Uber's First Self-Driving Fleet Arrives in Pittsburgh This Month (bloomberg.com)

Ride-hailing app Uber will introduce self-driving cars in Pittsburgh as soon as this month, Bloomberg reports citing many officials and engineers at the company. The move is the first part of a pilot program to explore the future of the technology, the report added. The company plans to test 100 Volvo XC90s outfitted to drive themselves. Still, the cars will be accompanied by two humans: an engineer who can take control of the vehicle when needed and a co-pilot who takes note. Bloomberg reports: The Volvo deal isn't exclusive; Uber plans to partner with other automakers as it races to recruit more engineers. In July the company reached an agreement to buy Otto, a 91-employee driverless truck startup that was founded earlier this year and includes engineers from a number of high-profile tech companies attempting to bring driverless cars to market, including Google, Apple, and Tesla. Uber declined to disclose the terms of the arrangement, but a person familiar with the deal says that if targets are met, it would be worth 1percent of Uber's most recent valuation.

Comments

"Sharing"

[Calydor]

Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just two people sharing a ride because they're going the same way.

Even when the cars have no drivers.

Re:"Sharing"

[cayenne8]

Yeah, I'm not sure how I like this really....

To me, half the fun of taking Uber has been meeting the people driving the cars....like talking to and meeting your neighbors, because it turns out, most of my rides lately HAVE been from people living in my general neighborhood area, that I'd not have met otherwise....

Re:"Sharing"

[Mashiki]

Yeah they can try that bullshit all they want, but governments seem to finally be stopping it which is good. They're a taxi company, and that means they can pay on the same qualification that a regular taxi driver/company does. Mandatory CPR, mandatory inspections, mandatory safeties, and mandatory insurance.

Re:"Sharing"

[fluffernutter]

If you like meeting totally random people that much, why not just walk up to someone on the street and introduce yourself?

Re:"Sharing"

[Jeremi]

If you like meeting totally random people that much, why not just walk up to someone on the street and introduce yourself?

Doing that disturbs people; they assume you have some unpleasant ulterior motive. It might work in a bar, though.

Re:"Sharing"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ride-sharing argument will go out the window when Uber does get their self-driving cars. But the cut that is no longer going to the drivers can easily cover the insurance.

Re:"Sharing"

[DogDude]

Automobiles don't only impact the person driving said automobile. They impact other people and property when they crash, hence, insurance.

In terms of being afraid of strangers... dude, you need to get out more, or get some help. Most people aren't that scary.

Re:"Sharing"

[fluffernutter]

You start going down that road, and quickly you can point out that most laws are interference to the free market. Does this mean there should be no laws against any corporation ever? Just because you don't see the particular point of a given law, it doesn't make them less important to enforce.

Re:"Sharing"

[fluffernutter]

So if I hire an automated Uber car, who is driving the vehicle? By that definition it is me! On the contrary if there was a taxi driver then it would be a taxi driver.

Re:"Sharing"

[Calydor]

But the cut that is no longer going to the drivers can easily be turned into a bonus for the CEO

Fixed that for you, it was a common typo to make.

Re:"Sharing"

[gachunt]

Talking to Random People Saving $5 on a Fare

Re:"Sharing"

[aaarrrgggh]

While I hope you are being sarcastic, I am sure you understand that the risks caused by "unprofessional" drivers acting in a professional (for-hire) capacity extend beyond yourself. I have had close calls with Uber drivers on at least 4 occasions during the summer where they nearly ran into me on my bicycle, because they could not handle the multi-tasking and situational awareness that is needed to drive a car for hire.

Uber generally does more than just displace taxis; it also displaces people driving themselves places and parking. While I think the latter is generally good, it is increasing the number of for-hire cars on the road without adequate protections. I would hold the self-driving cars from anyone to the same standard as a for-hire car.

Re:"Sharing"

[rockmuelle]

Uber and Lyft are in no way representative of free market principles.

In a free market, I need a ride somewhere, I put out a bid for what I'm willing to pay for that ride. If a driver likes my offer, they can accept it or counter. That's free market ride sharing.

Uber is simply a market for rides regulated by Uber, just as taxi services are markets for rides regulated by governments. You, as the rider, are completely at their mercy for setting your fare. Drivers are also completely at Uber's mercy for setting their rate. That's the opposite of a free market.

Even if you look at it from the service perspective of allowing ride sharing companies to create competing ride markets, Uber fails. Uber is heavily subsidized by its investors and foreign governments (Saudi Arabia's $3.5B investment, for example) and has never had to compete on costs. Again, something antithetical to free market principles.

Of course, just like I had Pets.com deliver 50lb bags of dog food for free in 1999 and used Instacart until they jacked up their rates, I'm happy to spend investor's money on cheap rides. No point in missing out on the party while it's happening.

-Chris

Re:"Sharing"

[cayenne8]

If you like meeting totally random people that much, why not just walk up to someone on the street and introduce yourself?

