Tesla's value drops $60B after investors fail to hail self-driving 'Cybercab'(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Tesla's value drops $60B after investors fail to hail self-driving 'Cybercab'
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/oct/11/teslas-value-drops-60bn-after-self-driving-cybercab-fails-to-excite-investors
81 comments
Can you share a link/source for “bunch of dudes wearing oculus headsets” claim? I’d love to prove to people tesla is as funny as I think it is.
TLDR a reporter asked a robot and believed what it said even when very vague
> Scoble made a follow-up tweet saying he talked with a Tesla engineer to get clarity.
From Gizmodo article, a reporter asked:
Scoble can be heard in the video asking one of the robots, “Hey Optimus, how much of you is AI?”
The robot, or whoever was controlling it, seemed to scramble for an answer, saying “I can’t disclose just how much. That’s something you’ll have to find out later.”
“But some or none?” Scoble asked with a laugh.
“I would say, it might be some. I’m not going to confirm, but it might be some,” the robot responded.
Scoble can be heard in the video asking one of the robots, “Hey Optimus, how much of you is AI?”
The robot, or whoever was controlling it, seemed to scramble for an answer, saying “I can’t disclose just how much. That’s something you’ll have to find out later.”
“But some or none?” Scoble asked with a laugh.
“I would say, it might be some. I’m not going to confirm, but it might be some,” the robot responded.
Being fair, that’s about Optimus. The parent post is asking about Cybercab’s use of human-in-the-loop feedback, not Optimus.
Probably not Oculus headsets but fancier gear as shown here https://x.com/TroyTeslike/status/1845047695284613344
Based on the performance of Tesla stock, it seems like their demos are their product, rather than their cars. Investors have bought Tesla stock based on hype and promises of future performance, rather than actual company fundamentals. You can only distract people for so long with grand promises for the future.
The problem is that the fundamentals aren’t amazing. Tesla is getting its butt kicked in China (world’s biggest auto market) and tariffs are the only thing stopping BYD and Nio from taking a huge bite out of Tesla. Tesla has essentially saturated the “has a place to charge and $35k+ for a new car” market in the US. The sub $20k market is up for grabs. And US protectionism won’t save Tesla in other countries’ markets.
The problem is that the fundamentals aren’t amazing. Tesla is getting its butt kicked in China (world’s biggest auto market) and tariffs are the only thing stopping BYD and Nio from taking a huge bite out of Tesla. Tesla has essentially saturated the “has a place to charge and $35k+ for a new car” market in the US. The sub $20k market is up for grabs. And US protectionism won’t save Tesla in other countries’ markets.
I’m in China, there’s a few Tesla, but the bulk of it is BYD and Geely. Not sure why Nio always get mentioned, they are not that popular.
Tesla cars are fine, but [even after today] the stock is still way overpriced compared to other manufacturers. The previous explanation was some handwaving about how autonomous-driving was super-valuable. After last night it is mor clear than ever that Tesla autonomous driving is a running joke that not funny. I'd love to have a real competitor to Waymo, but everyone else is [at best] 5 years behind.
I don't understand this "car parks will no longer be needed" vision. Is the idea that everyone will use ride sharing to go everywhere? Because that's not going to happen.
The idea is that if enough people use ride sharing, the total number of cars needed will decrease, therefore, the needed space to put those cars will decrease. It doesnt necessarily require that everyone use it, but its about reducing the total number of cars necessary. If the density of these cars are sufficiently high, I can see a world where not owning a car is more convenient than owning one (if it isnt cost prohibitive).
This was the claim of ride-sharing about 10 years ago but studies showed the opposite, that it actually increased congestion.
Clean, effective, prompt, affordable, quickly constructed mass transit however, does seem to work.
I'm not anti-robo-taxi or pro-mass-transit. Instead, if the value is fewer cars and less carparks, mass transit with the aforementioned properties has been shown to work.
Sadly the United States has been unable to hit those notes with their projects (LA's metro, for example, is still constructing approximately the Prop A system approved by voters, in 1980, 44 years ago: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Lo...) so in that specific case, it's murkier.
