in the crapton express. It’s more important to save money on frequent purchases than rare large ones.
The most important part:
Detailed cost data from studies of traditional operators in Chicago, San Francisco and Denver showed that 58 cents of every gross passenger dollar (fares plus tips) went to driver take home pay and benefits, 9 cents went to fuel and direct fees, 18 cents went to vehicle costs and the remaining 15 cents covered corporate overhead and profit.
This in essence states that taxi business has upper limit of 15% margin. That's very low however that does not mean Uber or Lyft like businesses are fundamentally flawed. It just means Uber/Lyft has to just figure out how to survive with, say, 10% margin and they have opportunity to drive out higher margin traditional businesses. The nationwide volume can still yield great profitability (just like Amazon model). So Uber/Lyft are perfectly viable and profitable businesses, at least in theory.
Also notice that driver comp is 58%. That's massive. Self-driving will absolutely change the landscape. I would highly doubt that vehicle ownership would be as important as it is now once self-driving becomes norm. It's similar to everyone doesn't own water well any more because you have water on-demand at any time you want.
Detailed cost data from studies of traditional operators in Chicago, San Francisco and Denver showed that 58 cents of every gross passenger dollar (fares plus tips) went to driver take home pay and benefits, 9 cents went to fuel and direct fees, 18 cents went to vehicle costs and the remaining 15 cents covered corporate overhead and profit.
This in essence states that taxi business has upper limit of 15% margin. That's very low however that does not mean Uber or Lyft like businesses are fundamentally flawed. It just means Uber/Lyft has to just figure out how to survive with, say, 10% margin and they have opportunity to drive out higher margin traditional businesses. The nationwide volume can still yield great profitability (just like Amazon model). So Uber/Lyft are perfectly viable and profitable businesses, at least in theory.
Also notice that driver comp is 58%. That's massive. Self-driving will absolutely change the landscape. I would highly doubt that vehicle ownership would be as important as it is now once self-driving becomes norm. It's similar to everyone doesn't own water well any more because you have water on-demand at any time you want.
”So Uber/Lyft are perfectly viable and profitable businesses, at least in theory.”
AFAICT, Horan doesn’t dispute that there is business there; he disputes that it is worth their valuation. If, say, they can make a hundred million dollars of profit a year, long term, that is a viable and profitable business, but not one that’s worth tens of billions of dollars.
And vehicle ownership? I think it is extremely hard to predict what will happen. Many people currently see their car as an extension of their home. If (possibly a big if) self-driving cars aren’t a lot more expensive, they may not want to give that up. Where else would people keep their sweets to eat during their commute, spare jacket, running shoes, tennis rackets, golf clubs, kids toys (let alone kids seats)?
There also may be extra stuff people may want to keep in _their_ self-driving car, for example a computer gaming system, a yoga mat or fitness machine (once self driving cars are safe enough, compulsory seat belts laws can go away)
AFAICT, Horan doesn’t dispute that there is business there; he disputes that it is worth their valuation. If, say, they can make a hundred million dollars of profit a year, long term, that is a viable and profitable business, but not one that’s worth tens of billions of dollars.
And vehicle ownership? I think it is extremely hard to predict what will happen. Many people currently see their car as an extension of their home. If (possibly a big if) self-driving cars aren’t a lot more expensive, they may not want to give that up. Where else would people keep their sweets to eat during their commute, spare jacket, running shoes, tennis rackets, golf clubs, kids toys (let alone kids seats)?
There also may be extra stuff people may want to keep in _their_ self-driving car, for example a computer gaming system, a yoga mat or fitness machine (once self driving cars are safe enough, compulsory seat belts laws can go away)
This whole thing reminds of Buffett, Charlie Munger and the textile mill machinery story. I need to find the exact link for it though. Here's what I can remember from top of my head:
They were offered more "efficient" machinery, which could manufacture more textiles than the old machines. "It will pay for itself" was the pitch. But they refused as more efficient machines meant they had to pass on the savings to the customers. With lower prices, machinery was not exactly going to pay for itself.
I guess that will be the case for Uber and Lyft too. Any efficiency with low enough barrier will mean no one is reaping profits rather passing it on to the customers and hence making less money.
Edit:
Found the link:
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/a-lesson-on-worldly-wisdom/
They were offered more "efficient" machinery, which could manufacture more textiles than the old machines. "It will pay for itself" was the pitch. But they refused as more efficient machines meant they had to pass on the savings to the customers. With lower prices, machinery was not exactly going to pay for itself.
I guess that will be the case for Uber and Lyft too. Any efficiency with low enough barrier will mean no one is reaping profits rather passing it on to the customers and hence making less money.
Edit:
Found the link:
https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/a-lesson-on-worldly-wisdom/
I don't understand why they would have to lower prices just because they bought more efficient machines. That defeats the point (as mentioned) but has two obvious solutions that I can think of: keep prices flat, or raise prices.
They have to lower prices because their competitors buy the same machines and thy pass on the savings to the customers, xo your company needs to do that as well.
That is the problem with commodity business because consumers dont care where there corn or cloth material comes from. Consumers will go for the cheapest option.
That is the problem with commodity business because consumers dont care where there corn or cloth material comes from. Consumers will go for the cheapest option.
It doesn't make sense that they would refuse to buy the efficient machines then... because they would be forced out of the market by people who did.
It's all about the moat. If other people have the same efficient machines they will try to get price advantage by lowering prices. And because one person does it, everyone follows the suit, starting the race to the bottom.
I have included a link in my previous post where Charlie Munger talked about this.
I have included a link in my previous post where Charlie Munger talked about this.
I don't think self driving cars will ever have a low enough barrier. You need data to train the cars, and you need a lot of data.
Google is mining millions of captchas for their self driving cars, they could publish their algorithms for it too, but unless you have access to all that beautiful training set, it wouldn't be much of use.
I have no idea how lyft or uber is going to get that much data, maybe potentially buy paying drivers more to stick sensors on their cars to collect insane amounts of data? But it's gonna be a tricky thing to get right
Google is mining millions of captchas for their self driving cars, they could publish their algorithms for it too, but unless you have access to all that beautiful training set, it wouldn't be much of use.