Actually I do, but usually at bars, etc....

But if out and about anywhere, especially if it is a cute girl, I have no problem at all striking up a conversation with someone I see in public.

Why do you imply that speaking to others in public is something that is difficult or uncommon?

Do you just trudge through life with your head down and avoid eye contact with everyone in fear of having to speak?

Re:"Sharing"

[umghhh]

Surely Travis Kalanick.and Uber's managers will disagree with you.

Re:"Sharing"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Mandatory CPR

I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me. Probably still could after an amputation or two. This seems like no great loss.

But in any event, I've looked around a bit and see no suggestion at all of a widespread CPR requirement for cab drivers. Have a source?

Re:"Sharing"

[Obfuscant]

Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just two people sharing a ride because they're going the same way. Even when the cars have no drivers.

Oh, you missed the funniest part of this article. These "driverless" vehicles will actually have TWO drivers -- one to take over when (not if) the car gets into trouble, and one to take notes. When a Pittsburgh Uber car shows up to give you a ride, the slogan will be "move to the back of the car", the front seats are for Uber employees.

So:

Yeah, they are totally not a taxi company but just three people sharing a ride

FTFY.

Re:"Sharing"

[Obfuscant]

That's free market ride sharing.

It's actually not ride sharing, it's transportation services. Only if the driver was going where you were going (or the vicinity of) can you call it sharing. If the driver is going someplace only because you're paying him to do so, it's a service. It isn't a "ride" for him. For him it's a paycheck.

But yes, a totally free-market transportation service would be between you and the operator (who may be the driver, or the driver's employer) and nobody else. It doesn't stop being a free market just because an employer is involved, so the fact that Uber regulates their own rates doesn't change anything. The driver in your first scenario is regulating his rates, too.

Re:"Sharing"

[Obfuscant]

I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of cabbies I've had who I would want to perform CPR on me.

I can count on the fingers of no hands the number of cabbies I would want to need to perform CPR on me. If I've had a heart attack in someone's cab the number of cabbies I would want to perform CPR goes way up.

Re:"Sharing"

[ArtemaOne]

You're confusing laws against corporations and laws written by and for corporations. These pro-taxi laws are there for monopolistic reasons.

Re:"Sharing"

[plopez]

so you like talking to people who are paid to be polite to you.

Re:"Sharing"

[rockmuelle]

I agree the term "ride sharing" is wrong, but I've giving up pushing that point when discussing Uber. Using the term "Transportation Network Company" (a more accurate term that most cities are adopting when drafting regulations to differentiate them from Taxi companies) just confuses people.

While an employer doesn't prevent a free market, what Uber does is in no way a free market service. The riders and drivers have no say over the rates. There's nothing free about that market. It's a tightly regulated market controlled by Uber.

Saying drivers regulate their price is the same as saying riders regulate what they're willing to pay - you're using the term regulate to mean something different than it usually means in these conversations. From the context of a market, regulation is a set of rules that limit how the market can function, not individual choices by actors participating in the market.

In my first scenario, the free market regulates the driver's rates. That's how a free market works. The driver can set whatever rates he wants and riders are free to accept them or counter them. According to free market theory, in that case the riders and drivers are free to negotiate a price. Given enough riders and drivers the "market" will eventually settle on a price that's agreeable to both parties.

-Chris

Re:"Sharing"

[Calydor]

Yeah, it totally has nothing to do with getting the most basic checks that the guy whose car you get into isn't a serial rapist and/or murderer.

Re:"Sharing"

[ArtemaOne]

I disagree. I think "it" is an unrelated subject.

Re:"Sharing"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

To each their own -- hopefully the cabbie cartels where you live also mandate face shields. I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment. Particularly given the questionable effectiveness of CPR in the first place.

But on a higher level, there seems to me to be a lot of airspace between preferring that someone to be around that is certified for CPR and the government mandating that people providing a service to you are certified for CPR. That same principle would seem to require, for example, all employees of retail stores to be CPR certified just in case you have a heart attack while shopping. And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case? Huge slippery slope.

Re:"Sharing"

[Obfuscant]

I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency and have the driver (who is already presumably rolling down the road with me in the car) reroute to someone who does life-saving measures for a living and has the proper equipment.

From your link: "One simple reason for such gloomy results may be the logistic impossibility of responding to a broadly disseminated, quasirandom event that causes death within minutes." I'd rather the cabbie have training to recognize cardiac arrest and be able to do more than just honk the horn at other cars blocking his access to a hospital or fire station.

And from your link: "At best, CPR represents a placeholder." Yes, that's true. I think most trained people understand that. That's why we're trained to summon (or have someone summon) professional medical help prior to starting CPR. And why we, to the best of our ability, do not let a patient who has revived after CPR just get up and walk away. But even as a placeholder, and with the potential damage that improper CPR can cause, it can keep someone alive until that help arrives.