Clean, effective, prompt, affordable, quickly constructed mass transit however, does seem to work.
I'm not anti-robo-taxi or pro-mass-transit. Instead, if the value is fewer cars and less carparks, mass transit with the aforementioned properties has been shown to work.
Sadly the United States has been unable to hit those notes with their projects (LA's metro, for example, is still constructing approximately the Prop A system approved by voters, in 1980, 44 years ago: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Lo...) so in that specific case, it's murkier.
That world and system exists, its called public transportation and Europe
Even in europe a lot of people do own cars. If you have a friend network that really works you can manage without (we share two cars between 5 drivers), but realistically extremely cheap rideshare would be better for us in the long term (we lucked out on a deal with a car dealer who closed shop in a hurry, but now the cars are 12 years old and it start to show, even sharing the repair bills)
Extremely cheap ride share already exists, it's called public transit.
Small vehicles will never solve traffic, and will never be cheap, no matter the level of automation they implement. Labour cost is just one part of the equation.
Small vehicles will never solve traffic, and will never be cheap, no matter the level of automation they implement. Labour cost is just one part of the equation.
Elon’s highly individualistic. I feel like his communal car-sharing society vision is at odds with that. How will that dialectic resolve?
Even if everyone does, you'll need enough cars to meet peak demand (which is a lot, especially with a 2 seater model).
Where do those cars go to charge outside peak demand?
Where do those cars go to charge outside peak demand?
Battery swap and back on the road. Obviously moving to this model would require changing conventional thinking. Cars don’t need to be parked, just like an IP address doesn’t need to “rest”. It’s just a pool of resources.
For starters, the average car is in use for less than an hour a day. With autonomous cars, it should be possible to raise this considerably - ie fewer cars standing around most of the day.
It seems to me that the average car is in use about the same hours of the day that all the other cars are in use, in front of me during my daily commute and clogging the roadways out of town on Friday afternoon
Owning a car and ride sharing are not even in the same category, unless you're of the opinion that the only purpose of a car is to get someone from A to B.
This event feels like Tesla has lost its product sense completely. A two seater taxi? Seriously? What about families with kids? Doors that open out and up - what about all the right spaces in cities where you need to open a car door? Look at minivans or London cabs for taxi design, not two seaters.
Then there is the whole: any tesla can be a part of the fleet, then only extra paid FSD teslas can be part of the fleet, and now no-wheel nobody-wants-this-mobiles bait and switch. Investors ought to be upset. This was a shot from the hip instead of proper innovation.
Then there is the whole: any tesla can be a part of the fleet, then only extra paid FSD teslas can be part of the fleet, and now no-wheel nobody-wants-this-mobiles bait and switch. Investors ought to be upset. This was a shot from the hip instead of proper innovation.
“Innovation” is generous here. That usually requires a working prototype.
Maybe they should put together a “demo” of faster-than-light travel next. This was closer to ideation.
Maybe they should put together a “demo” of faster-than-light travel next. This was closer to ideation.
Elon overpromising and underdelivering is finally starting to catch up to him. I'm amazed it has lasted this long. The whole FSD and their false advertising, and the danger it has put people in should have been illegal.
I'm a huge fan of SpaceX but Tesla is another matter.
I'm a huge fan of SpaceX but Tesla is another matter.
I hope Tesla survives, they just need someone honest in charge to continue to focus on EVs and stationary storage.
> I'm a huge fan of SpaceX but Tesla is another matter.
The competency and skill of Gwynne Shotwell cannot be overstated.
> I'm a huge fan of SpaceX but Tesla is another matter.
The competency and skill of Gwynne Shotwell cannot be overstated.
Well said thread. The whole "Cybercab" event had me thinking "who is actually believing this? This just feels like stock fraud".
I don't want to be that cynical. I want to drive a car that is all torque and no fumes.
I mean, the "Cybercabs", THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROLS. Where is that going to be legal in 2-3 years?
I don't want to be that cynical. I want to drive a car that is all torque and no fumes.
I mean, the "Cybercabs", THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROLS. Where is that going to be legal in 2-3 years?