I have no idea how lyft or uber is going to get that much data, maybe potentially buy paying drivers more to stick sensors on their cars to collect insane amounts of data? But it's gonna be a tricky thing to get right
This makes me think and I'm pretty excited about it...
How far off/difficult would it be for Tesla to create their own ride sharing app?
I mean both Lyft and Ubers "moat" seems to be their app which is not defensible against a market leader in autonomous cars that can simply switch on a new marketplace for its userbase and whole lot of other folks that can't afforda tesla but wants to be picked up and dropped off by one.
Would it be far fetched to see Tesla's market cap will combine Uber and Lyft on top of their existing market cap.
I mean it's a matter of time for Tesla...thanks to Uber's aggressive campaign efforts in spreading ride sharing, city management will be more than familiar and open to new innovators....plus Elon Musk's reputation (he might outsource some SpaceX to your city, you never know) riding him to the stratosphere....
How far off/difficult would it be for Tesla to create their own ride sharing app?
I mean both Lyft and Ubers "moat" seems to be their app which is not defensible against a market leader in autonomous cars that can simply switch on a new marketplace for its userbase and whole lot of other folks that can't afforda tesla but wants to be picked up and dropped off by one.
Would it be far fetched to see Tesla's market cap will combine Uber and Lyft on top of their existing market cap.
I mean it's a matter of time for Tesla...thanks to Uber's aggressive campaign efforts in spreading ride sharing, city management will be more than familiar and open to new innovators....plus Elon Musk's reputation (he might outsource some SpaceX to your city, you never know) riding him to the stratosphere....
> How far off/difficult would it be for Tesla to create their own ride sharing app?
Tesla's suburban HQ in the hills may be less appropriate (due to lack of density), or possibly more (easier to drive in suburbia vs the city), but at least one other manufacturer - Cruise, now owned by GM, is running internal trials, with hopes of opening it up soon.
https://readwrite.com/2017/08/10/cruise-self-driving-app/
Tesla's suburban HQ in the hills may be less appropriate (due to lack of density), or possibly more (easier to drive in suburbia vs the city), but at least one other manufacturer - Cruise, now owned by GM, is running internal trials, with hopes of opening it up soon.
https://readwrite.com/2017/08/10/cruise-self-driving-app/
so not very difficult and not far off either it seems. It must've been an existential crisis for Uber to go as far as try and steal it from Waymo, allegedly. It seems they underestimated just how difficult and expensive it can be....perhaps that $2 billion dollar burn rate could've been allocated better.
The airline industry is unprofitable mainly because the pilots capture most of the money. Their union gives them nearly unlimited pricing power.
It's possibly that self-driving cars won't be profitable, but it certainly won't be for the same reason.
There's reason to believe it'll be a winner-take-all market, because more data leads to lower crash rate which (in a world of rational consumers) will make them more popular, in a self-reinforcing cycle.
It's possibly that self-driving cars won't be profitable, but it certainly won't be for the same reason.
There's reason to believe it'll be a winner-take-all market, because more data leads to lower crash rate which (in a world of rational consumers) will make them more popular, in a self-reinforcing cycle.
If that were true, we’d expect the nonunion carriers to do fantastically. But Frank Lorenzo has broken N unions and driven N airlines under. We’d expect the regional carriers, which often pay under $40k to pilots, to do great—but they fail more often than the big carriers paying $100 to $150k.
But your last point is interesting. AlphaGo Zero suggests that for many situations, the return to more data levels off very quickly—after all, humans all learn to drive reasonably well with a certain amount of training. The early phases may have this self-reinforcing bit, and there may be an early dominant player, but we should expect that twenty years in anybody will be able to make a self-driving car that is as safe as modern air travel.
But your last point is interesting. AlphaGo Zero suggests that for many situations, the return to more data levels off very quickly—after all, humans all learn to drive reasonably well with a certain amount of training. The early phases may have this self-reinforcing bit, and there may be an early dominant player, but we should expect that twenty years in anybody will be able to make a self-driving car that is as safe as modern air travel.
Once we hit a minimum threshold of safety, don't you think other factors will become more important? Since when do consumers make choices solely based on safety? We would only see one type of car on the road if that was the case, whoever was winning the crash and avoidance tests that year.
This shouldn't be down voted, you are correct about the airline part. For details see the excellent explanation by Philip Greenspun, an engineer who switched careers to become an airline pilot.
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines
>The airline industry is unprofitable mainly because the pilots capture most of the money. Their union gives them nearly unlimited pricing power.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a Commercial Pilot is $73,490 per year.
This seems low given the sheer number of hours of training involved.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a Commercial Pilot is $73,490 per year.
This seems low given the sheer number of hours of training involved.
The average is meaningless. New regional airline co-pilots barely earn enough to eat. Senior captains for major airlines are paid very, very well.
Why would that be? Is there a difference in competence significant enough to warrant such a difference in pay?
Consider that senior pilots are flying the biggest, most expensive planes with the most passengers and the most revenue. Even slight improvements in competency or safety look pretty good when you're talking about a 747 which costs the airline $400 million.
Not to mention that they're frequently away from home.
To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at night, in bad weather, or outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be comprehensive or reliable enough to be economically viable.
Also the idea that self driving cars will end traffic is a dangerous lie to tell. Self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. If anything, self driving cars will increase car trips. And in fact in order to serve people with reasonable service times there will need to be _more_ cars on the road at all times which will more than soak up any additional capacity gained from tighter traffic patterns on restricted access highways.
Also the idea that self driving cars will end traffic is a dangerous lie to tell. Self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. If anything, self driving cars will increase car trips. And in fact in order to serve people with reasonable service times there will need to be _more_ cars on the road at all times which will more than soak up any additional capacity gained from tighter traffic patterns on restricted access highways.
To the extent this works anytime soon it will be so slow and inconsistent that it won’t be economically successful. Any driving service that works worse at night, in bad weather, or outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be comprehensive or reliable enough to be economically viable.
Worst case scenario - the cars NEVER self-drive and always have a driver - the whole setup is exactly as economically viable as current taxis. From all reports, current taxi setups make a lot of money.
If the cars can self-drive lets say 25% of the time, then the whole setup is that much more economically viable.
Worst case scenario - the cars NEVER self-drive and always have a driver - the whole setup is exactly as economically viable as current taxis. From all reports, current taxi setups make a lot of money.