And then why not require everyone to have an AED on hand too, just in case?

You will note that I made no comment about requiring anything. I replied only to the flippant comment about not wanting cabbies to do CPR. I thought I was clear on that.

But you make an excellent point. The prices of AEDs have fallen drastically, so instead of CPR certifications it should be an AED certification. There is no question that AED use saves lives. But if you don't have an AED handy (or it is not usable or doesn't work) then CPR is a placeholder. It has a small percentage of success, but success is life compared to someone dying. So CPR should not be ignored.

As to your "retail store", I see no issue with them having CPR/AED certified people on staff in case of emergency. I think any company that will 1) accept that liability and 2) accept that cost should be applauded.

I think I'd rather everyone just stick with their core competency

If you are conscious, you are free to refuse treatment from anyone whose "core competency" is not emergency medical services. That includes the fireman or policeman who is trying to save your life. It includes the network manager who only volunteers as a member of one of the best mountain rescue units in the country, but may wind up sitting next to you on the airplane and doing CPR on you for an hour while the airplane makes its way to an airport to turn you over to people whose "core competency" makes you more comfortable (but perhaps dead.)

If you are not conscious, then do you really care if the cabbie's "core competency" is using that AED or doing CPR, as long as he's trained to do either or both? It doesn't really take a "core competency" in emergency medical services to do CPR or use an AED, but to each their own. Perhaps you should tattoo "DNR unless you are board certified in emergency medicine" on your chest just to be safe.

Re:"Sharing"

[Sassinak]

And what assurances do you have that the Taxi Driver in the Cab you ordered isn't a serial rapist or murderer, or just plain nuts. At the end of the day you take your chances.. Taxi companies have more incentive to "eliminate" people because they have a limited number of slots with a large number of applicants.. Uber (and other ride sharing apps) don't exactly suffer from saturation of resources.. so their checks are nominal (they do background checks, do they ID verification).. So its quite a bit more secure than a "gypsy cab" but slightly less than a formal taxi company.

My issue with the taxi companies is their refusal to adapt and grow.. Rather than adding support (without massive surcharges) for CCs.. they fight it.. (eliminate cash from the equation and a lot of the taxi assaults and robberies go away. Rather than having a more modern booking system, they still use the old switchboard model.. Rather than using the tracking they already have on some taxis and allow it to be expanded to those requesters.. they close door it. (lets not even get into the Medallion fees, and other items)

But statistically speaking, your chances of running into a murderer driving for uber is the same as running into a murderer as a Bus Driver, or in a Bar. And as a passenger, your position is not "I'm in a taxi, I'm safe".. it should be "I'm in a strangers car, I should be mindful of the driver and my surroundings". Now when robotic (non human) taxis come about, then get cozy.. (I welcome our robotic overlords.. because humans are just problematic) but until that time, stop worrying about a few bad apples when these same bad apples can/do exist in other transportation options (except air).. and I should point out.. MOST of the danger is NOT from the Driver.. its the passengers.. Taxi Driver have the highest murder/death rate of any profession.

Re:"Sharing"

[Mashiki]

You realize that the main reason that all of these regulations started in the first place was because people were using their home vehicles as a taxi service right? Welcome to the early 1900's where every country here in the west has already been down this road. Those mandatory regulations exist because: People were using taxi's in high numbers in large cities. There were people killed and seriously injured by taxi's requiring insurance and the same for mandatory inspections of the vehicles. It's the same reason why they required chauffeurs licenses. CPR became a requirement because "taxis are everywhere" and so are the drives. That means more people who are able to preform life saving actions.

You can try to swing it all you want, in whatever way you want. But these regulations didn't come into being because the "taxi companies wanted them" or "the taxi drivers wanted them" they fought tooth and nail against every single regulation in the first place. So much so that they took out full page ads in the newspapers in the day saying how it would put them in the poor house and out on the street. Go to your local library and read the microfiche or digital archives of newspapers from 1890-1923.

Re:"Sharing"

[Mashiki]

You're confusing laws against corporations and laws written by and for corporations. These pro-taxi laws are there for monopolistic reasons.

Yes as we all know, those taxi companies wanted all those regulations in the first place. The insurance, licenses, inspections, and so on all came into being because there had been people killed and seriously injured by taxi drives and there were large outcries in print media and over the radio. Keep in mind that many of these regulations came into force before the middle of the 1920's. And the people who owned the companies and even the drivers fought tooth and nail against them saying how it was going to kill their jobs and they'd never be able to cover the costs.

Re:"Sharing"

[mjwx]

You start going down that road, and quickly you can point out that most laws are interference to the free market. Does this mean there should be no laws against any corporation ever? Just because you don't see the particular point of a given law, it doesn't make them less important to enforce.

Next thing you'll expect him to admit is that other corporations interfere with the free market. Most of the reason we have regulations is because companies have regularly abused people and situations to lock out competitors.

