[HN Gopher] Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in S... ___________________________________________________________________ Cruise is opening driverless cars to the public in San Francisco Author : d-jones Score : 226 points Date : 2022-02-01 18:35 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.getcruise.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.getcruise.com) | serverlessmom wrote: | When I was in Vegas last I called for a "driverless car" via Lyft | but instead of an empty car a male driver with a second man | riding shotgun showed up to pick me up. The entire scenario made | me feel sketched out so I refused to take the ride because I've | seen so many news reports of people getting assaulted by drivers. | I and many of my friends would feel more comfortable with the | option of a driverless ride so I definitely understand the | appeal. I'm excited to hear how this goes. | gjs278 wrote: | joakleaf wrote: | The Cruise tech presentation from last fall seems very relevant: | | https://youtu.be/uJWN0K26NxQ | | (Highly recommended for anyone interested in self-driving cars!) | thenewwazoo wrote: | I got hired for my dream job at Cruise, and then was offered | near-as-makes-no-difference 3x the TC to work with a friend a | week later. I basically completed the new-hire onboarding and | then quit. It fucking _hurt_ to do that. What I saw there made me | a believer. Cruise is doing amazing shit. | rootusrootus wrote: | I need friends like yours. Damn. | RIMR wrote: | "Today we are opening up our driverless cars in San Francisco to | the public - I'm still surprised I can even write those words" | | I, uh, don't know if I like a CEO who is surprised that he's | being allowed to do the thing he is doing. | atarian wrote: | I'll believe it when it actually happens. I signed up for Waymo | in SF last year and still haven't gotten any updates for that. | Rygian wrote: | Do Cruise driverless cars roll their stops when safe to do so? | justicz wrote: | Amazing job to everyone working at Cruise who is making this | happen... absolutely incredible! | georgeburdell wrote: | I'm concerned about the timing of this. Former CEO Dan Ammann, | fired in December, was a big champion of the robotaxi business | model. It is speculated he was fired because GM CEO Mary Barra | disagrees with this strategy and wants them to focus more on | integration with existing GM vehicles. | | I am afraid that the robotaxi timeline was pulled in so that the | rest of the believers inside Cruise can get supporting data to | prove it's a viable model and to make it harder for Mary to | change its course. This may come at the expense of safety. | belter wrote: | "Cruise CEO to step down as GM accelerates self-driving car | plans" | | https://www.engadget.com/cruise-ceo-to-step-down-as-gm-accel... | | "GM's Barra Dismissed Cruise CEO Ammann Over Mission, IPO | Timing" | https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/rk0v7h/gms_... | ironmagma wrote: | I wouldn't read too much into firings at Cruise. Working there | was like a company-sized game of "The Weakest Link". Anyone | worth their salt gets fired eventually, it's just the way they | operate. | jonny_eh wrote: | > Anyone worth their salt gets fired eventually, | | Isn't The Weakest Link about firing the worst performers? | ironmagma wrote: | Based on just a few mistakes and a poll and where a firing | happens approximately every 5 minutes. | nichochar wrote: | [Disclaimer] I work for cruise. | | Safety is the most critical value that our company has, and we | live it every day in all of our processes / culture. I won't | comment on the executive changes, but I can guarantee that this | company (unlike some rivals...) would never compromise safety | in any decision. | more_corn wrote: | I once threw myself in front of a cruise vehicle to test it | for safety. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, I saw it | coming, sped up and jumped into an open parking spot on a | trajectory that would take me in front of I didn't stop) It | performed admirably. The safety driver didn't see me coming | but the computer did. The car decelerated to the point it | would be able to stop if I kept coming. The safety driver | couldn't figure out what was happening at first. He was | PISSED when he figured it out. Having done that and having | never seen one commit an error or safety infraction, I now | have a high degree of trust in the safety of cruise vehicles. | more_corn wrote: | Contrast this to the catastrophic self driving test Uber | did on the streets of San Francisco before their cars got | thrown out of California. | kfarr wrote: | Can confirm from personal experience in crosswalks with | self driving cars: cruise is the most timid (read safest!) | of the self driving cars being tested in SF IMHO. Cruise | will proactively alter trajectory (such as deceleration) | for pedestrians and cyclists at a noticeably earlier | threshold than Waymo. This is much more pleasant for | everyone surrounding the vehicle as it clearly expresses | that you have been recognized as a being needing space. | dont__panic wrote: | Urban bicyclist here. I don't life in SF, but I'm really | curious how current autonomous vehicles behave around | cars. If you're biking down a one-way street with little | room, do most autonomous vehicles just wait behind you? | Do they try to pass? What kind of follow distance would | they give a bicyclist who "dominates" the lane because | it's too narrow to let a car pass safely? | BA4gDY-cqjsEPWn wrote: | Fun fact: If you try to submit the form with ad-blockers enabled, | it errors out saying "Blocked request. Please disable any add | blockers" (typo included) :-) | d-jones wrote: | Good eye | mlindner wrote: | I'm not interested in cars I can't own. This idea that we'll turn | cars into some kind of service and convert roads into places | filled with company-owned vehicles is completely foreign. At that | point it'd be cheaper to have self-driving buses and subways. I | can only think this viewpoint comes from people who have only | ever lived in cities where car ownership is inconvenient given | the lack of personal garages. At the moment the only company | working towards this idea is Tesla, which is unfortunate. I'd | like to see more companies working towards selling self-driving | vehicles to customers. | alexchamberlain wrote: | City dweller, raised in a village in the east of England. I got | my license 3 months after my 17th and already had a car - I've | had a car ever since. | | I'd give it up in a heartbeat if hiring a car was easier and | more economical, but the reality is that for visiting family | over weekends, renting would cost about the same as owning the | car full time. The convenience of then having the car ready to | go whenever you want it wins out. | | I sincerely hope that self driving cars bring in the | possibility of renting it for a couple of hours as it drives us | to Kent to visit the in laws then drives itself back to London, | or simply re-clusters itself into the local network ready to | take us back on Sunday evening. | more_corn wrote: | Signed up. Hopefully they get back to me faster than Waymo's | response