If the cars can self-drive lets say 25% of the time, then the whole setup is that much more economically viable.
I think self driving cars will increase safety, and decrease accidents. I've read that accidents contribute for 25% of traffic congestion that exists today, so self driving cars could have a noticeable impact on decreasing drive times.
The only noticable impact will be as you watch fellow human drivers speed past you on the road.
Self-driving cars must follow the speed limit at all times.
How can a company program a car to break the law?
Self-driving cars must follow the speed limit at all times.
How can a company program a car to break the law?
Passengers won't care, they'll be busy playing with their phones or working. All that useless time spent driving is suddenly productive, as if you were in a nice private train car. If a car passes the train on the highway outside, do you even notice as a passenger?
I think following the laws and driving calmly is a great benefit. Never once I have thought, "I'm so happy that Uber driver drove like a maniac weaving between lanes, and got me to my destination all of 4 minutes earlier. Yay".
I think following the laws and driving calmly is a great benefit. Never once I have thought, "I'm so happy that Uber driver drove like a maniac weaving between lanes, and got me to my destination all of 4 minutes earlier. Yay".
Tesla seems to have no problem letting people speed with Autopilot, within reason.
Yes, that's such a massive issue. Ideally we would do away with simple speed limits and have more complex safety rules for self driving cars. Of course that won't happen for a very long time. Till then the issue you are describing will be infuriating to human drivers. Here in Oregon though everyone already is going below the speed limit, so I won't really care. As a passenger it also doesn't matter as much, since you at least can do other stuff now. I'm looking forward to the increased productivity while the car is driving itself.
> outside small well-mapped neighborhoods will not be ... economically viable.
Hmm... but aren't the small well-mapped (and high-density) neighborhoods where almost all the money is?
You see way more conventional cabs roaming Manhattan and the Chicago Loop than you do on a county road outside Minot, North Dakota.
Also, there's no reason they couldn't keep some human drivers for trips outside the dense core regions. The apps know where you're going before the car is even dispatched, after all.
"This guy is going from the Art Institute to the Field Museum... send him a robocar." "This guy is going from O'Hare to a farmhouse on the outskirts of Kankakee... send him a human driver."
Hmm... but aren't the small well-mapped (and high-density) neighborhoods where almost all the money is?
You see way more conventional cabs roaming Manhattan and the Chicago Loop than you do on a county road outside Minot, North Dakota.
Also, there's no reason they couldn't keep some human drivers for trips outside the dense core regions. The apps know where you're going before the car is even dispatched, after all.
"This guy is going from the Art Institute to the Field Museum... send him a robocar." "This guy is going from O'Hare to a farmhouse on the outskirts of Kankakee... send him a human driver."
Love me that hacker ethos...
He or she is definitely right about the second point. For more detail on the thought behind the second point, read up on the Jevons Paradox if you're not already familiar with it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
I'm not convinced about the first idea, though. I think we shouldn't get confused with equating not covering all trips with lack of success. Even if driverless only works for commutes in one or two major cities I think that might be enough to call it a success, economical and societal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
I'm not convinced about the first idea, though. I think we shouldn't get confused with equating not covering all trips with lack of success. Even if driverless only works for commutes in one or two major cities I think that might be enough to call it a success, economical and societal.
I am skeptical of claims that autonomous vehicles would decrease congestion even without taking into account this paradox (i.e., even if the density of cars on the road remained the same). All the claims seem to reference the same study [1], but per the abstract they are just simulating one circular lane of traffic. No "lane changes, bottlenecks, merges, or changes in grade". Intuitively, it seems like once you add all these other factors in, autonomous vehicles won't help much unless deployed on a wide scale; for example, it doesn't seem like one driver can do much to speed up the merging of cars ahead of it.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01693
The original post even mentions that it’s if deployed on a wide enough scale. The point is that f it is, it will end traffic. I haven’t seen any arguments that address what they’re talking about it here in this thread so far.
>The point is that f it is, it will end traffic.
Will it though? Lyft claims that self driving cars are smoother and more consistent. They claim this will end traffic. Smoother, consistent driving doesn’t take into account traffic lights, stop signs, merging, lane changing and turning, all of which require you to slow down, even for a bit, and all of which are sources of traffic congestion. And of course bottlenecks as you move from a highway to city streets, and the slowing down as you reach your final destination. Intuitively, you would need a vast, high capacity tunnel network that would allow you to avoid all those things to “end” traffic (maybe). That’s more than self driving cars alone.
Will it though? Lyft claims that self driving cars are smoother and more consistent. They claim this will end traffic. Smoother, consistent driving doesn’t take into account traffic lights, stop signs, merging, lane changing and turning, all of which require you to slow down, even for a bit, and all of which are sources of traffic congestion. And of course bottlenecks as you move from a highway to city streets, and the slowing down as you reach your final destination. Intuitively, you would need a vast, high capacity tunnel network that would allow you to avoid all those things to “end” traffic (maybe). That’s more than self driving cars alone.
The original Lyft post references a news article that references the article that I linked to. This is under the "The end of traffic" headline.
Yes, increasing availability of cars through self-driving will result in more trips, probably from underage or elderly people. But add in a service like Lyft, and the facts change. Taxi services reduce the total amount of miles driven.
When I first heard that it sounded crazy, but think of this scenario: you live near your friends, but go to work at different places. You all agree to meet up for a beer after work. If everyone takes the same taxi home from the pub, you've saved two car trips.
When I first heard that it sounded crazy, but think of this scenario: you live near your friends, but go to work at different places. You all agree to meet up for a beer after work. If everyone takes the same taxi home from the pub, you've saved two car trips.
I'm not sure you grasp just how fundamental a change in our lifestyles a switch to driverless cars could be, especially ones sold on a subscription basis with unlimited usage. It's the difference between first world countries with socialized medicine and those without.
Before, driving was a job that everyone had and took up valuable cycles away from living your life. You had to consider each trip, e.g., "How much gas do I have? What's the traffic like? My car isn't working, I have to skip going out tonight."
After, no matter what you want to do, you just call a car and get in. You don't even have to think about it. It's going to liberate so many people that undoubtedly frivolous trips are going to stack, similar to how people in countries with socialized medicine tend to visit the emergency room for less and less serious medical problems.