Within the Boring Companies tunnels? Other private roads and campuses? Of course, that isn't going to drive high sales figures. It sounds more like a specialized vehicle for a narrow market, but the self driving technology should be applicable across their product lines.
‘Self-driving’ vehicles (they really run on virtual rails, in practice) for private roads have been around for a while now. They’re generally buses, and it’s _super-niche_; there just aren’t that many obvious use cases.
If SF, LA and Phoenix are already allowing Waymo cars that don't have anyone in the driving seat, then why not cars without controls? What's so special about leaving out the controls after having eliminated the driver?
There was a recent evaluation of Tesla's latest self-driving software that showed it's still only averaging 13 miles between necessary human interventions, so comparison with Waymo at this point seems wishful thinking.
> What's so special about leaving out the controls after having eliminated the driver?
Waymo can give direct control of their vehicles to police or others when appropriate. This mitigates the cost of potential edge cases.
Waymo can give direct control of their vehicles to police or others when appropriate. This mitigates the cost of potential edge cases.
First responder overrides exist for Waymo.
Next year, President Trump, 47th, last, and eternal PoTUS, will reward Elon for his support by legalizing Unsupervised FSD and Tesla Robotaxi across the entire country while prosecuting Waymo and Cruise for tech heresy. Uber, Lyft, and NYC taxi drivers will also be prosecuted for heresy just to be sure.
Elon will be appointed to a new cabinet position - the Fabricator General and will be given license to lobotomize people into servitors - AKA Optimus. This will also allow for true FS(ervitor)D.
I’m joking of course. I think.
Elon will be appointed to a new cabinet position - the Fabricator General and will be given license to lobotomize people into servitors - AKA Optimus. This will also allow for true FS(ervitor)D.
I’m joking of course. I think.
Gwynne Shotwell promised p2p starship travel. If you want to talk about over promise under deliver, this is straight up vaporware and will never ever happen.
Their list of cities include Zürich Switzerland. If you launch a rocket of that size on Zürich lake you will blow out every window in the city...
Their list of cities include Zürich Switzerland. If you launch a rocket of that size on Zürich lake you will blow out every window in the city...
You really think that promise was from Gwynne herself? It sounds like Elon's words coming out of her mouth.
well, she said it in a Ted talk in 2018.
https://www.ted.com/talks/gwynne_shotwell_spacex_s_plan_to_f... at 14:42.
starting at 16:37:
CA: So you really believe this is going to be deployed at some point in our amazing future. When?
GS: Within a decade, for sure.
CA: And this is Gwynne time or Elon time?
GS: That's Gwynne time. I'm sure Elon will want us to go faster.
starting at 16:37:
CA: So you really believe this is going to be deployed at some point in our amazing future. When?
GS: Within a decade, for sure.
CA: And this is Gwynne time or Elon time?
GS: That's Gwynne time. I'm sure Elon will want us to go faster.
So they still have a few years.
> and will never ever happen
That is good thing. It was vanity.
That is good thing. It was vanity.
What baffles me is, well, did anyone really think they were going to release something? Really? I mean, clearly, yes, some people did, hence the price movement, but _why_?
A price movement doesn't have to mean that anyone expected something better. Tesla's beaten expectations before, so I think a reasonable person could have assigned a 10% chance that they would announce something genuinely game-changing, and a 10% chance is still priced higher than a known 0.
I thought the cab might be something more like a Waymo or Baidu robotaxi, both of which are out there driving passengers around. But no.
Right, this demo was supposed to show the future, but instead it showed the present. It would have been better for the stock if Elon hadn't done anything. "A year away".
He's got a bit of a problem in that he's said his self driving and taxis should work safer than humans using vision only but the trouble is humans are quite good at navigating the world using vision and who knows when better than human AI will turn up. Waymo etc get around it buy using lidar and the like to make the cars safer than humans even if not as smart. Maybe Musk should have backtracked on the taxis and stuck lidar on as a temporary fix till the human level AI turns up? Otherwise he's stuck with saying maybe next year.
first of all this stock has been highly manipulated ever since the "funding secured" tweet. the stock price cannot be taken seriously either direction.