time (not hard to get better than never) | buttsecks wrote: | punnerud wrote: | The next thing is a driverless car and a driverless bus "docking" | at speed, so you can change vehicle without affecting your trip | time. | | Economics will outcompete 50 self-driving cars going in the same | direction for 30min when you could have one driverless-bus doing | the same. | | If this transition is smooth and fast, think what this will do to | traveling time, car prices and property prices. How far can you | travel without stops and no traffic jam? | kaycebasques wrote: | This is a bit surprising to me. I haven't seen many Cruise cars | on SF roads in the last few months. I've seen a hell of a lot of | Waymo, on the other hand. | | Separate thought: | | > I'm still surprised I can even write those words -- this moment | really snuck up on me. | | This seems to be poorly worded PR considering how much general | worry there is over the safety of self-driving cars. If I were | writing it, I would have phrased it along the lines of "I've been | waiting months and months for this. We've been ready for months | but we understandably had to triple-check all our compliance | etc." | psanford wrote: | I still see a lot of Cruise cars training in the mission. | AlotOfReading wrote: | They have a nearby garage next to the Costco in SoMa. Zoox | also has a small garage across the street next to the SPCA | building. | opportune wrote: | I see Cruise a _ton_ around downtown, but Waymo and Zoox seem | to be test driving through a larger part of the city. | | Some times I will see a fleet of Waymo cars in quick | succession, going through seemingly the same route | sairahul82 wrote: | The tech behind it is explained very well here. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJWN0K26NxQ It actually gave me | confidence on overall self driving car approach | truthwhisperer wrote: | zerotosixty wrote: | So is this just SF? How many people can actually sign up and use | it? | | Wow thats a nice amount of funding? Is this going to be their | last funding round before they IPO? Is there a VC who give more | funding? Are employees gonna be rich or is this gonna be a wework | scenario? | [deleted] | pbharrin wrote: | Cruise was aquired by GM in 2016, unless they are spun off | there won't be an IPO. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_(autonomous_vehicle) | a_t48 wrote: | They were spun off when Softbank invested. There's SEC | filings on it. | Nelkins wrote: | I would love to see these in more rural areas without great | transit options. I would love to be able to take a driverless car | to and from a bar when there isn't population density to support | many taxis. | tmpz22 wrote: | Is there any solution yet that doesn't require the driver to be | sober in order to intervene at any given moment? | almost_usual wrote: | Any information on boundaries within city limits? | buttsecks wrote: | walrus01 wrote: | Based on this image: | | https://images.ctfassets.net/95kuvdv8zn1v/6h1C7lPC79OLOlddEE... | | They and their VC backers are clearly betting on the concept that | radars + lidar + imaging will be the ultimate successful solution | in full self driving cars, as a completely opposite design and | engineering philosophy from Tesla attempting to do "full self | driving" with camera sensors and categorical rejection of lidar. | | It is interesting to me that right now this is sitting on the HN | homepage directly adjacent to: "Tesla to recall vehicles that may | disobey stop signs (reuters.com)" | gitfan86 wrote: | What is success? | | Does 50 miles of geofenced and daily mapped streets mean Cruise | won self driving? | | What if Waymo gets to 20k miles of geofenced roads and monthly | mapped? | | What if Tesla gets to the point of one intervention/crash every | 100k miles? 10M Miles? | fossuser wrote: | Yeah, they're not trying to solve the same thing? | | I think Tesla is right that to solve it for real you need to | solve the general case which can't rely on high resolution | maps. | | The city cab case is smaller and can, so the cruise approach | makes sense for that use case. It's just narrower. | ghaff wrote: | Or you solve for a subset of highways in a subset of | weather conditions. That would be more useful to a lot of | people than city cabs which exist today (with human | drivers). | jowday wrote: | The truth of it is that it's just not possible (with | currently existing technology/ML architectures) to create a | truly autonomous taxi without HD maps. Everyone in the | robotaxi industry knows this - even Tesla builds HD maps, | they just don't call them that. | stevofolife wrote: | Success? Go from point A to point B with minimal incidents. | It's not that complicated as most people make out of it. | danielrhodes wrote: | Cruise is interesting insofar as they are not simply looking | to sell their technology, but they also want to monetize it | as a service. Not only will they not need a driver, they will | also be able to buy the hardware (the car) at cost. If it's | successful, their margins will be much higher than Uber and | Lyft by a long shot. | vkou wrote: | As a taxpayer who pays for roads, and suffers from traffic | congestion caused by one-occupant and zero-occupant | vehicles, I'm eagerly looking forward to reducing the taxes | I pay, by taxing those margins, instead. | | Ideally, the taxes could be high enough that driverless | taxis will operate at barely above break-even. The | financial comfort of me and my neighbours are more | important to me than the profit margins of a firm that | barely employs anyone in my town. | | Unlike a factory or a corporate office (that can threaten | to move offshore, eliminating jobs and impoverishing a | town), the firm in question is a hostage of local politics | - not the other way around. | jurassic wrote: | Do you think your experience of congestion would be | improved by everyone driving private vehicles instead? | Not sure I follow the logic here. | ghaff wrote: | Of course. If one assumes relatively inexpensive rob- | taxis people living outside cities will definitely come | in more often. I certainly would. | babyshake wrote: | On the other hand, Uber and Lyft externalize many costs | including liability. | whimsicalism wrote: | Is this not what effectively everyone who is doing this | (outside of Tesla) is looking at? | comex wrote: | The human accident rate is about one per 500K miles, so if | they were able to get in that range, then yes, they would | have succeeded; drivers would be able to stop paying | attention to the road without putting themselves and others | in danger. | | But the current FSD beta's intervention rate is more like one | per 10 miles, judging from some quick googling. I see no | particular reason to assume that incremental improvement can | take us from 10 to 500K. | judge2020 wrote: | The real averages of FSD intervention are unknown since | some 2,000 Tesla employees also have NDA'd Beta access, and | it would surely differ between rural, suburban, and urban | roads. | waffle_maniac wrote: | > current FSD beta's intervention rate is more like one per | 10 miles | | Maybe in rural areas? The videos on YouTube are far more | than one per 10 miles. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTybjJj0ptw | whimsicalism wrote: | A helpful link for your perusal: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias | gitfan86 wrote: | But are you using confirmation bias to find a cognitive | bias that fits here. | | But, In all seriousness we don't have access to the data | across all 60k FSD users to know what the intervention | rate is and how it has been changing over time. | V__ wrote: | On quick watch the driver intervenes at 4min 45sec and | 5min 47sec. | dabeeeenster wrote: | Not accident rate; crash rate. | kabes wrote: | It also depends on what kind of miles. Are they running at | the same speed? Only easy highways or complex urban | intersections? | oh_sigh wrote: | I always wondered why the rejection of lidar by Tesla. My guess | is that it is more about profitability/availability than | anything else. Just because humans use eyeballs doesn't mean | that it is the best bet for a computer. This sort of | naturalistic fallacy led people to believe (~130 years ago and | beyond) that the ideal flying machines would have flapping | wings because, well, birds have wings and that is how they fly. | | Maybe I'm just salty my 2021 Model Y had lidar stripped out of | it, and to me the more tech toys the better. Not that it | matters because Tesla FSD is a scam and I wouldn't use it even | if it came for free with the car. | ra7 wrote: | Lidar was expensive back then and would've added huge costs | to the vehicles. Not to mention, it looked ugly on consumer | cars. Elon conveniently used "humans use only vision" as an | excuse and promised every Tesla has "sufficient" hardware for | full autonomy. It's that premature promise that doesn't let | them add sensors even now (and perhaps Elon's ego) without | breaking trust and/or eating big costs for retrofitting. | | In short, Elon made a high risk bet that vision-only would be | enough and so far has been proven horribly wrong. But I've | got to say, it was brilliantly executed because it gave Tesla | mindshare as a tech company, drove sales and contributed | massively to their insane valuation. | kvogt wrote: | Cruise CEO here. | | Our strategy has been to solve the challenges needed to operate | driverless robotaxis on a well-equipped vehicle, then | aggressively drive the cost down. Many OEMs are doing this in | reverse order. They're trying to squeeze orders of magnitude of | performance gains out of really low-cost hardware. Today it's | unclear what strategy will win. | | In a few years our next generation of low-cost compute and | sensing lands in these vehicles and our service area will be | large enough that you forget there is even a geofence. If OEMs | have still not managed to get the necessary performance gains | to go fully driverless, we'll know what move was the right one. | | We shared several details on how our system works and our | future plans here: | https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkK2JX1iHuzz7W8z3roCZ... | self_driving wrote: | petilon wrote: | Congrats on your incredible accomplishment! Thanks for doing | this the responsible way. Tesla's approach does not inspire | confidence. Starting at the high end, with expensive, | reliable tech and slowly bringing the costs (and bulkiness of | the equipment) down is the right approach! | mocmoc wrote: | Amazing I've been following cruise long time z, those videos | were so funny. Keep on going and conquer the world! | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | It's good to hear a CEO say "we don't know the answer, but | we're making a bet" rather than the typical Elizabeth Holmes | style "We are absolutely correct and first they ignore you, | then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you get | convicted of three counts of wire fraud and go to prison". | chx wrote: | pulse7 wrote: | Thank you for sharing! Sharing details on how your system | works brings confidence to customers... | belter wrote: | Did you watch the videos? | | Based on the reply to the question: What sets Cruise | technology apart from others like Waymo, Tesla...In other | words, how was this difficult technical problem, solved in | a way others, were unable to so far...whose reply you can | hear ( video at the correct time) here: | | https://youtu.be/ABto5nqWgc0?list=PLkK2JX1iHuzz7W8z3roCZEqM | L... | | thank you, but wont be volunteering to ride one of these. | thomastu wrote: | Will Cruise eventually be available on existing TNCs and | other MaaS platforms? Or is the play here to create a new | vertically integrated taxi service? | | If you've read Dan Sperling's Three Revolutions, any thoughts | on what kind of [transportation | future](https://www.planningreport.com/2018/03/21/dan- | sperling-three...) you foresee Cruise contributing to | building ? | user3939382 wrote: | My conclusion from years of self-driving, LIDAR, etc. | research is that managing medium to heavy precipitation | reliably might be impossible. | | Visual algorithms run into the same problem as human brains, | and the size of e.g. rain drops interferes with the | frequencies employed by radio techniques. | | Is anyone aware of any strategies that give us hope in | solving this problem? | walrus01 wrote: | I know next to nothing about lidar engineering but 60GHz | band radars can still function out to several hundred | meters in rain. It is significantly attenuated as the rain | rate (in mm/hour) increases, but it takes a lot of rain to | make it completely useless. | rabuse wrote: | Summers in South Florida will put that to the challenge. | abeppu wrote: | Though ... how good a job are humans actually doing in | heavy precipitation? I know that under normal circumstances | our brains constantly do a bunch of work to create the | illusion of a comprehensive high res visual field even | though we really only have detail at the fovea. When it's | raining heavily, and we think we can see "enough" to drive | ... are we right? Or are we just lucky and pedestrians and | cyclists are more likely to be off the road at those | moments and so accidents increase but not to the point of | disaster? | schrep wrote: | Congrats on this huge milestone! | | So refreshing to see a leader in this field say "we are not | sure which one will work out" rather than just hyping their | stuff. | | Can I get a test ride soon! | bheights321 wrote: | I see a few neighborhoods missing on the signup sheet. Are | the crazy Bernal Heights streets a bit too much for this | stage? :) | | Looking forward to ride from my home there! | pmorici wrote: | They are wholly owned by GM are they not? Starting this way | doesn't preclude them taking Tesla's vision only approach in | the future. Even Tesla initially had a radar vision combination | approach before moving to pure vision. The real question with | whatever technique being used is can they drive the hardware | cost low enough that it can be widely deployed. | jowday wrote: | They moved to pure vision because they were constrained by | radar suppliers because of supply chain issues and the chip | shortage, not because of any ML progress - they were actually | investigating using a higher resolution imaging radar before | the