However you'll never get a Libertarian to admit anything could possibly interfere with the all mighty free market even when evidence is staring them in the face.

Re:"Sharing"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own." Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking. In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people (you know, the part you flatly ignored). Happy trails, friend.

Re:"Sharing"

[Obfuscant]

I see you were very careful not to quote or allude to the very first words from my post: "To each their own."

I actually initially wrote those words into my response, in the part about you being free to refuse medical treatment from anyone who you didn't think was working in their "core competency", but it appears I edited them out as extraneous (which they were in your post, too.) It doesn't matter whether the cabbie has CPR/AED training, you can refuse his help -- an implicit "to each his own".

Hopefully your sarcastic little rant about my own personal preferences made you feel better, morally superior, or whatever it is that keeps you ticking.

I pointed out the danger TO YOU and the poor logic of your position. Many people's lives are saved by people who are acting outside their "core competency", but as I already said, if you wish those people not to assist you in an emergency, you are free to say so. And I even told you what you need to do to cover the times when you are unconscious. You're welcome.

In any case, I find your response rather ironic in the context of the broader discussion about what decisions government should universally make for people

I'm sorry, but you not wanting a cabbie to perform CPR on you has nothing to do with "decisions government should ... make", it has to do with decisions YOU make.

(you know, the part you flatly ignored)

No, if you read really carefully you will note that I replied to your comment about requiring everyone to have an AED, too. I avoided (but didn't ignore) the issue of the government requiring things because that wasn't what I replied to initially and haven't made any claims that they should (or should not, for that matter) require something. You want to argue about "government control", and that's not what I'm here to discuss so I'm avoiding it.

I replied to your expressed desire that cabbies not assist you by providing CPR when necessary. Your link that talks about the low success rate of CPR is just rationalizing away the fact that it is successful at times, and is a stopgap measure until an AED can be located and used, and until professional medical help arrives. That you would rather sit gasping for breath clutching your chest while the cabbie tries to get you through traffic to a hospital so someone with a "core competency" can help is, as you say, "to each his own", and something that I've already said is your right.

And to maintain that right after you have passed out, you need to express that in some tangible form. Here's a bit of news that comes up in every first responder class I've had. We cover the legalities, and the bit about "to each his own" and that people can refuse emergency medical assistance. Someone always asks "what do you do if you have a patient who is [bleeding to death/having a serious heart attack/other potentially life threatening condition] and they say 'no' when you ask if you can help them?" The answer is "let them [bleed/arrest/whatever] until they pass out, then help them. The assumption is that the unconscious person would want assistance and there is implicit approval." So, if you truly wish only "core competency" people helping you, you need to make it clear in a legal way. Should I google the location of a tattoo parlor close to you, or do you realize the poor logic of your position by now?

Re:"Sharing"

[SlaveToTheGrind]

Good grief, bro. You know what I find even more ironic? Your unhealthy obsession with trying to prove me wrong is over an opinion I expressed about a completely hypothetical scenario. Ever notice how the OP didn't respond to my very polite request for support that there's actually a widespread requirement for cabbies to be CPR certified? That smelled like bullshit from the beginning, and apparently it is.

Your DNR straw man you keep trying to shove down my throat is bullshit as well. You sound like a really smart guy, so I'm sure you can reason through (and probably write a book-length post about) the difference between a population of people who have chosen to get CPR certified and/or have chosen to work in helping professions, and a population of people who largely just want to drive a car and could give a shit less about CPR but have been forced to take it by box-checking bureaucrats. If you've actually been through first responder training, you should well understand that people who don't know and/or don't care about what they're doing can actually leave you worse off.

And on top of that, your downright creepy contention that CPR certification somehow gives you the right to just wait for someone who is actively denying consent to pass out, and then do whatever the fuck you want to them anyway, just further proves that we should not be manufacturing mass plausible deniability (er, I mean, requiring mass certification) for arbitrary groups of people.

It's clear by now that you're one of those "last word" trolls, so knock yourself out.

1099 or w2 employees?

[Joe_Dragon]

For liability issues it better be w2 ones or 3rd party victims may be left holding the bag.

Free rides in Pittsburgh

[93 Escort Wagon]

At least for now. I suppose one negative is - you have to share a vehicle with an engineer. /ducks

Re:Free rides in Pittsburgh

[RobotRunAmok]

Yeah, but you are already driving to someplace in Pittsburgh, so how much worse can your day really get?

Pittsburgh? Good choice.

[krotscheck]

Pittsburgh's roads are... actually, a surprisingly complex test bed for this kind of thing. Between bridges, bridges over streets, bridges over bridges over streets, bridges over bridges over tunnels, the "Pittsburgh Left", potholes, the lower deck of the Penn Bridge, and intersections like this one, Uber will have plenty of good edge cases to test their AI on. ...though, you might not want to drive while the AI is being tested. Just sayin'.