Since Uber has come to town I catch myself calling it for things I could have easily skipped or taken the bus to or suffered on my motorcycle for (rain, etc.). I might haven taken, on average, less than one taxi per year but now take at least 15 Uber trips during that same time period. I think this sort of liberating convenience will only increase once driverless cars become popular.
Before, driving was a job that everyone had and took up valuable cycles away from living your life. You had to consider each trip, e.g., "How much gas do I have? What's the traffic like? My car isn't working, I have to skip going out tonight."
After, no matter what you want to do, you just call a car and get in. You don't even have to think about it. It's going to liberate so many people that undoubtedly frivolous trips are going to stack, similar to how people in countries with socialized medicine tend to visit the emergency room for less and less serious medical problems.
Since Uber has come to town I catch myself calling it for things I could have easily skipped or taken the bus to or suffered on my motorcycle for (rain, etc.). I might haven taken, on average, less than one taxi per year but now take at least 15 Uber trips during that same time period. I think this sort of liberating convenience will only increase once driverless cars become popular.
GM owns 9% of Lyft, and also acquired Cruise, a YC company working on self driving tech. Since you can't invest in Lyft or Uber today, I would advise people to buy GM. I own about 5 times more Tesla stock than GM but I think GM is a really great value today trading at a P/E of less than 7. With the economics of this business transforming fundamentally over the next decade, making cars more of a "tech" business, I think you could see both revenue and earnings multiples increase dramatically. But who knows I could be wrong.
[deleted]
Having recently watched the 'the big short', this is understandable and terrifying at the same time.
This really is the endgame for both Uber and Lyft. IIRC, Uber did $16B last year in revenue and paid something like $13B to drivers. Self driving vehicles will turn their current breakeven/loser business models into massive cash cows.
> This really is the endgame for both Uber and Lyft.
I believe so too, but from a slightly different angle: I believe self-driving vehicles will literally mean the end for both Uber & Lyft (and they only accelerate their fate by investing into it).
To understand why: their inherent value is their ability to match human drivers with customers. They both do such a good job at it, that the switching costs between the 2 apps are quite low (first sign of weak competitive advantage).
Now, take away the difficult problem of finding human drivers at the right place and the right time. You now have self-driving cars that make no mistakes, have no scheduling issues, do not get tired etc. It’s way easier to fullfil demand. But, you’re not the only one working on this problem. Google, Tesla, (probably Apple too) are all actively working on the same problem. And they probably have 10X the computing/engineering/cash/data resources to solve this problem.
What are Uber/Lyft left with? A fancy app with a button (which they have already proven to easily clone). Not only that, they also have to compete with the native operating systems (and future devices) that the big corps control. They don’t even own their maps!
So yes, in 2023, you will probably be able to order a Level-5 self driving vehicle to your doorstep with a wink of your half robotic eye, but it will not be Uber or Lyft.
I believe so too, but from a slightly different angle: I believe self-driving vehicles will literally mean the end for both Uber & Lyft (and they only accelerate their fate by investing into it).
To understand why: their inherent value is their ability to match human drivers with customers. They both do such a good job at it, that the switching costs between the 2 apps are quite low (first sign of weak competitive advantage).
Now, take away the difficult problem of finding human drivers at the right place and the right time. You now have self-driving cars that make no mistakes, have no scheduling issues, do not get tired etc. It’s way easier to fullfil demand. But, you’re not the only one working on this problem. Google, Tesla, (probably Apple too) are all actively working on the same problem. And they probably have 10X the computing/engineering/cash/data resources to solve this problem.
What are Uber/Lyft left with? A fancy app with a button (which they have already proven to easily clone). Not only that, they also have to compete with the native operating systems (and future devices) that the big corps control. They don’t even own their maps!
So yes, in 2023, you will probably be able to order a Level-5 self driving vehicle to your doorstep with a wink of your half robotic eye, but it will not be Uber or Lyft.
Tesla has 10x the computing/engineering/cash/data resources to solve the self driving car problem than Uber? In revenue/market cap/profit Uber and Tesla are nearly equal in size.
The way I see it, Lyft and Uber are already "big corps", and there are likely several logistic concerns that give Lyft/Uber a major head start on Google despite Google's alleged software superiority. However, I don't see Google releasing a massive self driving fleet in San Francisco and simultaneously capturing significant market share overnight.
The way I see it, Lyft and Uber are already "big corps", and there are likely several logistic concerns that give Lyft/Uber a major head start on Google despite Google's alleged software superiority. However, I don't see Google releasing a massive self driving fleet in San Francisco and simultaneously capturing significant market share overnight.
> In revenue/market cap/profit Uber and Tesla are nearly equal in size.
It’s not just cash. Who has been building cars with smart sensors for more than 10 years? Who has self-driving cars on the road already? Who has factories to scale this up to a level that’s required to build an enormous fleet to replace all existing cars? It doesn’t even come close.
It’s not just cash. Who has been building cars with smart sensors for more than 10 years? Who has self-driving cars on the road already? Who has factories to scale this up to a level that’s required to build an enormous fleet to replace all existing cars? It doesn’t even come close.
> Tesla has 10x the computing/engineering/cash/data resources to solve the self driving car problem than Uber?
I think GP was being a bit hyperbolic, but I think (but don’t know for sure) Tesla might have 10x the telemetry data. Uber could pass them up though very rapidly if they made some changes to how drivers use phones and what data they collect (collecting video and accelerometer / gyro data for example).
I think GP was being a bit hyperbolic, but I think (but don’t know for sure) Tesla might have 10x the telemetry data. Uber could pass them up though very rapidly if they made some changes to how drivers use phones and what data they collect (collecting video and accelerometer / gyro data for example).
Telsa is having a hard time getting the Model 3 to market. I put self driving cars so far in their future I wouldnt consider them a threat at all. They will eventually be in the market, but well probably have people on Mars first.
This production bottleneck is a very temporary thing. They had the same problem with the original Roadster, the Model S, and the Model X. All eventually resolved. I see no reason they won't eventually resolve it for the Model 3, as well.
It may (read: will and has) take longer than they wished, but they aren't in anywhere near the danger of going under as they were with, say, the original Roadster, so this is just a matter of time, in my opinion.