pandemic. | judge2020 wrote: | They also have Lidar cars in Fremont that drive around | every so often, that doesn't mean they plan to go into | every car anytime soon. It'd be short-sighted to not | continuously evaluate solutions that previously had | constraints (despite what Elon says, they'd add Lidar if it | made economic sense and it showed an improvement over | camera-only, as their camera detection is pretty accurate | these days in FSD). | jowday wrote: | I've seen their LIDAR cars in SF too - if I had to guess | they're gathering ground truth data to train monocular | depth models on. | | And even really naive integrations of LIDAR will show big | improvements over camera only. You can do something as | simple as overlay the returns from the most recent LIDAR | spin over a camera image as a fourth channel and feed it | into your models and most of your depth | prediction/spatial predictions will improve dramatically. | more_corn wrote: | The reason camera only won't happen is because it won't work. | Elon has been fighting reality for years. | judge2020 wrote: | How does a human identify obstacles, VRUs [0], and other | cars? | | 0: vulnerable road users, eg pedestrians and bicyclists | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | How does a bird fly? | | For human flight, we borrowed the wings, but made them | fixed and added propellers, to cheat the mechanical | incompetence. | | I wouldn't be shocked that radar/lidar/sonar/whatever | sensors are what it takes to cover the incompetence in | matching human brain+vision. | | Heck, use multiple "brains" and give each veto power on | moving the vehicle. Supposing that stopping doesn't kill | you, that would at most frequently annoy the driver, and | sometimes save his life or someone else's. | rootusrootus wrote: | > How does a human identify | | With the most complex, context-aware, intuitive computer | in existence. In addition to eyeballs that are | _dramatically_ more capable than any camera Tesla is | using. | lern_too_spel wrote: | The human visual system works more like a high resolution | event camera than a frame-based camera. Event cameras can | deal well with glare and other problems that would | otherwise require high dynamic range per frame. | upbeat_general wrote: | This is true but there's a bit more to it. Going vision-only | is a big move that requires innovation in a lot of areas and | changes huge parts of the stack. | | Tesla was already _heavily_ relying on vision before going | vision-only. | ChrisClark wrote: | Yeah, but that's not a tech issue. The few thousand that have | the full self driving beta just have the opt-in option to turn | on rolling stops. That just has to be removed in their next | update. | borski wrote: | As you'll note in the comments on that thread though, FSD has | a _lot_ more issues than just that; particularly with | stationary objects and at night. | ddlutz wrote: | I don't have FSD enabled on my Model 3, but I have the FSD | visualization preview. I'd be terrified of FSD at night. | During the day I don't see it have any issues registering | cars and other obstacles, but during night it barely | detects anything. | sremani wrote: | The question is do the economics of self-driving cars work when | you have to add and integrate all these additional equipment. | Correct me, if I am wrong but aren't LIDAR cars supposed to | cost you $200K+ ? | | Tesla is imitating humans in a way that removing LIDAR and | relying on the compute to make up for them and build more | accurate picture. | | Also, isn't Cruise owned by GM - who are the VCs here? | jowday wrote: | What makes you say Tesla is imitating humans? Their motion | planning is all traditional robotics logic, not anything | learned. | robotresearcher wrote: | Vision-based driving. Humans don't have lidar sensors. | jowday wrote: | Humans don't regress per-pixel depth or use convolutions | and region proposals to draw bounding boxes around | objects. They don't function on models with fixed weights | trained by backprop either. The idea that "vision only" | somehow more closely resembles how humans drive quickly | falls apart if you inspect the internals of these | systems. | ra7 wrote: | Lidar costs have dropped massively and continues to drop. | Waymo, for example, claimed 4 years ago they were able to | reduce cost of their Lidar by 90% from $75,000 to around | $7500 [1]. In the meantime, range and resolution of these | sensors have increased. Anyone not making use of Lidar in | this day is just hamstringing themselves. | | [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/googles-waymo-reduces- | lidar-... | maxerickson wrote: | If you search for "bosch lidar" there's a bunch of 2 year old | news about them selling one designed for autonomous vehicles | for $10,000, with statements that they could likely drive the | price towards $200 with mass production. | | So $200,000 is probably not correct. | more_corn wrote: | It is correct for current pricing. Advances may drive those | prices down. Right now the sensor packages exceed the price | of all the other components. | threeseed wrote: | > Tesla is imitating humans in a way that removing LIDAR | | They are trying to imitate a fraction of what humans can do. | And the state of the art ML research still does not account | for issues like whether a photo of a person on a truck is | real or not. | | You really need LiDAR for accurate bounding box detection. | thebean11 wrote: | 200k isn't that much for certain use cases, like shared cars. | NYC taxi medallions were significantly more expensive yet the | revenue from taxi rides was high enough that people kept | buying medallions. | parkingrift wrote: | Tesla will release L4 or L5 self driving this year. Musk said | it himself. | | Please ignore the fact that this is the 7th (or more?) year in | a row he has said this. | adrr wrote: | I still want a functional autopilot that doesn't phantom | brake on the freeway which has gotten worse since they | stopped relying on radar. Or have the self park feature not | curb the wheels. I won't even get started on the summon | feature. | enjoylife wrote: | They are betting that hardware combination is the fastest to | market, given the constraints of today software. | | When the ml stack is capable of leveraging purely camera | sensors, Cruise and others like them, own the fleet and can | swap out the hardware. Tesla does not "own" the fleet per se. | So perhaps its different bets on which cars will still be on | the road when the ML threshold is crossed. | waffle_maniac wrote: | Tesla has really fallen behind. I think Karpathy will be | fired this year if his team can't achieve at least L4. | yupper32 wrote: | > I think Karpathy will be fired this year if his team | can't achieve at least L4. | | Ah so Karpathy will be fired this year. Because they're not | reaching L4. FSD isn't even L3 yet. | ghaff wrote: | I do expect at least some companies will hit L4 within | the decade(?) but it's going to be under limited | conditions that won't include urban driving. Which could | actually be a very useful capability but isn't the "don't | own a car" future that some really are focused on. | | ------ | | Level 4 _ High