Slashdot Mirror
Uber's Self-Driving Cars Are Now Picking Up Passengers in Arizona (theverge.com)
Almost two months to the day after Uber loaded its fleet of self-driving SUVs into the trailer of a self-driving truck and stormed off to Arizona in a self-driving huff, the company is preparing to launch its second experiment (if you don't count the aborted San Francisco pilot) in autonomous ride-hailing. From a report on The Verge: What's different is that this time, Uber has the blessing from Arizona's top politician, Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, who is expected to be "Rider Zero" on an autonomous trip along with Anthony Levandowski, VP of Uber's Advanced Technologies Group. [...] Starting today, residents of Tempe, Arizona, can hail a self-driving Volvo XC90 SUV on Uber's ride-sharing platform. All trips will include two Uber engineers in the front seats as safety drivers, in the event a human needs to take over control from the vehicle's software. Uber says it hopes to expand the coverage area to other cities in Arizona in the coming weeks.
If you're driving for Uber, your days are numbered. But you knew that...right?
Yeah right. I'm just trying to decide if this is more advertising budget, or illicit grant money.
the laws may take 3-5 years to get rid of drivers and it may take one jackpot payout accident to put a quick end to the auto drive system.
All trips will include two Uber engineers in the front seats as safety drivers
Google has also done this several times as a PR stunt without the taxi fare, they let a legally blind man ride with them back in 2012. I would imagine the fare is pretty irrelevant anyway when you have an expensive test vehicle and two engineers to pay. So what's really new here that hasn't already been done 5 years ago? Is there any reason to believe that in 5 years it'll be any different? I understand it's difficult, but I'm getting tired of the hype that self-driving cars are right around the corner. Two safety drivers on every ride isn't exactly self-driving. Any bets on when you can actually get into the back of a self-driving car with no helpers, no license and have the car drive? I'm starting to guess 2030+ while like totally being just "a few years out" all the way...
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
No this is Uber remember the drivers are all self employed
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Self-driving cars are a joke. These cars have TWO DRIVERS IN THEM. We won't have autonomous cars any time soon.
Quite, the same thing happened when they started to introduce human driven motor vehicles in place of the horse powered vehicles in the late 19th Century. A few lawsuits later, and nobody wanted to drive cars any more because of the risk. That's why we're stuck with horse and buggies in 2017, and nobody has gasoline or electrically powered motor vehicles.
(The concept you're looking for is "Insurance".)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Somebody here has probably done the math. Does it really make sense economically for Uber to get 100% of the cost of a ride this way but having to spend money to buy main, maintain and insure cars? Or is this another sign of a company that doesn't know what it is doing, perhaps most recently suggested by the recent charges of sexism and sexual harassment?
Yes - that thing the human drivers of Uber don't have when they are working as Uber taxi drivers. It will be a step forward if Uber spends money on insurance for these things instead of cutting corners and imposing their costs on others.
Mexico -it its part of Trump's crackdown on illegals
the cars immediately made lewd comments to female passengers. Too soon?
California revoked their registrations and banned them. If that was a ploy by CDMV to get them to pay the appropriate bribes for access it certainly backfired. Otherwise, the CA got exactly what it wanted.
Quite, the same thing happened when they started to introduce human driven motor vehicles in place of the horse powered vehicles in the late 19th Century. A few lawsuits later, and nobody wanted to drive cars any more because of the risk. That's why we're stuck with horse and buggies in 2017, and nobody has gasoline or electrically powered motor vehicles.
(The concept you're looking for is "Insurance".)
It's not just insurance.
It's all the motor-vehicle-centric laws that were created to make it de facto all-but-perfectly-OK to squash other people with your car.
Drive dangerously with your two-ton car through a crowded city, and what happens to you? Maybe a civil fine if you do it in front of a policeman with nothing better to do than pull you over, but most probably absolutely nothing. Hell, even if you run over and kill someone you wind up paying a fine, maybe get a short jail sentence.
Pop a few rounds off from a handgun in a random direction in the same location, and what happens to you, in just about any country on the planet? Target of a major manhunt, arrested, tossed in jail, maybe even shot and killed by the police - and that's just from shooting a few rounds. Actually hit or kill someone and it's much worse.
Yet which one is actually more dangerous?
what is he? an array?
self-driving truck and stormed off to Arizona in a self-driving huff,
Do the cars that pick up the people also storm off in a huff? It would be funny if they also call the passengers "meatbags" and tell them to "bite my shiny metal ass"
That's kind of a dumb analogy. If anything, we are returning to horse and buggy days with a vehicle that is only indirectly controlled by the passenger. A lot of people like cars for the extra control they provide the driver, not for all the stuff they can do by themselves.
I was just talking to an insurance agent the other day - State Farm at least has decided that they might as well make some money off this and are now offering a rideshare endorsement. Not sure how much extra it would be for your average Uber driver.
they will sub out the cars so the rider is the renter and uber get's out of needing any insuring and if the car crashes then the renter get's hit with lot's of junk fees.