The danger comes in the fact that electric cars are ultimately fairly simple to make (although Tesla does a particularly good job at it), and if their competitors just got their act together, Tesla would have a tough time. But in my opinion, as long as they're the only ones with a really good charging network (the others are both much smaller and much slower... and the few stations that aren't slow require an upgraded car), they have a significant head start on their competitors.
Production bottleneck will eventually clear. But having demand exceed supply is really, REALLY good for Tesla's business as it gives them access to interest-free capital (from reservations) and the reservations also show the existence of sufficient demand to justify financing continued expansion. So, Tesla keeps coming out with new products even before the previous bottlenecks have been cleared in order to maintain the state of having demand greatly exceed supply.
And these new products usually share a technology core, i.e. battery modules and electronics, thus allowing them to traverse as far down the learning curve as is possible, which is a multiplicative effect that improves every other product. Using larger batteries than you might think strictly necessary only amplifies this effect while giving them a quality and performance advantage over their competitors.
Tesla will also have an advantage in their charging network of having cheaper electricity with faster charging than anyone else. The Semi product offers 7 cents per kWh, which is lower than residential rates just about anywhere AND is ultra fast-charging. So assuming they can meet that rate, Tesla will have a large advantage in logistics costs even compared to other electric self-driving providers.
It may (read: will and has) take longer than they wished, but they aren't in anywhere near the danger of going under as they were with, say, the original Roadster, so this is just a matter of time, in my opinion.
The danger comes in the fact that electric cars are ultimately fairly simple to make (although Tesla does a particularly good job at it), and if their competitors just got their act together, Tesla would have a tough time. But in my opinion, as long as they're the only ones with a really good charging network (the others are both much smaller and much slower... and the few stations that aren't slow require an upgraded car), they have a significant head start on their competitors.
Production bottleneck will eventually clear. But having demand exceed supply is really, REALLY good for Tesla's business as it gives them access to interest-free capital (from reservations) and the reservations also show the existence of sufficient demand to justify financing continued expansion. So, Tesla keeps coming out with new products even before the previous bottlenecks have been cleared in order to maintain the state of having demand greatly exceed supply.
And these new products usually share a technology core, i.e. battery modules and electronics, thus allowing them to traverse as far down the learning curve as is possible, which is a multiplicative effect that improves every other product. Using larger batteries than you might think strictly necessary only amplifies this effect while giving them a quality and performance advantage over their competitors.
Tesla will also have an advantage in their charging network of having cheaper electricity with faster charging than anyone else. The Semi product offers 7 cents per kWh, which is lower than residential rates just about anywhere AND is ultra fast-charging. So assuming they can meet that rate, Tesla will have a large advantage in logistics costs even compared to other electric self-driving providers.
If I'm not mistaken, Google is partnered with Lyft.
https://outline.com/qMtpFx
https://outline.com/qMtpFx
Virtually everybody working on self-driving cars in a big way has partnered with Lyft at some point (outside Uber I guess).
Tesla already has a fleet of cars mining driving data for it, putting them way ahead of Uber.
The amount of data collected by your average Goog/Cruise/Uber autonomous vehicle is on the order of gigabytes per minute. I highly doubt Tesla is phoning home data at that level of detail.
Correct, but how many cars does Goog/Cruise/Uber have on the road daily collecting this high data rate? 1k? Let’s be overly optimistic and say 10k. Remember, normal driver driven cars don’t apply here generally, just the research cars.
Tesla on the other hand has hundreds of thousands of cars on the road and is rapidly on their way to 1M cars. Data won’t be as raw and abundant, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t potentially very useful none the less.
Tesla on the other hand has hundreds of thousands of cars on the road and is rapidly on their way to 1M cars. Data won’t be as raw and abundant, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t potentially very useful none the less.
The kind of data Tesla collects is useful for general self driving, less so for solving hard cases. For that we need simulations and real life enactment, like Google does. We already have the basic data, we need the special case data now, or we could use the driving data from Tesla to discover new special cases.
Simply putting more SDCs on the road does not guarantee they will focus on the data they need.
Simply putting more SDCs on the road does not guarantee they will focus on the data they need.
> Simply putting more SDCs on the road does not guarantee they will focus on the data they need.
Agree completely
Agree completely
Tesla's are currently sending back images of things they have trouble identifying only. They are ironing out the last % of edge cases it seems.
Not sure how close this puts them in the race.
Not sure how close this puts them in the race.
Tesla isn't going to win this war. They are slowly realizing that yes, in fact, you do need LIDAR to make self driving work.
> A fancy app with a button
Yes but that app is branded Uber/Lyft, and while building an app with a button is easy, when was the last time you tried searching Bing or DuckDuckGo because Google Search was returning nonsense?
There's also question of mindshare; getting people to install an app and create an account is difficult enough, never mind B2B business contracts, such as uberpool being a recognized WageWorks commuter benefit, that are business-y to replicate.
There have been many solid competitors (both hardware and software) to the iPhone, but there's still only one Apple.
Yes but that app is branded Uber/Lyft, and while building an app with a button is easy, when was the last time you tried searching Bing or DuckDuckGo because Google Search was returning nonsense?
There's also question of mindshare; getting people to install an app and create an account is difficult enough, never mind B2B business contracts, such as uberpool being a recognized WageWorks commuter benefit, that are business-y to replicate.
There have been many solid competitors (both hardware and software) to the iPhone, but there's still only one Apple.
Will there not be patent issues?
Uber owns their maps.
This seems to prove otherwise: https://instagram.com/p/BdJvxwmn2ri/
Side by side as of a few minutes ago.
Side by side as of a few minutes ago.
Prove what?? And where did I claim it does not currently use Google Maps? There is an Uber team of hundreds of developers and operators that is building out their own maps service. When and in what form it becomes available in your location, I have no idea.
Really?
> Uber owns their maps.
That seems rather definitive compared to:
> And where did I claim it does not currently use Google Maps?
Don’t say things in matter of fact form and then push the blame on the questioner when evidence is shown that your “fact” seems anything but.
> Uber owns their maps.
That seems rather definitive compared to:
> And where did I claim it does not currently use Google Maps?