Musk could unveil the most dazzling technology, but would anyone believe he could actually deliver? It's a self-inflicted credibility issue.
The problem is that it doesn't make sense. A bus with no windows, no steering wheel and no ground clearance, so a tram. A new car with full self driving ..except why would it need to be new when he's been promising FSD for various tesla cars for years.
edit: sorry I just checked, it does appear to have see through windows at this timestamp https://youtu.be/-JOas3fcXU0?t=896
edit: sorry I just checked, it does appear to have see through windows at this timestamp https://youtu.be/-JOas3fcXU0?t=896
> A bus with no windows, no steering wheel and no ground clearance, so a tram.
It's absolutely not a tram; it's a large passenger van (not big enough to be called a bus). Trams run on rails.
It's absolutely not a tram; it's a large passenger van (not big enough to be called a bus). Trams run on rails.
yes and this would need to have a railsystem too if it ever wants to drive into a parking lot that has a speedbump on it, like for example the parking lot of my apartment complex
This is clearly the prototype. The final production model (if it ever happens) will have more ground clearance, for obvious reasons of practicality.
I remember being skeptical that anyone would buy a Cybertruck. It was delayed quite a bit, but sure enough I now see them on the road.
They still haven't released everything they promised for the Cybertruck, and the Roadster 2 is still MIA. I suspect it'll all come to fruition, but investors tire of new promises when old ones take such a long time to ship.
Cybertruck is the perfect example of over promised / under delivered. The Cybertruck is the modern day Delorean, with even worse build-quality issues.
I don’t know where you get your information from but it seems to be having some bias. Many owners are very happy with the car, and report few build quality issues.
Where do you get your information? You're both anecdotal but you accuse the parent of having bias and refute it, yet provide no evidence/link/etc.
There was a recall of the entire first production run because the accelerator pedal would slip off and jam the pedal down.
The closest city from where I currently live has been trying really hard to push for alternative means of transportation. They envision more bycicles and public transport, and in order to get there, they've been systematically making it harder for cars to operate in the city. Measures include less parking, low speed limits in the inner city, lots of one-way streets everywhere, presumably all with the intention of making car usage less appealing.
And it is.
Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest. Or, if folks are sick of being nannied, they just drive to another big city that's not too far away, and do their shopping there.
And it is.
Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest. Or, if folks are sick of being nannied, they just drive to another big city that's not too far away, and do their shopping there.
I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective. Cities are not inherently meant to have cars in them. In fact when cars were emerging as a transport option people had to be convinced to allow them in cities, since they would frequently run people over who were using the streets as they were designed to be used.
We have purposefully made cars a central part of cities and the populations of those cities have suffered a decrease in their quality of life as a direct effect. Between pollution, constant noise, collisions and deaths and congestion, and the taking up of vast amounts of space for something that sits around most of the time doing nothing, cities have become far less livable as cars have been prioritized over people.
To call it 'nannying' to backpedal a bit from this design decision is missing the fact that cities are not a natural environment -- they are purposefully designed from the sub-surface pipes and tunnels to the spires on top of the buildings. Nothing evolved naturally -- someone, sometime, decided to design cars into them, and they can be designed out.
We have purposefully made cars a central part of cities and the populations of those cities have suffered a decrease in their quality of life as a direct effect. Between pollution, constant noise, collisions and deaths and congestion, and the taking up of vast amounts of space for something that sits around most of the time doing nothing, cities have become far less livable as cars have been prioritized over people.
To call it 'nannying' to backpedal a bit from this design decision is missing the fact that cities are not a natural environment -- they are purposefully designed from the sub-surface pipes and tunnels to the spires on top of the buildings. Nothing evolved naturally -- someone, sometime, decided to design cars into them, and they can be designed out.
> I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective.
I just want to point out that this is not necessarily *my* perspective, but I know a lot of people who have already become used to classify all kinds of regulations that way. You may try telling them that it's the wrong perspective, but it won't change anything, I'm afraid.
I agree with the historical perspective you sketch (more appropriate for European cities than American ones, though), but disagree with most of your conclusions.