Automation | | System capability: The car can operate without human | input or oversight but only under select conditions | defined by factors such as road type or geographic area. | * Driver involvement: In a shared car restricted to a | defined area, there may not be any. But in a privately | owned Level 4 car, the driver might manage all driving | duties on surface streets then become a passenger as the | car enters a highway. | | Example: Google's now-defunct Firefly pod-car prototype, | which had neither pedals nor a steering wheel and was | restricted to a top speed of 25 mph. | yupper32 wrote: | Oh sure, L4 within the decade for companies other than | Tesla, totally doable. You could argue Waymo and Cruise | are already there with geo limitations. | | But Tesla within a year with no lidar? Yeah, no. Not | happening. | waffle_maniac wrote: | "I would be shocked if we do not achieve Full Self- | Driving safer than human this year. I would be shocked." | | -- Elon Musk | | He set the milestone. | detaro wrote: | He told investors the same thing last year. Elon | milestones mean nothing. | yupper32 wrote: | He's said that every year since 2014: | https://futurism.com/video-elon-musk-promising-self- | driving-... | threeseed wrote: | > when the ML threshold is crossed | | If, not when. | | Even the most cutting edge research today still pales in | comparison to LiDAR. | sanjoy_das wrote: | > It is interesting to me that right now this is sitting on the | HN homepage directly adjacent to: "Tesla to recall vehicles | that may disobey stop signs (reuters.com)" | | Based on | https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/01/13/a-robo... | Tesla's FSD has other issues as well. | drawkbox wrote: | In the end I think self-driving regulations will require depth | checking beyond computer vision as it can be tricked on any new | situation. Depth checks using LiDAR are extremely efficient up | to a football field away down to the direction someone is | facing. RADAR is not as good but better than video/flat 2D | depth detection though it limited by range, however it does | work in weather where LiDAR doesn't and computer vision | struggles. | | Autopilot and now FSD on Teslas doesn't have depth checking | beyond visual/cameras. They removed the RADAR/sonar and have | zero depth checking currently. Tesla recently instead of adding | LiDAR, they [just removed RADAR to rely on computer vision | alone even more](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/25/tesla- | ditching-radar-for-aut...). | | Self-driving cars need cameras and LiDAR, or at least, RADAR, | Telsa has only cameras and some sensors but not for depth | anymore. That is insane. | | Humans have essentially LiDAR like quick depth testing. Humans | have hearing for RADAR like input. For autonomous units, depth | may be actually MORE important than vision in many scenarios. | Humans have inherent depth checking with 3D space, sound, | lighting, feel, atmosphere, air, pressure, situational | awareness, etcetc etc that computer vision converted to 2D flat | will never be able to replicate. | | A human can glance at a scene and know how far things are not | just by vision but by how that vision changes with these | distance inputs. LiDAR is faster than humans at depth checking | in the actual physical world not just from an image flattened. | | With just cameras, no LiDAR OR RADAR, depth can be fooled. | | Like this: [TESLA KEEPS "SLAMMING ON THE BRAKES" WHEN IT SEES | STOP SIGN ON BILLBOARD](https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla- | slamming-brakes-sees-sto...) | | Or like this: There is the [yellow light, Tesla thinking a Moon | is a yellow light because Telsas have zero depth checking | equipment now that they removed RADAR and refuse to integrate | LiDAR](https://interestingengineering.com/moon-tricks-teslas- | full-s...). | | LIDAR or humans have instant depth processing, it can easily | tell the sign is far away, cameras alone cannot. | | LiDAR and humans can sense changes in motion, cameras cannot. | | [LiDAR vs. | RADAR](https://www.fierceelectronics.com/components/lidar-vs- | radar) | | > _Most autonomous vehicle manufacturers including Google, | Uber, and Toyota rely heavily on the LiDAR systems to navigate | the vehicle. The LiDAR sensors are often used to generate | detailed maps of the immediate surroundings such as | pedestrians, speed breakers, dividers, and other vehicles. Its | ability to create a three-dimensional image is one of the | reasons why most automakers are keenly interested in developing | this technology with the sole exception of the famous automaker | Tesla. Tesla 's self-driving cars rely on RADAR technology as | the primary sensor._ | | > _High-end LiDAR sensors can identify the details of a few | centimeters at more than 100 meters. For example, Waymo 's | LiDAR system not only detects pedestrians but it can also tell | which direction they're facing. Thus, the autonomous vehicle | can accurately predict where the pedestrian will walk. The | high-level of accuracy also allows it to see details such as a | cyclist waving to let you pass, two football fields away while | driving at full speed with incredible accuracy. Waymo has also | managed to cut the price of LiDAR sensors by almost 90% in the | recent years. A single unit with a price tag of 75,000 a few | years ago will now cost just $7,500, making this technology | affordable._ | | > _However, this technology also comes with a few distinct | disadvantages. The LiDAR system can readily detect objects | located in the range of 30 meters to 200 meters. But, when it | comes to identifying objects in the vicinity, the system is a | big letdown. It works well in all light conditions, but the | performance starts to dwindle in the snow, fog, rain, and dusty | weather conditions. It also provides a poor optical | recognition. That's why, self-driving car manufacturers such as | Google often use LIDAR along with secondary sensors such as | cameras and ultrasonic sensors._ | | > _The RADAR system, on the other hand, is relatively less | expensive. Cost is one of the reasons why Tesla has chosen this | technology over LiDAR. It also works equally well in all | weather conditions such as fog, rain, and snow, and dust. | However, it is less angularly accurate than LiDAR as it loses | the sight of the target vehicle on curves. It may get confused | if multiple objects are placed very close to each other. For | example, it may consider two small cars in the vicinity as one | large vehicle and send wrong proximity signal. Unlike the LiDAR | system, RADAR can determine relative traffic speed or the | velocity of a moving object accurately using the Doppler | frequency shift._ | | > _Though Tesla has been heavily criticized for using RADAR as | the primary sensor, it has managed to improve the processing | capabilities of its primary sensor allowing it to see through | heavy rain, fog, dust, and even a car in front of it. However, | besides the primary RADAR sensor, the new Tesla vehicles will | also have 8 cameras, 12 ultrasonic sensors, and the new onboard | computing system. In other words, both technologies work best | when used in combination with cameras