Don’t say things in matter of fact form and then push the blame on the questioner when evidence is shown that your “fact” seems anything but.
Clearly this is the thinking of both companies, but I'm not convinced it makes sense. The $13B that Uber paid out last year gave them access to a scalable network of ~7M vehicles, not just the drivers. Even if they reach level 5 autonomy before they run out of runway, how long will it take to build out a network of that size?
Who ever gets self driving down first can get as many cars are they want. Two scenarios:
"Let Uber drive you to work for free then pay you to use your car for the day. We'll cover the gas!"
"GM is happy to partner with Lyft to be the first self diving car! GM Good. GM Hip"
"Let Uber drive you to work for free then pay you to use your car for the day. We'll cover the gas!"
"GM is happy to partner with Lyft to be the first self diving car! GM Good. GM Hip"
Which of those two sentences is the one that's going to create seven million cars out of thin air and then maintain, manage, and insure them?
What do we do when someone pukes in the driverless uber?
Open app, report problem with the vehicle and request something different. Problem vehicle will be taken out of service for review.
I would also put multiple cameras in each car, and train a network on “car is clean” and the related “car is empty” (you could, for example, ask the customer that just left “did you leave your bag in the car?”)
To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride, give the cameras nice red LEDs when in operation, and be open about what you do.
To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride, give the cameras nice red LEDs when in operation, and be open about what you do.
> To signal to passengers that you won’t record them during the ride
I doubt this would even be a concern. Many Uber/Lyft drivers already record interior and exterior views for the duration of every ride. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Hell, think about:
"The rider after you reported damage to the car that you didn't report. Therefore you did it and are responsible for paying for it."
"Where's your proof? Maybe I just didn't notice the damage and it was the rider before me -- it's not my job to inspect your cars. Or maybe the rider after me damaged the car -- possibly even on purpose -- and then blamed me."
They'd be foolish not to record every single ride, from multiple angles if possible.
I doubt this would even be a concern. Many Uber/Lyft drivers already record interior and exterior views for the duration of every ride. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Hell, think about:
"The rider after you reported damage to the car that you didn't report. Therefore you did it and are responsible for paying for it."
"Where's your proof? Maybe I just didn't notice the damage and it was the rider before me -- it's not my job to inspect your cars. Or maybe the rider after me damaged the car -- possibly even on purpose -- and then blamed me."
They'd be foolish not to record every single ride, from multiple angles if possible.
> Problem vehicle will be taken out of service for review.
I am thinking like a public transit subway in New York. We cannot have anything you can't pressure wash.
However, that also brings up the problem of traffic congestion and automation (as well as comfort and ergonomics?). Can we automate the process of sanitizing a car? Will passengers accept (cold) plastic and aluminum surfaces everywhere?
I am thinking like a public transit subway in New York. We cannot have anything you can't pressure wash.
However, that also brings up the problem of traffic congestion and automation (as well as comfort and ergonomics?). Can we automate the process of sanitizing a car? Will passengers accept (cold) plastic and aluminum surfaces everywhere?
That's not 7M vehicles concurrently though. At any given time maybe there are a few hundred thousand trips happening. With self-driving cars utilization can go way up since they're not tied to a human. and. So I imagine Goog/Lyft/Uber etc would quickly acquire a fleet of 100k vehicles for a few billion dollars.
Neither Uber or Lyft will reach full autonomy before exhausting their runway, unless a miracle occurs and they solve level 5 within the next 1-2 years (caveat: it could happen, but it’s very unlikely).
You can’t do hundreds of millions of dollars in raises forever without some proof of progress (or maybe you can if SoftBank is willing to pour money in for a decade).
At some point, someone is going to be left holding the bag when it’s evident that the last 20% is the hardest part (but mandatory for level 5 service).
You can’t do hundreds of millions of dollars in raises forever without some proof of progress (or maybe you can if SoftBank is willing to pour money in for a decade).
At some point, someone is going to be left holding the bag when it’s evident that the last 20% is the hardest part (but mandatory for level 5 service).
I don't think level 5 would be the next step for self driving automation. The biggest ground based fleet with very high autonomy is John Deere. Therefore, I would expect large commercial trucking to be the next logical target. It would cut their costs alone by changing how much their insurance policies and general efficiency. John Deere trucks almost drive themselves.
So, I would see trucking be replaced first. It looks like Elon Musk wants to do that with their new set of Trucks. Since they would have the same sensors as the cars that would be a bunch of data to collect. It would also be a easier way to get proof of progress. But, at this point if you replace trucking you will get a large economic change because you are changing one of the largest source of jobs in America.
Then since you have proven that you could try acquiring Uber and or Lyft at a fire sale price because they couldn't come up with a solution in time and get their data and logistics.
Then since you have proven that you could try acquiring Uber and or Lyft at a fire sale price because they couldn't come up with a solution in time and get their data and logistics.
Yep, you’re right on both points (trucking being the first industry that will adopt self-driving technology on mass-scale and the potential displacement of millions of jobs) but I’m not sure if John Deere will be spared in the process, only if they’re smart and see the same writing on the wall.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Not just that, getting self-driving approved with regulators is a major challenge. Also, to achieve level 5 we need not just algorithm improvement, our physical infrastructure need to be improved as well. On intersection, two human drivers wave at each other to decide who goes first. How should the human driver communicate with the machine? What should the machine do when there is a dog standing in the middle of a street? Move on and let a human driver take care of it? Isn’t that now a bystander effect? These are just some examples I am not sure if textbook definition of level 5 will address.
Going really extreme: in a car accident in a somewhat remote area, the driver might be able to get an injured passenger out if the passenger stuck. Now a fully autonomous car, there is only passenger. Yes, for sure this is extreme and perhaps likely a dramatic scene only, but it is one of those edge cases we can’t cover in a self-driving car.
Going really extreme: in a car accident in a somewhat remote area, the driver might be able to get an injured passenger out if the passenger stuck. Now a fully autonomous car, there is only passenger. Yes, for sure this is extreme and perhaps likely a dramatic scene only, but it is one of those edge cases we can’t cover in a self-driving car.
> How should the human driver communicate with the machine?
In theory, a self-driving car could watch for hand-based turn signals, just like a human driver could, and take those into account.