You have to include the value that you receive from driving as compared to handgun ownership.
Cards are this country's primary form of transportation, so there is greater tolerance for accidental death, while handguns are simply an emotional safety-blanket with no real redeemable value.
Now throw into this mixture a fleet of cars, strictly obeying speed limits, preferring to slow down rather than speed up on yellow, refuse to use free right turns, coming to full stops on grade crossings... A few Access vans, school buses and trucks doing this itself annoys people stuck behind them in traffic. Now suddenly a large fleet of vehicles with a spinning dome on the head ....
Also, in the game of chicken, the winning strategy is to appear be irrational. Break your steering wheel and throw it away in full view of the competitor, "I can't swerve, even if I want to, your move buddy!". All these cars are known to rational decision makers. They will be gamed like nobody's business. People will dangerously cut infront of them, be very rude to them, after all they are machines, no hard feeling. And every time the self driving car will slow down, yield, and let the barbarians get away with it.
In isolated test cases, in small numbers they will work. But large number of them interacting with large number of normal people, they will be forever stuck on the highway ramp or left turn yield on green locations.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Yes - that thing the human drivers of Uber don't have when they are working as Uber taxi drivers.
That's not strictly true, since Uber insures them while they have a fare. The only time they aren't covered is while they are on their way to pick up a fare.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Hop aboard the Dereg Express!
Table-ized A.I.
If they don't model these cars after the Johnny Cab, I'm not interested.
So instead of a driver who makes (c) $300 / day - they're going to have 2 engineers each making $120K/year each in the front seat....
Steal underpants --> profit...
Somethings amiss at the Circle K
Have gnu, will travel.
So, let's see... The new Uber service has 2 drivers instead of the traditional single driver. With 2 drivers, it is now considered "self-driving." Sure, I understand perfectly. All hail the high tech emperor!
handguns are simply an emotional safety-blanket with no real redeemable value
You want to believe that, but you don't.
by mandating two licensed drivers at all times instead of one.
Really? Their "self driving" cars apparently need two engineers in them in case anything goes wrong. This whole thing is bullshit so that Uber can scam even more money from their investors to feed their $2billion/ year losses.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
I am not really in favor of these cars, but consider this counter argument.
I have a 17 mile commute to work. The divided 2 and 3 lane highway is a mile from my house, and my office is right off the exit. So it is effectively all highway miles. I can usually make it in 20-23 minutes. Most of the trip is a 60MPH speed limit. Traffic is normally 70-75 MPH, with a few others on the margin of that. Pretty much what you stated.
But why does it take me 20+ minutes to get to work? Because when we aren't going 75, we are stopped. There are natural areas where it slows, like where it goes from 3 lanes to 2, or where onramps bring in more traffic. But there are other areas where we just come to a stop for no reason other than people jockeying for position, right-lane-passing, tailgating and braking.
One day it was snowing quite a lot, and mostly everyone was driving a bit more cautious. It was 60 MPH all the way to work. I didn't even need to touch my brakes until I exited for my office. People stayed in their lanes and it was so much less stressful. It took me 22 minutes door to door. So while the idea of self-driving cars still creeps me out, there is part of me that KNOWS it would be more efficient in some ways. It's a big leap to get to that point, and I personally don't see myself ever having a self-driving car... but who knows. I think it is worth testing it out.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Horses and buggies were driven by humans too.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
What I am waiting for is the opportunity to send my car on errands. I'll order my groceries, gasoline/electricity etc. online and send the car to get it. I hate traveling or even being away from home, whether or not I'm the one driving.
A typical horse has a higher level of cognition and common sense than any so-called 'self driving car' does right now, and that's the way it's going to be for a long time to come yet.
Why are the drivers going to be run over by a self driving Uber car being tested?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
self-driving truck and stormed off to Arizona in a self-driving huff,
Do the cars that pick up the people also storm off in a huff? It would be funny if they also call the passengers "meatbags" and tell them to "bite my shiny metal ass"
Surely they can do better than huffs. They've gotta be hell in Phoenix during summer:
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Sadly, in many real, violent situations, you may not have the time or ability to draw your weapon and use it effectively. If you are in a situation where you can, then a gun is definitely is a fantastic equalizer. If otoh, your wife/husband/son/daughter/boyfriend/girlfriend gets very angry and in a fit uses the gun on you, then, there too it will be very effective. There's also the cases when your toddler or young child pulls the gun out of your purse at the Walmart and quickly and surprisingly ends your life.
Only I can judge you.
I totally want a car that drops me off at the store entrance then goes off to negotiate parking or picks up some passengers and makes us some money on the side while I am shopping.
Only I can judge you.
Yeah, because those uber cars totally freak out when they hear a gunshot or someone slaps their rear quarter-panel galloping off in a blind panic.
Only I can judge you.
That makes my point for me. They would not be going to pick up that fare if the Uber dispatch service did not tell them to do so. Other taxi companies cover their drivers the entire time that they are working for them.
It's 19th century piecework with an app.
