Drivers don't typically have signals high-resolution 360 degree views, accelerometers, and other sensors on the outside of an insulated steel and aluminum vehicle piped directly into their sensory experience.
It's not easy to act on the information in a car. But the technology is sure as hell advanced enough to tell if you hit someone. I mean it's literally video you can look at it
If I was a regulator, that sounds like their problem not mine. They have the data. Let them analyze it. Maybe a different branch of the government could help them with that but if they're bringing the new tech that's on them to prove it. It's not like pharma spends hundreds of millions on a clinical trial for fun. Getting that safety data is hard and will cost billions of dollars? That's your problem not mine. They don't want to spend billions parsing the data? They don't need to be let onto the road either.
Fair point! I was definitely in more the "They don't currently know" thought process but you're right, they have the data they just need to actually review it if they haven't!
To give them credit and be fair to cruise though - in pharma the FDA makes pretty clear what's needed and doesn't let people just start selling drugs without proof they work (unless they were grandfathered in). If I was regulating the regulators, e.g. a congressperson or something, then I'd pin quite a bit of the blame on the government itself for letting the cars on the road without making clear what cruise needed to track and report, and how.
I'd say it's relevant as the investment in for-profit transit-as-tech companies has coincided with the chronic under-funding of public transit. Focusing on the US here, but if public transit was accepted as a public good, and the populace accepted that funding things for the public good was an acceptable use of government funds, then these companies wouldn't be as sound of an investment for VCs.
I agree: The solution is to change government spending so that public goods are sufficient to render other options moot.
But the VC investment didn't cause the underinvestment of infrastructure. Rather, they stepped in to fill the void with other viable options when government initiatives failed to materialize. Example: where's my high-speed rail?!
If I recall correctly, a certain South African entrepreneur who overstayed his visa pitched a vacuum-based transport system which he provably knew will not work at critical funding stages of high-speed rail projects in California.
Definitely agree with the solution - but unfortunately the transit-as-tech organizations (as well as auto manufacturers, the oil industry, real estate, etc.) also lobby to ensure that funding remains low and infrastructure decays or that costs/time become prohibitively high for infrastructure expansion.
It's definitely one of those things where the goal is clear but the changes necessary to get there are complex.
To which question? Surely not to "how do i get from home to work as fast as possible without stepping in the rain?" nor to "how do i take my family, two coolers, and a kayak camping for a weekend?"
That really depends on where you're going. Maybe you want to go to a different lake, or spot on a long river, than the train or bus line goes. Maybe your skill level or body benefit from a specific kayak you own. I think this kind of all or nothing perspective, that seems to presume that _no trips_ should involve a private vehicle are not constructive. (I say this as someone who does not own or regularly drive a car.)
But _most_ trips probably aren't to go kayaking, and I think it's worthy to consider what a shared transit system that could support a meaningfully larger fraction of trips would look like. What the bus system in your city need to look like for more people to commute on it, or to take it when grocery shopping, or when going out to eat at a restaurant a few miles away? Those are probably the trips people are making more often, which transit advocates should be concerned with, rather than your occasional trip to recreate in nature.
How do you think a significant chunk of people outside of US live? Commute in public transit within city limits, go camping in your car… The problem in NA, we planned public transit so bad that it is very inconvenient to do anything. The second it becomes a better choice than driving, it’ll be used even more.
Like it’s a no-brainer for me to ever drive while i’m within the city limits of Vancouver, but for hikes and camping, it’s the obvious choice. Same with metro areas of European cities. I won’t even bring Asian cities as example, because it’s cheating.
Chicken and egg problem in terms of investment and public perception though. Inability to build large scale infrastructure also makes it impossible.
It is just… rain? I’m very confused if I’ll be honest. Your jacket gets wet, or you carry an umbrella so you stay dry? It rains 7-8 months of the year here, I genuinely never thought of it as a reason to drive so might be the wrong person to answer. As long as I’m not drenched (never happens unless i’m out for a rainy run on purpose), who cares the jacket will dry once I get in.
No offense, but it isn't hard to look up how people live in cities and countries with good transit infrastructure. A good starting place might be Netherlands (biking infrastructure coupled with buses and trains) or Switzerland (massive rail network). Here is a wiki page with more details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share
Literally nothing about autonomous vehicles stops cities from improving public transit. BART predates Cruise by like 50 years, and it took them most of that time to get the noise below 100dB and add mobile payment support. Maybe in another 50 years we'll be able to get to all the cities with >100k people in the bay on it, if we're lucky.