Re: Pittsburgh? Good choice.

[krotscheck]

Ah, yes. When I said "Penn bridge" I actually meant the Fort Pitt bridge. Just goes to show what you forget after a few years away. #blackandgoldforever

Re:Pittsburgh? Good choice.

[Alomex]

Plus all that rust and industrial decay will give the test that Mad-Max je-ne-sais-quoi feeling... Maybe you'll be allowed to pay for your ride with a can of dog food, or you can order a gyrocopter instead of a car.

Re: Pittsburgh? Good choice.

[WindBourne]

Uh, Pennsylvania has no mountains. They have some mole hills.

Re: Pittsburgh? Good choice.

[arth1]

Uh, Pennsylvania has no mountains. They have some mole hills.

Like Mt. Davis? http://images.summitpost.org/o...

Must be confident

[flopsquad]

Much love for the city. But Uber must be pretty confident in its fleet to trial it in a city of demanding geography and interesting driving practices that gets Real Northern Winters.

My guess is it's a belated apology for absconding with CMU's robotics talent.

Re:Must be confident

[bruce_the_loon]

Volvo is the confident one, they had a truck fleet drive itself across Europe a couple of months back. I suspect they are getting ahead of Google and the rest quietly and carefully in that laid-back Swedish way.

Re: Must be confident

[WindBourne]

Nope. Volvo is behind, not ahead. And Volvo trucks are not Volvo cars. Volvo cars are owned by Chinese, which is where all legal issues will occur.

Map based solutions?

[OzPeter]

TFA implies that Uber will be using a map based systems plus GPS to identify where the car is and I guess under what parameters it should be driving. This is OK for a reasonably static environment. But that raises questions some questions for me:

1. How do these type of systems know when the traffic lights change? (or even identify which lights they should respond to?)
2. How are they meant to cope when cop/worker directs that you have to take a detour around a transient event (EG car crash)?
3. How does the systems know when a temporary speed limit has been erected?
4. In VA at least, if there is a cop car on the side of a two lane the road you are required to move over when passing them. So how does the system spot that?

I know that this is really early times for driverless cars, but to me the map based systems can't deal with the above scenarios, and they are transient enough that by the time such a situation has been reported to a central mapping location the event could easily have already disappeared.

Re:Map based solutions?

[DrXym]

Those scenarios are just the tip of the iceberg. Well they might have a human supervising the car because it's extremely unlikely that by itself could deal with many intractible scenarios that a human driver would barely have to think about.

Re:Map based solutions?

[DarkOx]

4. In VA at least, if there is a cop car on the side of a two lane the road you are required to move over when passing them. So how does the system spot that?

Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language. IE if you have cut 2' in front of someone's bumper in traffic at speed to do so, you should not actually do it. There is a lot of subjective decision making in driving. What I just described might not be safe at 70mph on the interstate or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in. The mixture of automated drivers and humans is going to prove interesting.

Re: Map based solutions?

[KenHansen]

So you inferred an 'implication' as to how the cars will navigate, then you decided that was all the AI the cars had on board and then posed a series of 'difficult' questions:

1. How do these type of systems know when the traffic lights change? (or even identify which lights they should respond to?) 2. How are they meant to cope when cop/worker directs that you have to take a detour around a transient event (EG car crash)? 3. How does the systems know when a temporary speed limit has been erected? 4. In VA at least, if there is a cop car on the side of a two lane the road you are required to move over when passing them. So how does the system spot that?

It will do it the same way a human driver does - there are visual queues to indicate which stoplight to use, visual/audio cues can be picked up by motion/voice recognition, visual speed limit signs will be within the field of vision for car, and I am certain the car can detect a police car on the shoulder with it's lights flashing.

Because maps, cameras & GPS are used for NAVIGATION doesn't mean the care has no AI on board..,

Re: Map based solutions?

[WindBourne]

Actually, Volvo has been on the road for over a year and have struck multiple ppl and cars. That is why I mention that the court being in China is the big issue, because Volvo us not ready. They and Uber are simply counting on Chinese courts to protect them.

Re:Map based solutions?

[Obfuscant]

Its a little worse than that even, see that rule is actually suffixed with "if it is safe to do so" or similar language.

And in Oregon it is further suffixed with "or slow down". The amount to slow down, is, IIRC, a matter for the judgement of the officer who pulls you over for "not enough". Safest to pull over.

or it might be if that person has acknowledged you and is waving you in.

It is NEVER safe to base your driving decisions on "someone waving you in." If someone else has the right of way, you let them have it. About the first time someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way, you'll learn to never trust such "generous" offers. I suspect many people are just trying to be nice, but it's wasting everyone's time when they do that, and some of them are actually being malicious. No, it's better to wait until the person with the right of way wakes up and decides to proceed, even if that means you're both stopped waiting for the other guy.

In Oregon, we call that 'defensive driving'.

