Waymo has a big lead in driverless cars—but here’s how they could lose it

Even if Waymo gets to market first, it'll face stiff competition from rivals.

Read the whole story

 

[Blarglefartz]

I don't know if technology is fast enough...I still have images of Jetsons in my mind... By those accounts, 2020 should see me flying to work in 2 mins as the crow flies and not 25 mins through traffic

The problem with flying is noise. We've had flying machines almost as long as we've had cars, but they make a lot of noise. VTOL tech solves the launch/landing problem but it's still noisy and also creates a prop-wash problem.

Until someone invents a quiet way to lift things without prop-wash (anti-gravity anyone?) normal mortals (the great unwashed) aren't flying to work.

 

[Blarglefartz]

I'd love to see a comparison between this and Uber's self-driving cars. As other commenters have noted, this is a potential revolution of the need for car ownership in the first place. I live in a big city, and the only time I drive is to leave it. But I order Uber/Lyft (whichever is cheaper) a couple times a week. The car-sharing aspect of it is going to change ownership habits a lot, I think. This is where Uber has a pretty good advantage.

Well that, and the fact that, you know...they already have real cars, driving by themselves, on real roads, serving real customers. For all the talk of how Waymo has a "sizable lead" in the technology, and how others are coming out with the service in the future...Uber already has a "self-driving + saftey-driver" system that you can actually experience.

I'd say the "self-driving + safety driver" model will certainly prevail in the commercial trucking business and very likely prevail in the short term (say 10 year horizon) taxi business. I'd personally be very cautious around a truly autonomous taxi and I expect most soccer mom's would have a lot of trouble with the idea of loading their kids into a robot car. There might be a few early adopters out there that would do it, but I doubt it's a mass market.

 

[Blarglefartz]

no need to learn how to read cuz audio books

a decent car costs $10-$15 a day, insurance included... humans like the freedom of being able to get 400+ miles for $40 gas anytime they please without having to depend on electricity, internet, cell phone, enough credits, a high rating to leave their dwelling. They also would never trust any of these companies software with their life or loved ones lives, some may also not like being recorded the entire trip which will be occuring gotta charge for the wiped snot on the seats and deter leaving condoms on the floor plus ad placement duh, probably pretty prudent to own a vehicle if you enjoy the opposite sex, i mean ive owned a car since 16 & i dont think as a man if i didnt own one i would be as prosperous with the ladies, but hey if the next gens panties drop for boys who dont own a vehicle more power to ya some guys not into women.

id say less than 1% of cities make sense not to own a vehicle as an adult & driving will be a useful skill for least 50 years

its cool to own things but life as a subscription is the current model ween em off owning anything. i didnt know poor people could afford private drivers, chauferres, self driving cars? i mean you do know its NOT goung to be cheaper than a human driver who gets $2 AND is responsible for all costs in a 3-7k car and cant do more than 29-30 rides a day. a sdc out the gate will be least 50+K itll take 50,000+ rides to equal one human

or do you think they gonna give out free subsidised 41% of actual cost rides forever?

The self-driving car is targeted at the urban metrosexual, not rural folk. The earlier comment about the "level 3 self-driving car" (I'm not certain I really know what that means) that lets me drive to a freeway, set my destination off-ramp, and fall asleep for 200 miles is much more attractive as far as I'm concerned and I think that will be the true "mass market" for smart cars in the next 30 or so years. Think of it as assisted driving and it makes sense. There's really no skill involved in it and it has real value for most people.

Self driving electric taxis in cities make sense, but I still think it'll take time to convince parents to let their kids use them.

EDIT: Clearly, no one on this board understands humor. Or, perhaps, there are a large number of urban metrosexuals who take themselves far too seriously?

 

[Blarglefartz]

If you haven't experienced what it's like to be able to pay attention without having to make every decision, you honestly have no real understanding of what it's like. It's fantastic, and it's something I hope more and more car companies do.

I believe you, though I haven't been able to afford the joys of a Tesla (and probably never will just because I personally detest the likes of Elon Musk and everything he touches, but that's way off topic).

I regularly commute between my two homes which are 250 miles apart (divorce in progress) and I would absolutely love what you describe as a "level 3" car. As it stands, I take Amtrak. I expect the advent of this technology might reduce their ridership.

Thanks for relating your experience.

 

[Blarglefartz]

Level 3 cars absolutely do not let you fall asleep for 200 miles. Think adaptive cruise control and lane keeping on steroids: they assist you but you, the driver, are still required to pay attention and be ready to take over at any instant.

Level 4 does fully automated driving in some circumstances: perhaps freeway only will be one of those, although I'm betting it'll be geofenced to downtown urban areas.

4 and 5 are the only interesting levels. Current cars with level 2 are nice to drive and it'll be ok if some level 3 capabilities sneak in, but I'm still driving the car. It's just easier and less stressful when the car watches lanes, distance I'm following, etc.

Thanks for making those classifications clear.

I'll correct myself then and say I wouldn't be attracted to anything less than a level 4 car. What I'm looking for is a vehicle I can put on a freeway and forget. Watch a movie, read a book, or fall asleep. The same sort of experience I get on a bus, train or plane. Anything less than that has no real value for me.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[Blarglefartz]

there's no technical solution for the fact that lots of people live in low-density areas but work in high-density areas, that travel demand is peaked (i.e. rush hour exists), etc.

Exactly, and that of course is the reason suburban and rural areas have poor taxi service support. The same would be true for autonomous vehicle fleets; it just doesn't work economically without a high population density. But it would work very well in those high density areas, and let's face it, that's where most people live and work. It's also a demographic that typically doesn't have space for a personal vehicle. In most areas of San Francisco for example, a garage is very rare and parking on the street is inconvenient and usually expensive (parking tickets can run a person over $1000/year easily).

I still believe very strongly there's a market for what's been described to me as a "level 4" autonomous vehicle that can take over once I'm on a freeway. I'd buy that.

 

[Blarglefartz]

As I say in the article, Arizona's governor seems to believe there are no regulatory barriers to launching a driverless car service in Arizona. And the feds are bending over backwards to allow these things on the roads. It's certainly possible that once a company tries to actually launch a service they'll encounter regulatory obstacles, but right now it doesn't look like it'll be a significant problem.

Thanks very much for following this story Tim, you've written an insightful and informative article, something I'd like to see more of at Ars.

 

[Blarglefartz]

Just wanted to clarify that I'm not actually sure, at least in the US, whether the places where "most" people live and work are of sufficient or insufficient density to support circulating driverless fleets.

Me either really, I'm just going by voting records as a proxy for population density; it seems to me areas like New York, San Francisco, Boston, London, Paris, Madrid and Seattle are high enough density to support taxis. Not sure about LA.

I guess I should have said "areas with convenient existing taxi service" rather than just "urban". I know it's hard to get taxis in places like San Mateo CA, which is only about 20 miles from SF. I can't see self driving cars (as a corporate operated fleet) replacing personal cars anywhere but urban cores.