It's best when discussing the Uber taxi company to not use their "rideshare" deliberate obfiscation because that leads down the rabbit hole where terms are meaningless.
The "uber" was not already going in that direction so the ride is not being shared. It is very deliberately a confusing falsehood so that the Uber taxi company can evade regulations, taxation and employment laws. So much time is wasted on arguing about what the hell they mean and in that time they have done what they want no matter what the public or governments wish for.
Insurance of the right sort existed before Uber it is just that Uber choose to cut that corner in addition to all of the others.
Yes - that thing the human drivers of Uber don't have when they are working as Uber taxi drivers.
That's not strictly true, since Uber insures them while they have a fare. The only time they aren't covered is while they are on their way to pick up a fare.
Which is part of the problem. Away from Planet Uber, if your journey is undertaken for work purposes (which going to meet a customer clearly is) you are "at work", and should be covered by work-related insurance. That's why regular taxi drivers have to have commercial insurance; private car insurance doesn't cover operating as a driver-for-hire.
The fun part is that, despite the all the penny-pinching (and the hype), Uber is hemorrhaging money.
Words are already meaningless - just look at every name for a bill in Congress - it is named almost exactly the opposite of what it does. The "peaceful protest" bill that lets rioters off if they are Democrats protesting Trump...
Which is part of the problem. Away from Planet Uber, if your journey is undertaken for work purposes (which going to meet a customer clearly is) you are "at work", and should be covered by work-related insurance. That's why regular taxi drivers have to have commercial insurance; private car insurance doesn't cover operating as a driver-for-hire.
I've heard this argument before, but for me it doesn't wash specifically because the secret formula used to determine how much you will pay for auto insurance includes a location component and a mileage component. If you're putting on more miles, and they know you live in an urban area, they can just price your insurance payments to account for your use of the vehicle. The only time you really need more coverage than they ordinarily provide is when you are transporting a fare. They shouldn't be allowed to deny you coverage while you're en route to a destination, because traveling to destinations is an ordinary thing for drivers to do.
The fun part is that, despite the all the penny-pinching (and the hype), Uber is hemorrhaging money.
As far as I can tell they are scumbuckets, but I am still in favor of the legal changes they are attempting to work, because I am against the monopoly that the entrenched taxi industry possesses in those places where that is the case. Where I actually live, we don't have one big taxi company that runs everything. We have a number of individuals who run single-vehicle taxi services. Of course, if they become large and successful enough (and I don't mean by eating a lot of drive-through) they can add vehicles and drivers to their businesses, and eventually get enough money to lobby for protectionist laws that will cause the same problem here. And since here is in the sticks, the amount of money necessary for a bribe might be much less than it is in the city.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Really? Their "self driving" cars apparently need two engineers in them in case anything goes wrong.
Google seems to do the same thing with no non-employee passengers at all. I live in Phoenix (specifically, a region called Ahwatukee, which borders Tempe) and I see Google's self-driving cars periodically around here with not less than two but sometimes three people in them.
I don't think it's an "in case anything goes wrong" (they only need one for that) so much as it is a "let's have more than one set of eyes to make notes of what goes wrong so we can update the software later," with the person in the driver's seat more focused on the road like a normal driver would be, while the person in the passenger seat is looking beyond that. I don't know what the third person would be for, but it would make sense if they were watching the spots that are less visible to the people in the front seats.
Yes but it's not just the protectionist laws that Uber are breaking. That's just a part of the swathes of laws they are breaking to cut corners. In Australia for example they have not paid tax since setting up and a raid by the tax office resulted in no employee information since that is apparently all in Holland.
It's as if the Scientologists decided to run taxis.
In Australia for example they have not paid tax since setting up and a raid by the tax office resulted in no employee information since that is apparently all in Holland.
Sounds like they really think they're clever. Like I said, scumbuckets. However, they are fighting to change laws I want changed, and I like that about them. I also think they're going to be made irrelevant by competition and/or driven out of business for their illegal actions.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
99 out of 100 of you think you know about so-called 'self driving' cars because you believe the media hype and haven't even thought it through or done any other reading on the subject. They're not ANYWHERE NEAR being human-level drivers, let alone 'better' than human drivers, they have to be 100% supervised. Get used to the idea that you're going to continue to need a drivers license and keeping your skills sharp because you will need them probably the rest of your life.
That is a side effect of their utter contempt for anything other than making money by cutting as many corners as possible and their customers and staff be damned.
Government protected monopolies have sucked since King John used it as a way to raise extra cash (and most likely earlier) but Uber are not really fighting against that stuff, they are quite happy to bribe their way around it and still leave those laws in place to impact on everyone else.
How can you build an honest business on such an obvious lie as "ride sharing"?
Anyway, that's my opinion - "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" and all that. Uber are not on our side even if they are trying to weasel their way around some unjust laws that we do not like either. They just want a clause in those unjust laws exempting Uber and not the repeal of them. I don't really see that as "fighting to change laws I want changed" despite them wanting to project that image.