Re:Map based solutions?

[DarkOx]

The waving in rules vary from state to state as well. I can't give you a list of which but in some parts of the country if you wave someone YOU take responsibility for it being safe for them to proceed.

ime someone waves you ahead and then tries running into you because you are failing to yield them the right of way

In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"

Re:Map based solutions?

[DrXym]

Tested and they still require hundreds of human interventions to stop the car doing some immediately dangerous. That doesn't even count the thousands probably tens of thousands of inteventions where the car simply did something dumb.

Driverless vehicles are classified in 4 (or 5) levels. Level 4 is completely autonomous vehicles. Some define level 5 as being fully autonomous without even driver controls. Google's driverless car is barely level 4, possibly a high level 3 since it still requires driver assistance.

Re:Map based solutions?

[Obfuscant]

In some places the accident would be considered their fault at least if you could find a whiteness to say, "he waved that guy"

I do not want to gamble my money and/or life on finding a witness who would support my claim, if there even was one. I often don't see the tiny waving gestures and I'm looking at them. The glare on their windshield, or it's just a small wiggle of the fingers of a hand still holding the wheel. I never see anyone sticking their arm out the window making an overt gesture.

I have considered actually getting out of the car and making a grand sweeping bow to show the "generous" time wasters that they ought to obey the law and proceed, but I've not quite gotten that annoyed yet.

Re:Map based solutions?

[arth1]

3. For proper signs it OCRs them, that's the same as European road cars today that read the road signs and warn you if you're speeding.

Oh, the fun to be had with a stencil and a spray can...
35? It's now 85!

Progress

[DarkOx]

Objective: Eliminate the need for drivers from our livery service to obtain cost savings and reduce personnel overhead utilizing automation technology.

Proposed solution: The self driving solution will operate the vehicle however requires and engineer to be present and able to take over driving and operation of key systems as required. Additional a co-pilot shall be present to record events and assist the engineer as required.

  Progress!

*I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though, they have replaced a low skill driver with an engineer, and probably someone with similar training/qualification as the former driver to be co-pilot.

Re:Progress

[clonehappy]

Yeah, it really is a joke. Even the Google car only operates in autonomous mode a bit over half the time, the rest of the time being piloted by a real person. That's about the same percentage of time you can text, eat, change the radio, etc. as a person and not pay attention to the road. So what we're really being told is that we've finally gotten a computer to be able to do what a human can do with spare background cycles.

Whoo-hoo!

Although if we're being truthfully honest about all AI and all autonomous cars and all this hype, the real story is:

Objective: Eliminate humans. Eliminate the human experience, eliminate the human element and turn the world into one big machine.

But that's the elephant in the room that no one will admit, that the entire agenda is one that's anti-humanity, period. Too bad the computers will NEVER be able to reliably make the kinds of judgment calls that humans can and the entire AI borg system is going to come crashing down sooner or later, so we really won't have to worry about the anti-humanist ilk ever really doing much of anything to worry about.

Re:Progress

[dinfinity]

I get the presence of the engineer and co-pilot are temporary its still kinda funny though

No, it isn't. Any other way to introduce this technology would be stupid and reckless.

They also haven't replaced the driver with an engineer and co-pilot. They (will) have replaced the driver with self-driving software. That is the 'proposed solution'. Whether or not they'll pull it off with this experiment is a different story. I'm actually quite skeptical of that.

Re:Progress

[Cyberax]

There are "human experiences" that I'm glad we have exterminated.

Re:Progress

[EllisDees]

> Too bad the computers will NEVER be able to reliably make the kinds of judgment calls that humans can and the entire AI borg system is going to come crashing down sooner or later, so we really won't have to worry about the anti-humanist ilk ever really doing much of anything to worry about.

This may be the dumbest comment I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've been here for a while. The whole point of self driving cars is that they will have *better* judgement than us slow, panicky humans. There are something like 33,000 deaths per year in the US alone caused by traffic accidents. If letting our cars drive themselves can even half that, we've made a huge score.

Re:Progress

[trawg]

Too bad the computers will NEVER be able to reliably make the kinds of judgment calls that humans can and the entire AI borg system is going to come crashing down sooner or later, so we really won't have to worry about the anti-humanist ilk ever really doing much of anything to worry about.

Yeh cool, but also computers will NEVER be able to make the kinds of terrible judgement calls that many humans make when, for example, behind the wheel of a car.

A computer isn't going to have 6 beers and then decide it's OK to drive. They're not going to drive at twice the speed limit at 4am because while tired because they want to get home faster. They're not going to have casual lapses in attention while reaching for a coffee or checking out a cute girl on the side of the road.

I don't like driving, I don't like being driven - I just don't like being in cars. 99% of driving is a sheer grind - a risky grind in which the casual inattention of others could result in my messy death.

I personally think there'll be MORE of a human element with computer-driven cars. I'd love to take a road trip with my friends where we can all have a beer and play cards or something.