Neither Uber nor Lyft is "a bunch of sensors stuffed into a single car", to quote the comment I was replying to. But even counting them, public transit seems to be doing fine in Europe, Asia, and NYC despite the existence of ride-share services. Ride sharing services don't impose additional right of way constraints either because they're just private vehicles.
I guess I just don't understand why you'd say they prevent cities from improving public transit.
if the amount of human and financial capital invested in ridesharing and autonomous vehicles was instead invested in mass transit in the US, nyc wouldn't be the only city in the nation where not owning a car is a (legitimate, long term) option without sacrifices
I seriously doubt that. The amount of money that has been invested in autonomous driving is low tens of billions. It's the same order of magnitude as the cost of extending BART to SJ.
That's a good project, but it's just one. It would take vastly more money to actually make public transit great in the US, especially in many cities at once. I think the amount that has been privately invested in self-driving cars seems small in comparison.
Public transit in almost every US city is terrible. It isn't hard to see why someone with means would rather call an Uber than wait 15 minutes for the next bus to show up. Public transit can certainly be improved while Uber exists, just look towards many major international cities for examples.
Governments in the USA spend a ton of money on roads. If they could be convinced to spend some of it on buses, I think those bus companies could make a profit.
They'd have to use some sort of marketing trickery to obfuscate the fact that they were buses, because buses carry an undeserved stigma in the USA. But I think Silicon Valley is generally pretty good at repackaging old ideas to seem new.
As private vehicles increase in size and weight, the costs of road maintenance for private vehicles will continue to increase. As fuel/electricity costs increase, private vehicle ownership will continue to get more expensive. So the rewards for implementing this would only get better.
In some places trains are better than buses. Unfortunately in the USA the costs of private car ownership are mostly borne by local governments. So I think in the short term it will mostly have to be buses.
But cruise is developing self driving “public transit vehicles” as well.
I’d rather have fleets of various sized vehicles that can travel on any road than spend billions and years of disruption extending rail by a few blocks (as is currently happening in my city)
The sort of public transport you're talking about isn't a substitute, since it doesn't go everywhere, and never will.
So, dogma aside, automated taxis are the actual solution and, with a bit of imagination, can provide the kind of public transport that is both efficient and environmentally friendly, and that goes everywhere.
Have been hit by Uber twice as a pedestrian. Reported it to Uber support, I gave location and time. And they don’t care, support agents keep dropping and handing off the request because the know it will go nowhere. Where’s the regulation of rideshare accident reporting?
I wasnt bought up to ask for help. It was beaten in to me by parents and teachers, to work things out myself, today that causes me significant cognitive dissonance which is legal torture and a way to make people self destruct.
Besides why should other people know how I'm being done over?
> It was beaten in to me by parents and teachers, to work things out myself
And now you have to learn the counter-lesson the hard way. Doing things without help was not beaten in to me, but through formative experiences and temperament that's also my default. It's a difficult habit to break, but the most powerful people do break it (or never had it in the first place).
One of the explicit duties of the police is to record and, if possible, to respond to civil and criminal infractions. A hit-and-run, or even a plain hit-and-stay is such an infraction. There's absolutely nothing wrong, and plenty of things right, with informing the appropriate people of an incident for which they have a duty to respond.
It's advice, not a lecture. You seem to be extraordinarily cynical and conditioned based on your life experience so I won't try to give you any more advice based on my life experience.
lol police reports don't do anything but establish potential liability if the police ever take any action. have had laptop and other things stolen in this city and police never took any action whatsoever. the police only do something when you have somebody to advocate for you like an insurance company (e.g. if my car got hit big time) or a lawyer.
that's why we need regulation to fill that gap. e.g. the DMV and City should track Uber accidents. especially since Uber drivers don't have to get e.g. taxi medallions etc.
in this case, Uber has the actual location data, identity of the driver etc. but instead they choose to ignore it, or even worse do things like greyballing etc
> Obviously, members of the public have no access to this information (VINs) as to for-hire AVs
Sure they do: grab a convenient traffic cone, put it on its hood, and then read off the VIN at your leisure. Or just walk up on the hood of the stupid murder robot, if you are diggin' your 70's cop show vibe that day.