In practice, what someone signals is far less interesting than what they do, and all it does is provide hints for reaction time, which 1) a computer already wins at, and 2) a computer should always leave enough time for braking/stopping/etc anyway. A human driver should never make an assumption based on someone's turn signal that would lead to a crash if they don't do what they're signaling, and neither should a computer.
> What should the machine do when there is a dog standing in the middle of a street?
Don't hit it (stopping if necessary), and listen when the human in the vehicle says "stop" (or "call animal control", or any number of other reactions). The human in the vehicle should always be in control of the high-level actions, just not the moment-to-moment ones.
> Going really extreme: in a car accident in a somewhat remote area, the driver might be able to get an injured passenger out if the passenger stuck. Now a fully autonomous car, there is only passenger.
Not sure what scenario you're getting at here. If you mean a driver and passenger in the same vehicle, the same problem exists today with an injured driver.
In theory, a self-driving car could watch for hand-based turn signals, just like a human driver could, and take those into account.
In practice, what someone signals is far less interesting than what they do, and all it does is provide hints for reaction time, which 1) a computer already wins at, and 2) a computer should always leave enough time for braking/stopping/etc anyway. A human driver should never make an assumption based on someone's turn signal that would lead to a crash if they don't do what they're signaling, and neither should a computer.
> What should the machine do when there is a dog standing in the middle of a street?
Don't hit it (stopping if necessary), and listen when the human in the vehicle says "stop" (or "call animal control", or any number of other reactions). The human in the vehicle should always be in control of the high-level actions, just not the moment-to-moment ones.
> Going really extreme: in a car accident in a somewhat remote area, the driver might be able to get an injured passenger out if the passenger stuck. Now a fully autonomous car, there is only passenger.
Not sure what scenario you're getting at here. If you mean a driver and passenger in the same vehicle, the same problem exists today with an injured driver.
The algorithm doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to be a significant improvement over human beings. For every fatality an algorithm causes that a human would not, there could easily be ten fatalities prevented.
You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible?
Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?
Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty than disagreement without the capacity to argue your case?
Won't accept which - that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable, or that the ratio will be 10:1 (or better) in favour of computer-driven cars in terms of fatalities?
I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous and much of the research and trials are being done.
Working out accountability for fatalities is already a hugely complicated process, involving an unhealthy number of law enforcement and legal personnel. The problem of identifying responsible party for a - as you put it - failed algorithm doesn't seem intractable, and certainly isn't a show-stopper.
Haven't voted either way on this thread, but I suspect your re-hashing of regular topics already resolved is the problem.
I'd agree that if we aren't seeing better fatality numbers, people won't accept it -- but there's little to suggest that humans are a difficult target to beat. Especially in the US, where car-related fatalities are so numerous and much of the research and trials are being done.
Working out accountability for fatalities is already a hugely complicated process, involving an unhealthy number of law enforcement and legal personnel. The problem of identifying responsible party for a - as you put it - failed algorithm doesn't seem intractable, and certainly isn't a show-stopper.
Haven't voted either way on this thread, but I suspect your re-hashing of regular topics already resolved is the problem.
Not the OP, but: I don't believe people will accept that computers only have to beat human fatality rates to be preferable.
People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average".
It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.
People have this weird psychological effect around control. They will accept higher failure rates if they believe (correctly or otherwise) that they have control over a situation. Or rather, they will believe that they can beat the statistics at least for themselves, as long as they believe they have control over the situation, and achieve a lower failure rate then the driverless car. In other words, "the higher failure rate might apply to the average person, but I'm above average".
It's related to faulty risk assessment: it's much more likely that you'll get in a car and die than it is that you'll be killed in a terrorist attack, but most people don't even think of getting into a car as all that risky, and yet we start drawn-out, unwinnable wars because people are afraid of terrorism. People believe that they personally won't die in a car crash because they have control of the situation and that they're a good driver, but they have no control over when or where a terrorist attack will take place, so it's somehow a worse threat.
[deleted]
Well, half of people are above-average though. Maybe the people who you talk to are just all above-average.
> You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right?
That's why we have courts (and insurance).
Conventional vehicles kill people all the time, sometimes through provable manufacturer negligence. But we still have them.
That's why we have courts (and insurance).
Conventional vehicles kill people all the time, sometimes through provable manufacturer negligence. But we still have them.
It’s funny, you failed to mention the group with the real power there... politicians, specifically, Congress.
This is currently being tested in court. Tesla's autopilot has resulted in fatalities.
That's different, though. Autopilot doesn't absolve the driver of the car from responsibility to be alert and take control when necessary, so the argument can be made that the responsibility is shared, or even rests on the human driver, depending on the circumstances. But a level 5 system will theoretically not even have a driver, and might not allow passengers to control the vehicle at all aside from giving it a destination.
I think that becomes easier, though: in the case where no human in the car has control over what the car does, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault when something goes awry. Though if doing something like rapidly and repeatedly changing the car's destination and intentionally "confusing" it leads to a crash, that might shift blame to one of the passengers, which would be unusual.
I think that becomes easier, though: in the case where no human in the car has control over what the car does, it's obviously the manufacturer's fault when something goes awry. Though if doing something like rapidly and repeatedly changing the car's destination and intentionally "confusing" it leads to a crash, that might shift blame to one of the passengers, which would be unusual.
I'm curious what's going to inevitably eat into that potential margin. The most profitable large scale businesses are Visa and Facebook. After the corporate tax change, both should get near 50% net income margins (Visa is at 44% last quarter; Facebook was at 46%). I could see some of it getting competed away vs Lyft, given back to consumers in lower fares. Some to typical bloat with scale & age. Perhaps higher local taxes on their business, as the cities they make all their money in will hit them that much more if they're not employing drivers. And of course those millions of vehicles will have a high cost in terms of maintenance, replacement, vandalism, etc.
Looks like it's LIDAR-based, and it's a partnership with nuTonomy[1].
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/06/lyfts-self-driving-pilot-w...
[1]: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/06/lyfts-self-driving-pilot-w...
Lyft is investigating all methods to get to Level 5, ruling out or requiring a specific tech doesn’t make sense at this stage.
Source for LIDAR based?
It's a Christmas miracle!