Re:Progress

[Obfuscant]

I'd love to take a road trip with my friends where we can all have a beer and play cards or something.

So that none of you would be able to take control when a system failure hands control of the vehicle off to the human.

The answer to your problem does not require autonomous vehicles and the promises of performance that are required to make the system work. His name is "Arther", and he's a chauffeur. Or it's a train or bus. How many such trips do you make today?

I don't like driving, I don't like being driven - I just don't like being in cars.

Yes, I get that. So if you don't like being in one, why would you get in one tomorrow?

a risky grind in which the casual inattention of others could result in my messy death.

But you'll be happy when relying on the promises of computer engineers that the system will be safe. There has never been a case of unexpected consequences despite assurances from the technical experts that a system is safe and reliable. You'll be glad when the knowledge of how to drive is no longer required and you wind up with carloads of people who are either untrained or incapable of driving the vehicles when the system fails.

Look up the phrase "emergent behaviour". Consider the unknown interactions that will occur between the autonomous vehicles and the human-piloted ones on the highways. (Personally, until I read that there would be two drivers in each driverless Uber car, I was thinking that Pittsburgh would be a great vacation destination. I'd have plenty of entertainment as I figure out ways of making the Uber cars misbehave. I there weren't enough of them passing by on their own, there's an app that will summon them upon demand!)

And before you try the "you aren't as smart as the engineers who are designing these systems" (often phrased as "don't you think they've thought of that?") argument, the answer is that you don't have to be as smart as an engineer to know that there will be unanticipated results, and I know there are things they haven't thought about.

Risks Digest teaches us both. As does watching the amazing movie of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse. Or understanding the number of aircraft crashes due to a jackscrew failure in a professionally-designed safety-certified horizontal stabilizer. Lithium battery fires in 787s?

Re:Progress

[Gussington]

But that's the elephant in the room that no one will admit, that the entire agenda is one that's anti-humanity, period.

No, we had this argument already in the 18th century...

Totally understandable..

[fluffernutter]

Uber has more than enough money to pay out settlements for the deaths they cause so why wouldn't they release vastly imperfect and dangerous self driving onto the streets? If it were a problem there would be some sort of legal regulation around it!

Re: Totally understandable..

[WindBourne]

Nope. Volvo has said that they will cover the indemnity during AP time. The real issue is that Volvo is chinese gov corp owned. As such, any lawsuit will take place, in china, in gov owned court.

Re: Totally understandable..

[fluffernutter]

I was kind of trying to make the point that no one seems to care about the people who will be injured or die except as a dollar value.

Re: Totally understandable..

[WindBourne]

and the point Im making is that they don't in any way, shape, or form, other than making sure that they will keep their money.

Should be a dog and an "engineer"

[Tokolosh]

The dog is there to bite the "engineer" should he attempt to touch the controls.

The "engineer" is there to feed the dog.

Re:Are self driving cars legal?

[DogDude]

News at 11: Human beings are VERY unsafe drivers. Maybe we should be vetting them first, huh?

Snow?

[RobinH]

Pittsburgh gets a decent amount of snowfall. I thought the one place where nobody was taking self-driving cars yet is through snowy and icy roads. Well, this'll be interesting.

More SELF-DRIVING CARS!!!!1* Hype

[clonehappy]

OMG Uber is testing SELF DRIVING CARS!!!!!!! *

*Self driving only under ideal, open conditions, human operator at the controls about half the time.

Re:More SELF-DRIVING CARS!!!!1* Hype

[DogDude]

In 10 years, there will be very few humans driving around multi-ton chunks of metal at very high speeds very close to other people.

Re:More SELF-DRIVING CARS!!!!1* Hype

[Anonymous Coward]

In 10 years, there will be very few humans driving around multi-ton chunks of metal at very high speeds very close to other people.

More like 50. And the reason won't be self-driving cars, it will be the well-deserved death of the personal automobile (self-driving or otherwise) and the ridiculous practice of transporting individuals across 10s of miles per day to do their work on a networked computer.

Start loving the idea of high density communities with good public transport and ubiquitous "telecommuting".

Re:More SELF-DRIVING CARS!!!!1* Hype

[DirkDaring]

So all the cars on the road today and being sold today will just... what... vanish? Switch your 10 years to 60 and I might agree with out.

third party victims is why they need insurance!

[Joe_Dragon]

Do you want to be the guy all banged up with bills racking up while the courts are dealing with who should pay?

Why should your health insurance pay you where hit by a car we are going after them! The drivers insurance says uber? not covered! Uber says on the app but not on a ride not covered!

Genius! Test cars like you test drivers!

[Anonymous Coward]

" Maybe we should be vetting them first, huh?"

Some sort of test to check they can drive? That's a brilliant idea! Maybe test their eyes too and even their reflexes! Sarcasm aside, maybe you're onto something there. If you think of the learner driver test, maybe that's the level that needs to be reached for the car to take over. If a human driver can't go on the road unless they can steer around bends, then why should a car?