61 comments
[ 446 ms ] story [ 1770 ms ] threadGiven the number of drivers who seemingly-unknowingly bump and run pedestrians, I wouldn’t be so sure.
Their business model is, "move fast, break laws, hope that society changes the laws before we go bankrupt".
Self driving cars need to be sent to Antarctica and tested there, where there's no humans to drag.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/countermeasures-w...
but nobody's getting venture capital for that, nobody's making a profit off of it, so here we are
But the VC investment didn't cause the underinvestment of infrastructure. Rather, they stepped in to fill the void with other viable options when government initiatives failed to materialize. Example: where's my high-speed rail?!
Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's definitely one of those things where the goal is clear but the changes necessary to get there are complex.
To which question? Surely not to "how do i get from home to work as fast as possible without stepping in the rain?" nor to "how do i take my family, two coolers, and a kayak camping for a weekend?"
But _most_ trips probably aren't to go kayaking, and I think it's worthy to consider what a shared transit system that could support a meaningfully larger fraction of trips would look like. What the bus system in your city need to look like for more people to commute on it, or to take it when grocery shopping, or when going out to eat at a restaurant a few miles away? Those are probably the trips people are making more often, which transit advocates should be concerned with, rather than your occasional trip to recreate in nature.
Like it’s a no-brainer for me to ever drive while i’m within the city limits of Vancouver, but for hikes and camping, it’s the obvious choice. Same with metro areas of European cities. I won’t even bring Asian cities as example, because it’s cheating.
Chicken and egg problem in terms of investment and public perception though. Inability to build large scale infrastructure also makes it impossible.
How does that address my rain question? Cause i'd rather be dry than virtue signal (YMMV)
What do you mean by 'literally' here? Seems like these ride-sharing companies do have impact on public transit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/do-uber-a...
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2018/07/25/uber-and-lyft-are-ove...
I guess I just don't understand why you'd say they prevent cities from improving public transit.
That's a good project, but it's just one. It would take vastly more money to actually make public transit great in the US, especially in many cities at once. I think the amount that has been privately invested in self-driving cars seems small in comparison.
Except the emphasis, funding, infrastructure, etc. being placed on autonomous vehicles instead of the latter.
They'd have to use some sort of marketing trickery to obfuscate the fact that they were buses, because buses carry an undeserved stigma in the USA. But I think Silicon Valley is generally pretty good at repackaging old ideas to seem new.
As private vehicles increase in size and weight, the costs of road maintenance for private vehicles will continue to increase. As fuel/electricity costs increase, private vehicle ownership will continue to get more expensive. So the rewards for implementing this would only get better.
In some places trains are better than buses. Unfortunately in the USA the costs of private car ownership are mostly borne by local governments. So I think in the short term it will mostly have to be buses.
I’d rather have fleets of various sized vehicles that can travel on any road than spend billions and years of disruption extending rail by a few blocks (as is currently happening in my city)
The sort of public transport you're talking about isn't a substitute, since it doesn't go everywhere, and never will.
So, dogma aside, automated taxis are the actual solution and, with a bit of imagination, can provide the kind of public transport that is both efficient and environmentally friendly, and that goes everywhere.
Besides why should other people know how I'm being done over?
And now you have to learn the counter-lesson the hard way. Doing things without help was not beaten in to me, but through formative experiences and temperament that's also my default. It's a difficult habit to break, but the most powerful people do break it (or never had it in the first place).
One of the explicit duties of the police is to record and, if possible, to respond to civil and criminal infractions. A hit-and-run, or even a plain hit-and-stay is such an infraction. There's absolutely nothing wrong, and plenty of things right, with informing the appropriate people of an incident for which they have a duty to respond.
Utopia's dont exist, the state like religion or law like medicine is a utopia.
No one was talking about a utopia.
that's why we need regulation to fill that gap. e.g. the DMV and City should track Uber accidents. especially since Uber drivers don't have to get e.g. taxi medallions etc.
in this case, Uber has the actual location data, identity of the driver etc. but instead they choose to ignore it, or even worse do things like greyballing etc
Sure they do: grab a convenient traffic cone, put it on its hood, and then read off the VIN at your leisure. Or just walk up on the hood of the stupid murder robot, if you are diggin' your 70's cop show vibe that day.
Walking into the hood of a human driven car does seem likely to result in violence, however.