I just want to point out that this is not necessarily *my* perspective, but I know a lot of people who have already become used to classify all kinds of regulations that way. You may try telling them that it's the wrong perspective, but it won't change anything, I'm afraid.
I agree with the historical perspective you sketch (more appropriate for European cities than American ones, though), but disagree with most of your conclusions.
> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer which cannot be in anybody's interest.
Is there data on that? Have they made the necessary concurrent improvements to public transport? Generally, fewer private cars allows public transport (or, at least, buses and trams) to operate way more effectively.
Like, the city I live in (Dublin) has been doing this for about a decade, and the bus system in particular has gone from ‘notoriously, comically, embarrassingly bad’ to merely quite bad. It isn’t a great example, and is very much a work in progress (the latest absurdity: a bus I use from time to time now runs way faster due to private car restriction on the quays, but they haven’t gotten around to changing the schedule yet, so it sometimes just _stops_ for 10 minutes, with a helpful robot announcement indicating that it’s to keep on schedule…), but it has, to some extent, worked; people do use public transport way more, and it’s generally easier to get around the city.
Is there data on that? Have they made the necessary concurrent improvements to public transport? Generally, fewer private cars allows public transport (or, at least, buses and trams) to operate way more effectively.
Like, the city I live in (Dublin) has been doing this for about a decade, and the bus system in particular has gone from ‘notoriously, comically, embarrassingly bad’ to merely quite bad. It isn’t a great example, and is very much a work in progress (the latest absurdity: a bus I use from time to time now runs way faster due to private car restriction on the quays, but they haven’t gotten around to changing the schedule yet, so it sometimes just _stops_ for 10 minutes, with a helpful robot announcement indicating that it’s to keep on schedule…), but it has, to some extent, worked; people do use public transport way more, and it’s generally easier to get around the city.
> presumably all with the intention of making car usage less appealing.
Spiting car drivers isn't the intent, it's a side effect of making cities more bearable for all other inhabitants.
Lower speed limits have benefits in their own right, they significantly reduce noise pollution which makes the outside atmosphere bearable or even pleasant, and it makes roads much safer for cyclists and pedestrians, especially children and people with disabilities.
Less parking for cars means more space for greenery, space for businesses to set up patios, space for bike lanes and wider walkways.
Spiting car drivers isn't the intent, it's a side effect of making cities more bearable for all other inhabitants.
Lower speed limits have benefits in their own right, they significantly reduce noise pollution which makes the outside atmosphere bearable or even pleasant, and it makes roads much safer for cyclists and pedestrians, especially children and people with disabilities.
Less parking for cars means more space for greenery, space for businesses to set up patios, space for bike lanes and wider walkways.
> Except that the result is that instead of switching to bikes or PT, people still use their cars but drive around in circles much longer
Do you have sources for that claim? Most cities in western Europe have been doing that, and it seems to pay off. The whole of the Netherlands or Copenhaguen are very good examples of policies like these having worked to the perfection, but it takes time for people to change their habits.
Do you have sources for that claim? Most cities in western Europe have been doing that, and it seems to pay off. The whole of the Netherlands or Copenhaguen are very good examples of policies like these having worked to the perfection, but it takes time for people to change their habits.
No source as in peer reviewed study, no, only anecdotal evidence (personal experience). To me, if you want less cars driving around, it would make sense to build the infrastructure in a way that they can get to their destination as quickly as possible.
And it is certainly not a secret that inner cities in Europe - apart from maybe the big tourist magnets - have been dying for a number of years. There's already a big threat for stores in cities through internet shopping, and I've heard of concepts to counter that by designing cities in a way that shopping trips will become more wholesome "experiences". That is, if you go for a shopping day, it's not just from one store to the next, but there's an offer of exhibitions, shows, music etc. mixed with excellent dining opportunities etc., all interwoven with the commercial stores.
But, if your "experience" begins with a drive designed to make it as hard as possible to get to where you want, I'm not sure it's going to work. You can try to change people's attitudes, but all things equal, for many people I would bet the ideal shopping experience would be the comfort of their own car to get to and from the shops, together with having the chance to drop off your bags every now and then in your own trunk.