The more I think about it, the more that makes sense. Take it on the road test the same as a learner driver passing a test for their driving license! The car is the driver in this case, so it needs the driving license! Genius.

If you watch the Tesla test drive I linked to, Autopilot fails to take a hairpin, he saves it, he tries again but it won't turn on autopilot, so he takes over on the twisty road, and tries again on a straighter road, and it confuses an acceleration slip lane as the main lane, a minor error but still a fail in a driving test. He turns it off after that. All of those would fail you in a driving test, and should fail the Tesla in that test.

I see Volvo's have lasers too for ranging, which makes sense, but I wouldn't trust them from their promo videos alone. I expect the testing authorities to get their act together.

shabby streets

[PopeRatzo]

The last time Volvo had a big self-driving rollout, it didn't, you know, work out so well. But it was totally because of shabby roads and Americans' inability to paint white lines and in no way the fault of the technology.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Cut Out The Middle Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Soon, Uber will launch an entire fleet of driverless cars in every state.
That means they will no longer need human drivers, and take the profit all for themselves.

Re:Cut Out The Middle Man

[freezin fat guy]

Cut out the (wo)man period. Who needs jobs when you can help the folks at Uber join the 1%? We may want to make sure employment doesn't go the way of the dodo and make some noise when it appears it might.

Re:These cars annoy me every morning.

[fluffernutter]

That's what I fear.. That they will automatically step down to such a low speed that they will create chaos everywhere.

I know how they can get some testers

[DNS-and-BIND]

Just have a contest of some kind to get some test subjects. First prize: a one week trip to Pittsburgh.

Second prize: a two week trip to Pittsburgh.

Re:These cars annoy me every morning.

[Mr D from 63]

Self driving cars is the future, but IMHO, I think the only way it will be safe if there are automation only lanes. .

The biggest challenge with self driving cars is not navigation, turns, keeping it between the lines, etc. It is interaction with human drivers. If you could start from scratch and build a road and navigation infrastructure for 100% autonomous vehicles, it would be rather simple. We already have the tech to accomplish that. But merging an autonomous driving technology into today's starting point is a monumentally hard task. Driving with people involved experience and anticipation, sometimes even looking another driver in the eye to ensure he/she sees you. The turn signal might be on by accident, for example, and there are a plethora of others that require judgement that is really hard to replicate in control system.

as a user of uber, I'd like to opt out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a frequent user of uber, but would pass on the auto driving option, and would not take a self driving car. I take uber a bit in downtown Boston and the UK. I just did this week. I found traffic bad near my destination, how do I tell uber 'pull me over here, traffic is bad, I'll just cut through this alley here'. My experience with non-local drivers in Boston isn't great. They blindly follow gps, and it gets confused easily with the one ways, and lots of buildings. Was picked up by an uber Tues night. The driver was smart enough to park across the street as the front of the restaurant was crowded. I walked across the street, problem solved.

Pittsburg is even worse than Boston. I'd not get into a self driving car there. The combo of PA drivers, PA roads, bridges, cliffs, and weather scares the crap out of me. I'm amazed that uber is leading that much, guess the 'not paying people' is a compelling factor ?

BTW, I still agree with other posters regarding unfair competition. Either free up taxis from restrictions, or require uber to play by the rules. I'm still taking uber when I can, but it's patently unfair competition.

Serious question

[KenHansen]

Will the unmanned über vehicles be able to drive with no humans on board once the trials are over? Will we see swarms of driverless cabs outside airports and train stations?

Volvo; this is going to be good

[WindBourne]

Volvo said they would back the cars. But Volvo is now owned by china gov owned company. So when Volvo, with a level 2 rating slams into somebody ( as it has done multiple times ), the law suit will have to be moved to China. And who thinks that Chinese gov will be fair?

Uber is not the one that will succeed

[WindBourne]

Look, ppl have this wrong. Volvo is Chinese owned. Once Uber helps Volvo succeed with ap, then Volvo will sell cars to Chinese owned companies who will then set up in western cities and control the traffic.

Nice

[nospam007]

OK, but will they be able to do the most basic thing a taxi driver can, like: "Follow that car!"

Looks up how to hotwire self-driving cars

[ArtemaOne]

And they're Volvos too? That may end up being so easy to "commandeer" if the right tools are available.

Level 3 to level 4 needs about 8 more levels

[DirkDaring]

I love how it goes from some functions are automated all the way to full automation in one level. Just flip the switch! Good luck with that.

Re:These cars annoy me every morning.

[DirkDaring]

Best post yet. +1

Re:Are self driving cars legal?

[DirkDaring]

Thats exactly the point however. It's not that the machine is safe, its that the machine has to deal with humans that are unsafe. Thats the problem you don't see in the news with driverless cars.