In more seriousness, I'm curious how well this is supposed to play with the other partnerships that Lyft already has? i.e. all together, is this suppose to represent one coherent effort to build L5 autonomous, or multiple parallel ones?
In more seriousness, I'm curious how well this is supposed to play with the other partnerships that Lyft already has? i.e. all together, is this suppose to represent one coherent effort to build L5 autonomous, or multiple parallel ones?
Could someone explain what we're seeing here? I've seen self-driving startups do staged demos of self-driving cars, but this seems to be the unveiling of a self-driving car web page.
Why can't Lyft just partner with Waymo? Supposedly they have the best solution right now.
They are.
https://outline.com/qMtpFx
https://outline.com/qMtpFx
This is cool! I somehow missed this part. Uber's in dock if this takes off well.
[deleted]
Today, the competitive advantage in this market goes to whoever has the largest network of drivers and can summon a vehicle quickly and at a low cost to a waiting passenger. The tech is marginally better or worse from Lyft to Uber to competitor X, and the ride quality is similar enough.
When self driving cars become a reality, I don’t see the technology or the data becoming a real sustainable competitive advantage for any one player. Once the last technical hurdles have been overcome and society has adapted in whatever way it needs to, it just won’t be that difficult for every auto manufacturer to figure out how to get in on the game.
Fragmentation across local markets also has to come into play at some point. It’s only a matter of time before cities and towns get their acts together and figure out how to extract revenue to at the very least cover the real but indirect costs they are incurring as a result of ridesharing. They could pretty easily make it next to impossible for their non preferred vendor partners to operate in a city.
When self driving cars become a reality, I don’t see the technology or the data becoming a real sustainable competitive advantage for any one player. Once the last technical hurdles have been overcome and society has adapted in whatever way it needs to, it just won’t be that difficult for every auto manufacturer to figure out how to get in on the game.
Fragmentation across local markets also has to come into play at some point. It’s only a matter of time before cities and towns get their acts together and figure out how to extract revenue to at the very least cover the real but indirect costs they are incurring as a result of ridesharing. They could pretty easily make it next to impossible for their non preferred vendor partners to operate in a city.
I've just read https://www.lemberglaw.com/self-driving-autonomous-car-accid.... Since few years ago, the only thing that made me interested to these autonomous cars is the laws that regulate these cars. I think the government haven't fixed the laws, so it's still an interesting topic to be discussed next year.
The traffic elimination claim is disingenuous. Surely they anticipate that as the avg traffic goes down, that just opens up for more volume of vehicles, thus reintroduces traffic problems
I envisage the manufacturers bypassing third party's entirely. Rather than buying or leasing car, you subscribe to your manufacturer of choices plan for a car as a service. Eg subscribe to Tesla. Quick trip, model 3 appears and drives you there. Longer trip? Model s does the job. Family holiday? Model x picks you all up. At the end of the day the car returns itself to the pool.
"Last year, nearly 6 million Americans sold their cars and switched to ride sharing. This year, almost 6 million plan to do the same thing."
No source citied on this or any of the other assertions made on the landing page.
No source citied on this or any of the other assertions made on the landing page.
Has anyone seen anything to suggest this will happen for sure in 10 years? I’m sure there will be improvements in safety with these features but there are basically zero AI demos out there that are what I’d call good. For example Siri and even Google Assistant quickly show how limited they are after years and years of real world use. If these rely on the same Deep Learning technology won’t it just be the same limits apply to this much harder problem?
Siri/Alexa/GoogleAssist etc. work well in constrained situations (e.g. changing music, turning stuff on/off, pop culture quiz questions), they have trouble parsing more general/complex questions.
Many researchers I've talked to believe the initial self-driving car deployments to the public will be have to be very constrained: fixed routes, possibly isolated self-driving car lanes, only allowed in clear/daytime conditions.
Many researchers I've talked to believe the initial self-driving car deployments to the public will be have to be very constrained: fixed routes, possibly isolated self-driving car lanes, only allowed in clear/daytime conditions.
And its probably going to be here earlier than we think.
Essentially train carriages on tarmac :)
Essentially train carriages on tarmac :)
Why should driving be a harder problem then being a universal assistant (Siri's promise)?
Siri's potential problem field is huge, driving is a well defined, limited problem field.
Siri's potential problem field is huge, driving is a well defined, limited problem field.
If there's a 90% reduction in accidents, who will be providing the donor organs? What will happen to the average lifespan of people with certain chronic illnesses?
Are you truly suggesting we allow young, healthy individuals to die in car accidents to harvest their organs?
You should be asking yourself what will happen to the average lifespan of those who won't die prematurely in a car accident.
You should be asking yourself what will happen to the average lifespan of those who won't die prematurely in a car accident.
Heavens no -- I don't think society should allow anyone die in car accidents, young and healthy or otherwise. It's abundantly clear that driving is too dangerous by far.
But that doesn't stop me from wanting to know what the US will look like in a future with self-driving cars. Will we, for example, find such a severe shortage of donor hearts that certain unlucky people live less long? Will we prioritize research that could improve treatment diseases which, untreated, lead to organ transplants? Or will we consider changing laws to allow donors to be compensated for organ transplants? (which have all kinds of icky side effects but could help avert a crisis if there were one).
I genuinely don't know what the effects of fewer road deaths will be on transplant wait times and wonder how this externality (if there is one) will be handled.
But that doesn't stop me from wanting to know what the US will look like in a future with self-driving cars. Will we, for example, find such a severe shortage of donor hearts that certain unlucky people live less long? Will we prioritize research that could improve treatment diseases which, untreated, lead to organ transplants? Or will we consider changing laws to allow donors to be compensated for organ transplants? (which have all kinds of icky side effects but could help avert a crisis if there were one).
I genuinely don't know what the effects of fewer road deaths will be on transplant wait times and wonder how this externality (if there is one) will be handled.
I would expect more research into organ cloning/regrowth and artificial replacements. It's an interesting question, to be sure.
We will be forced to invent a new popular fad that kills people as cleanly as possible: jumbo size brain piercings
http://www.kevinklinkenberg.com/blog/autonomous-vehicles-a-v... https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/12/what-elon-mus...
So I tend to not get excited about Lyft/Uber and autonomous vehicles when presented as a solution for transportation. Whether they will be successful companies is a separate question.