And it is certainly not a secret that inner cities in Europe - apart from maybe the big tourist magnets - have been dying for a number of years. There's already a big threat for stores in cities through internet shopping, and I've heard of concepts to counter that by designing cities in a way that shopping trips will become more wholesome "experiences". That is, if you go for a shopping day, it's not just from one store to the next, but there's an offer of exhibitions, shows, music etc. mixed with excellent dining opportunities etc., all interwoven with the commercial stores.
But, if your "experience" begins with a drive designed to make it as hard as possible to get to where you want, I'm not sure it's going to work. You can try to change people's attitudes, but all things equal, for many people I would bet the ideal shopping experience would be the comfort of their own car to get to and from the shops, together with having the chance to drop off your bags every now and then in your own trunk.
I think you make a big mistake in framing this shift in city design to accommodate shopping. Its made to accommodate living. People need walkable safe cities to go to work, school, doctors, restaurants and yes, shopping occasionally.
The different is that this shift is not meant to improve a shopping street, is meant to improve a residential one that would have only parking and narrow sidewalks. If you walk in Amsterdam outside of the inner canal rings, you'll see people using the streets as extensions of their living spaces, little gardens, benches for when the sun is hitting just right, talking to friends and making birthday parties. The idea is to change the streets to be pleasant to be in, not just pass through.
With remote work and online shopping cities have to change from the place where we work, buy stuff and get the hell out to places we actually want to live in.
The different is that this shift is not meant to improve a shopping street, is meant to improve a residential one that would have only parking and narrow sidewalks. If you walk in Amsterdam outside of the inner canal rings, you'll see people using the streets as extensions of their living spaces, little gardens, benches for when the sun is hitting just right, talking to friends and making birthday parties. The idea is to change the streets to be pleasant to be in, not just pass through.
With remote work and online shopping cities have to change from the place where we work, buy stuff and get the hell out to places we actually want to live in.
I've never claimed that this shift is being made (only) to accommodate shopping. But it's a fact that inner city shopping is in crisis and it is in the interest of city administrations to take counter-measures. However, the strategies to handle car traffic (probably, like you say, with the intention to improve other aspects of life in the city) are detrimental to that effort.
Not every potential customer of inner city shops actually lives in the city. As a matter of fact, where I currently live, none of the smaller suburbs and town in the vicinity of my next bigger cities do not have themselves alternatives for many of the commercial offers of the city. In other words, many many (potential) customers need to first travel to the city. If you ask these people, many will tell you that there is currently no viable alternative to the car for such a trip. And almost everyone would appreciate if their trip would be less painful, not more painful.
Of course you can argue that city planners should first and foremost care for the people that live in the city, not the ones that live around it.
Not every potential customer of inner city shops actually lives in the city. As a matter of fact, where I currently live, none of the smaller suburbs and town in the vicinity of my next bigger cities do not have themselves alternatives for many of the commercial offers of the city. In other words, many many (potential) customers need to first travel to the city. If you ask these people, many will tell you that there is currently no viable alternative to the car for such a trip. And almost everyone would appreciate if their trip would be less painful, not more painful.
Of course you can argue that city planners should first and foremost care for the people that live in the city, not the ones that live around it.
So, if you think that the primary purpose of a city is to act as a sort of large shopping mall for people who live outside it, maybe I can _kind_ of see your point? That’s an exceedingly weird conception of a city, though, particularly given that, well, actual shopping malls have existed for some time. As has internet shopping. Like, if you’re trying to rescue the department store, you are way, way too late.
Though, also, even then, I’m not sure that you’re correct. The two main shopping streets in the city I live in are pedestrianised, and have been since the 1980s or so. There are a few (very expensive) multistory car parks dotted around the city, but, well, in practice you see plenty of people on trains and buses and trams with shopping bags from the shops on these streets. I think this is pretty much the case in any largeish city I’ve ever been in, actually; there’s generally not much parking on or near the major shopping streets.
Though, also, even then, I’m not sure that you’re correct. The two main shopping streets in the city I live in are pedestrianised, and have been since the 1980s or so. There are a few (very expensive) multistory car parks dotted around the city, but, well, in practice you see plenty of people on trains and buses and trams with shopping bags from the shops on these streets. I think this is pretty much the case in any largeish city I’ve ever been in, actually; there’s generally not much parking on or near the major shopping streets.
There’s definitely an uncanny valley where cars are inconvenient but bikes/busses/walking isn’t awesome either. I read somewhere that car-centric spacing is essentially 10x more spread out than pedestrian-centric spacing. So if you don’t change the spacing but simply ban cars it doesn’t move the needle very much.
I don't buy the claim that the only solution is to push cars completely out of the cities. That's not going to work, I'm sure, without offering an equally good alternative to the comfort that your own car gives you. Especially with internet shopping eating the lunch of traditional brick and mortar stores. Online shopping offers many advantages in many cases. Cities already have to work really hard to get shoppers back, and of course that requires changing things up.
But if the hope is "sure, there's going to be a transitional phase, but people will get used to PT/bikes/walking and inner city shopping will flourish again", I'm afraid that there's a very good chance that this is going to backfire big time.
But if the hope is "sure, there's going to be a transitional phase, but people will get used to PT/bikes/walking and inner city shopping will flourish again", I'm afraid that there's a very good chance that this is going to backfire big time.
Regardless how I feel about the guy, I really hope he is successful with FSD and the CyberCab comes to fruition. Society needs these options, they will benefit everyone.
Society needs public transportation and walkable cities.
The key word is options. One doesn't denigrate the other. The cities I've MOST enjoyed public transportation in were in Asia, where I truly didn't miss cars but they are still centers of mass car adoption and new EV infrastructure alongside continuing to open new subway and train lines every year and supplying an abundance of bike share. I'm talking about China specifically. The tier 1, 2 and even 3 cities there really make sure you can get from point A to point B any way you want and each option is well thought out. Bike lanes are separated with median from both pedestrian paths and cars. For walking, crossings, overpasses and underpasses ample enough that you're never forced to jaywalk. You're always within walking distance of a metro stop. That said, cars are still an important part of the mix and they are doing more autonomous taxis than anyone else. It concerns me that in western online discourse it's seen as adversarial, i.e any infrastructure devoted to cars will detract from public/walkable, and vice versa. It doesn't have to be that way.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/china-driverless...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/china-driverless...
That's 2 out of 3; the third is law enforcement and a DA that prosecutes. Few will ride public transit when they are/feel threatened.
Robotaxis could be a good add on to that for journeys that are not well served by those.
I mean in London where I am we've had public transport and walkable cities for a century and things still have issues.
I mean in London where I am we've had public transport and walkable cities for a century and things still have issues.
The robotaxi concept was supposed to be that you can hail ANY tesla that the owner opted-in to join the taxi network.
Not a separate car model.
Not a separate car model.
If I remember correctly, Model Y and Model 3s will start running the network next year in Texas and California, is the plan. The cybertaxi will be available later.
Why the downvotes? They just exposed a statement about what Tesla has said it will do in the near future.
Downvotes might think Tesla/Elon lie, sure, but this is not enough to downvote a normal comment.
Do people still believe this will happen?
Like are there people who actually believe that if they buy a Model 3 this year, that it will be able to run completely autonomously next year?
Do people really believe that Musk, who said in 2016 that Summon would work across country by 2018, is being at all on the level with any of this? If so, why?
Like are there people who actually believe that if they buy a Model 3 this year, that it will be able to run completely autonomously next year?
Do people really believe that Musk, who said in 2016 that Summon would work across country by 2018, is being at all on the level with any of this? If so, why?
Do you honestly, hand on heart, believe that this will happen next year?
Public transports benefit everyone, robotaxis are a toy for rich people in affluent cities
I mean, that's the beauty of competition. Self driving cars don't need to come from Tesla.
Basically they took the steering wheel off the Model 2, came up with a demo, and had a bunch of dudes wearing Oculus headsets remote controlling a bunch of robots.