and ultrasonic sensors._ | | LiDAR and depth detection will be needed, no matter how good | the pure computer vision solutions get. | | The accidents with Teslas were the Autopilot running into large | trucks with white trailers that blended with the sky so it just | rammed into it thinking it was all sky. LiDAR would have been | able to tell distance and dimension which would have solved | those issues. | | [Even the most recent crash where the Tesla hit an overturned | truck would have been not a problem with LiDAR](https://www.lat | imes.com/california/story/2021-05-16/tesla-dr...). If you ask | me sonar, radar and cameras are not enough, just cameras is | dangerous. | | Eventually I think either Tesla will have to have all these or | regulations will require LiDAR in addition to other tools like | sonar/radar if desired and cameras/sensors of all current types | and more. LiDAR when it is cheaper will get more points almost | like Kinect and each iteration of that will be safer and more | like how humans see. The point cloud tools on iPhone Pro/Max | are a good example of how nice it is. | | Human distance detection is closer to LiDAR than RADAR. We can | easily tell when something is far in the distance and to worry | or not about it. We can easily detect the sky from a diesel | trailer even when they are the same colors. That is the problem | with RADAR only, it can be confused by those things due to | detail and dimension especially on turns like the stop sign one | is. We don't shoot out RADAR or lasers to check distance but we | innately understand distance with just a glance not just from | vision alone though. | | Humans can be tricked by distance but as we move the dimension | and distance becomes more clear, that is exactly LiDARs best | feature and RADARs/CV trouble spot, it isn't as good on turning | or moving distance detection. LiDAR was built for that, that is | why point clouds are easy to make with it as you move around. | LiDAR and humans learn more as they move around or look around. | RADAR can actually be a bit confused by that. LiDAR also has | more resolution far away, it can see more detail far beyond | human vision. | | I think in the end on self-driving cars we'll see BOTH LiDAR | and RADAR but at least LiDAR in addition to computer vision, | they both have pros and cons but LiDAR is by far better at | quick distance checks for items further out. This stop sign | would be no issue for LiDAR. It really just became economical | in terms of using it so it will come down in price and I | predict eventually Tesla will also have to use LiDAR in | addition. | | [Here's an example of where RADAR/cameras were jumpy and caused | an accident around the | Tesla](https://youtu.be/BnbJvUwbewc?t=262), it safely avoids it | but causes traffic around to react and results in an accident. | The Tesla changed lanes and then hit the brakes, the car behind | was expecting it to keep going, then crash.... dangerous. With | LiDAR this would not have been as blocky detection, it would be | more precise and not such a dramatic slow down. | | Until Tesla has LiDAR it will continue to be confused with | things like this: [TESLA AUTOPILOT MISTAKES MOON FOR YELLOW | TRAFFIC LIGHT](https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-autopilot- | mistakes-moon-...) and this: [WATCH TESLA'S FULL SELF-DRIVING | MODE STEER TOWARD ONCOMING HIGHWAY | TRAFFIC](https://futurism.com/the-byte/watch-tesla-self- | driving-steer...). [They are gonna want to fix FSD wanting to | drive toward moving trains](https://twitter.com/TaylorOgan/stat | us/1487080178010542085). | | In the end I bet future self-driving, when it is level 6, will | have computer vision, LiDAR, RADAR and potentially more | (data/maps/etc) to help navigate. [Tesla FSD has been adding | more of data/maps in which is basically what they said they | didn't need to do](https://twitter.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/148 | 8428565347528707), so LiDAR will have to come along eventually. | Proof of them [using maps data](https://twitter.com/IdiocracySp | ace/status/148843350997893939...) and possibly previous driver | data. | | To think a Tesla can drive you without intervention or watching | it closely, there will eventually be a distance confusion and | it won't go well. The name Autopilot was better as it inferred | like a plane where you still have to watch it, though planes | are much further apart. The name Full Self Driving should be | changed immediately even in beta, it is going to be ripe for | lawsuits and problems. | | Tesla is trying to brute force self-driving and it will have | some scary edge cases, always. | jeffbee wrote: | Why do we have to discuss Tesla whenever self-driving comes up? | Cruise has this technology. Waymo has it. There are a | smattering of niche players out there with various levels of | self-driving. Tesla emphatically does not have it. They are not | in the race. | walrus01 wrote: | I agree, but they sure claim to be. Literally marketed as | "full self driving". | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | Actually, I just noticed earlier that todays' wording is | ""full self driving capability". | | Sells for 12k USD here, for instance: | https://www.tesla.com/modely/design#overview | amelius wrote: | Musk is a true car salesman. | ultrablack wrote: | Where can I buy one? | desertraven wrote: | The Cruise CEO is here, along with many grand stories of how | good/safe their vehicles are. | | I can't help but think this thread may be a marketing ploy. If | this were the case, is it allowed on HN? | | Edit: In addition, any negative/challenging/sceptical comment is | quickly downvoted. | jefftk wrote: | As someone unaffiliated, I really like that their CEO is here | answering questions. | desertraven wrote: | I do like that too! As long as the CEO isn't being shielded | by an army of supporters. | rootusrootus wrote: | Agreed. It is one of the things I find most attractive about | HN, that Important People will actually show up in the | discussion and participate. | dang wrote: | HN's criterion is whether a post is intellectually interesting, | or more precisely whether it can support an intellectually | interesting discussion. What's nice about that is you can | decide it by looking at the article itself, and the thread--you | don't need to know nebulous things like the intentions behind | the post. I'd say the current post clears the bar fairly | easily. Here are a couple of past explanations about this, in | case they're of interest: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20186280 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22871601 | | As for negative/challenging/sceptical: that depends on the | quality of the comment. Thoughtful critique is always welcome. | Shallow dismissals and snark are not welcome--not that the | target of the criticism always deserves better, but the | community deserves better. | polkadotmatrix wrote: | Amazing considering that he said he wasn't comfortable putting | his own kid in them just a few months ago. | kelnos wrote: | Got a source for that? I searched around and couldn't find | anything with him saying that. | polkadotmatrix wrote: | https://youtu.be/dmvZBiWYkFQ?t=242 | | "I want to bring my little son along on this ride, but | obviously that's not where we're at today." | | edit: Fixed link | mygoodaccount wrote: | Either you posted the wrong link, or your link was taken | down within the last 20 minutes... | | Lots of Cruise employees in this thread. | polkadotmatrix wrote: | https://youtu.be/dmvZBiWYkFQ?t=242 | | I had an extra slash in the link, I corrected it in the | original and above. | e4e78a06 wrote: | Yep, it was definitely taken down. I watched it only half | an hour ago. | 999900000999 wrote: | 18+ is reasonable since it's still a dangerous experiment. | | I actually would love an automated version of this that goes at | 200 or 300 miles an hour, the ultimate thrill ride. Have it run | on something like the Autobahn. While it's impossible for a | human being to drive at that speed, computers definitely could | . | | It would be like sky diving but on land | woah wrote: | Why not go on a train? | csdvrx wrote: | Can't sit on the front seat :) | asdff wrote: | I love it when the self driving threads always circle back | to reinventing the concept of public transportation as if | it doesn't already exist. Want to know what the best | hyperloop system in the world is called? The subway, | invented 200 years ago. | zaptrem wrote: | The fastest passenger cars today can only make it to 200mph. | Even a computer with perfect vision and 0ms reaction time | would not be able to stop in time for a blocked road at that | speed unless visibility/road were perfect. | | Maybe on roads in the Mojave Desert/South Dakota I90/etc? | 37ef_ced3 wrote: | What is the benefit of a taxi being driverless, for the | passenger? Is it cheaper? | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Cheaper, you don't have to tip (in the USA where that is | required), availability (driver doesn't need to sleep), and | safety (you don't have to worry about your driver trying to | cheat or rob you). | | People aren't getting cheaper. Indeed, this pandemic is showing | us just how fragile the labor market is and automation that was | too expensive to consider before (like fry robots at | caliburger) are now very reasonable upgrades. Uber was great | when they cost $40 from the airport, but not $200 given the | driver is now considered a full time employee with full | benefits. | NationalPark wrote: | Where are Uber drivers considered full time employees? | soperj wrote: | Likely be able to get a taxi anywhere. No discrimination. No | 20/25/30% tip suggested. No taking advantage of passengers, no | weird routes to tack on extra fees. | asdff wrote: | Maybe you haven't ridden a cab in the last 10 years, but like | any other major industry these days, they do have an app you | can use. You can call one up immediately like an uber or | schedule it in advance like a traditional cab, it gives you a | fixed price up front and a set route, tip can be included in | the app how you like. In my experience taking a cab like this | is better than ubering to the airport since its the same | price any time of day rather than in flux between | $50-infinity. | soperj wrote: | You clearly haven't taken a cab lately in a place without | Uber or the like. | Drdrdrq wrote: | > ...no weird routes to tack on extra fees. | | At first. They will optimize that later. | e4e78a06 wrote: | There's no need for that. Rideshare drivers' pay | overwhelmingly goes to cost of labor rather than fuel or | maintenance, especially in big cities. Uber/Lyft take | another 25-40% from the gross fare the passenger pays. | Cruise will be capturing all of that and only needs to pass | a fraction on to the consumer to get an unassailable price | advantage. | itisit wrote: | The benefit, one day, is if you're a criminal whose face is | detected, the car doors will lock, and you'll be driven | directly to law enforcement who will be ready and waiting to | apprehend you. | namrog84 wrote: | Although possible. | | I suspect and hope there will be some push back. Imagine a | counterpoint in either a bug or malicious attack where | innocent person is locked in and then driven into a lake or | something. | | I dont think autonomous cars should be able to lock people | in. The car can report to police silently, that's fine. | asdff wrote: | Seems like it would be a lot less dramatic to just trigger | a head on collison on the highway which you could do today | if you broke into the tesla fsd system. | 988747 wrote: | >> The car can report to police silently, that's fine. | | No, it should not do even that. You are making an | assumption here that police/government always have good | intentions. | | What society needs is kind of power balance: law | enforcement being able to catch 98% of criminals is a noble | goal, but pushing that number up to 100% is not possible in | democratic society, it requires totalitarian control. | That's why we need to make a choice here and oppose | surveillance, event if it seems well intentioned. | itisit wrote: | This is basically the point I was trying to provoke. We | forfeit a good bit of our privacy and autonomy with these | technologies. Rather disgusting how convenience always | wins. | mattlondon wrote: | At least in the UK, one of the most prolific serial rapists was | a licensed taxi driver (not even an Uber driver (who get a lot | of stick about not being as safe as "real" taxis) - but a | licensed and supposedly-vetted London black taxi driver). | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys | | So I guess safety is a major plus based on that. | olivermarks wrote: | Totally illogical supposition. I'll bet a lot more taxi | drivers have rescued people in trouble than assaulted them, a | young female relative of mine was rescued by a passing taxi | driver from a dicey situation outside Sheperds Bush tube | station. The chances of thugs standing in front of future | driverless vehicles like highway robbers to stop them is very | high, especially if the predators can see their prey has | something of value to them | e4e78a06 wrote: | The scenario you described already happens in San Francisco | and the Bay Area on a regular basis to regular human | drivers. There are plenty of videos of peoples' back window | being smashed while they're sitting in traffic and their | expensive goods are taken. The solution to this is not | having human drivers, it's cracking down on property crime | and treating it as equally as important to violent crime. | ketzo wrote: | We can do anecdotes back and forth, but many people would | absolutely love "Uber but there's not a stranger in the | front seat." | noah_buddy wrote: | Perhaps people would "love" that but I have a feeling | that the continued retreat from all forms of | socialization due to technology is not a good thing by | and large for society. I would guess that most people who | think they desire this wouldn't even think they desire it | in terms of safety but instead in terms of avoiding | distraction or awkwardness. | dymk wrote: | Technology lets me socialize an order of magnitude more | than I'd otherwise. We as a species have never been more | connected. If it also gives me respite from having to | engage with someone I'd rather not in a car, all the | better. | | Honestly, we could all use a bit more of a break from | each other, in my opinion. | noah_buddy wrote: | Point well taken, I meant physical / proximal | socialization. I would contend that most forms of | socialization over the internet are lower quality than a | candid conversation with a stranger in a car ride. | asdff wrote: | They will love it until they are leaving from the bar and | the last bar attendee left them a big wet bile-smelling | present all over the seat. At least when this sort of | thing happens on a bus there are other seats you could | use. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Reject the ride due to cleanliness and request another | one. | asdff wrote: | And who knows how long that will take? In some places it | takes long enough just to request a single uber trip much | less two in a row. Imagine how livid you'd get when a | half hour after you first intended to leave the bar, the | second self driving car arrives, and it to is soiled. | seanmcdirmid wrote: | Hey, with a huge fleet of self driving cars that aren't | taking Saturday night off and only have mostly bar | traffic to consider, I think you'll manage. | | And the robot won't take offense. | andrewxdiamond wrote: | I've always heard the opposite, that real taxis are | significantly more dangerous. | | Ubers are sent directly to you, and everyone's identity has | been verified. | | Compare that to flagging down a random taxi, where you have | no idea who the person is before you get in the car. | asdff wrote: | How is the taxi driver's identity also not verified? Are | you assuming there could be a random person who isn't | employed by a taxi company masquerading as a valid cab? | Since you would need a genuine looking physical cab to pull | this one off, that seems a lot less realistic than simply | pulling up to a bar in any car, telling a drunk girl you | are her uber, and driving off before she thinks to check | the picture on the app, which is something that does | actually happen. | frakkingcylons wrote: | Eventually I think it will reach a point where it's safer too. | The car doesn't get tired, meanwhile I've had plenty of | taxi/uber rides where the driver has been driving long, long | hours. | pcwalton wrote: | The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is the most infectious disease | known to mankind. In mid-December, with caseloads similar to | now, the asymptomatic positivity rate was around 15%, so you | can roughly put the chances of your driver being infected with | COVID-19 at around 15%. So, right now, I'd feel safer in a | driverless cab. (Of course, that calculus changes as the number | of cases changes, which is right now happening rapidly.) | s1artibartfast wrote: | >The Omicron variant of COVID-19 is the most infectious | disease known to mankind. | | Based on what? Certainly not RO | pcwalton wrote: | R0 for Omicron is 8-10, but the generation time is 5 days | instead of 16 days for measles. | Vecr wrote: | Rt multiplied by serial interval it is, so "fastest and | most widely spreading contagious pathogen in modern | history" is probably correct. | orangepurple wrote: | Omicron is the "live vaccine" variant of COVID-19. I've had | it and it was no problem. | mbesto wrote: | Yes. Instead of the variable cost of a human, it's just the | variable cost of maintenance + gas. | dragonwriter wrote: | > What is the benefit of a taxi being driverless, for the | passenger? | | Not risking kidnapping, sexual assault, etc.--or even just | "this person won't shut up"--from the driver. | | > Is it cheaper? | | Eventually, though perhaps not initially. | mertd wrote: | If you can reduce the cost of a car trip to fuel + maintenance | + depreciation, you are providing a very compelling alternative | to private car ownership. It will change everything. | modzu wrote: | nobody owns a car because its cheaper than other forms of | transit. and if you want to be cheauferred around by an ai | instead of taking a bus, you will pay for it. | more_corn wrote: | People own cars for convenience. In the US public transit | is impossible. A self driving service can be as convenient | or even more convenient compared to owning a car. (No | registration, oil change, insurance, fueling, parking, | maintenance chores) I'm a car guy and I see the appeal. | twoWhlsGud wrote: | Indeed. Exactly how this all will play out is unclear, | but if it works the impact on land use will be | substantial. | spiderice wrote: | You will pay more than the bus, yes.. but perhaps less than | the cost of owning and maintaining your own car. | modzu wrote: | no. a billion dollars wasnt invested to socialize | transportation. ultimately it may be more, if there is value in | not having to interact with the smell of a fleshbag | adrr wrote: | Labor is the most expensive part of a taxi. | nichochar wrote: | 1) cost (majority of the uber ride cost is paying the human) | | 2) social anxiety / norms | | 3) experience tuning / consistency | AuthError wrote: | yea, you take the biggest cost of taxi out of equation. | boredumb wrote: | The $250,000 SF taxi medallions? | lotsofpulp wrote: | Assuming it is $250k one time purchase, it seems cheaper | than annual pay for a person to drive around SF, and the | overhead to manage the person. | asdff wrote: | You still have overhead to manage your fleet of self | driving cars. They aren't self repairing, self fueling, | and self cleaning yet. | colinmhayes wrote: | Cheaper than having individuals manage their own cars. | adrr wrote: | Let's assume you get a loan for 30 years on it for 6%. That | is $18k a year. What is labor? $50k a year? | darkwizard42 wrote: | It will likely be cheaper (maybe not initially), but more | restrictive in pickup/drop-off and availability (ETA). | toolz wrote: | Don't you mean less restrictive? A human might have | preferences against areas that a computer might not. Further | if it's cheaper and less complex to operate (not dealing with | employees is a significant decrease in complexity) I would | expect more car owners to enter the market and provide | services. | darkwizard42 wrote: | More restrictive because without a human driver it has to | have absolute certainty it will stop in a safe place | (unlike a human driver who may make the right or wrong call | to just double park and let you hop out). | | Think of self-driving cars as likely to use their own | version of "bus stops" but the route and flexibility would | be greater than that of a standard bus | kelnos wrote: | The restrictions on pickup/dropoff locations (if any) might | have more to do with road conditions. Cruise might not be | comfortable with their cars stopping in certain places. | avrionov wrote: | It will more restrictive because they haven't mapped all | streets. | lancesells wrote: | I would much rather prefer my own private car than one being | driven by someone else. It'll be interesting to see if the | level of cleanliness though as most drivers tend to take care | of their car because it's their car. If someone throws up in | one of these cars does it know or does it just show up to the | next pickup? | kelnos wrote: | That raises another question for me: I thought Uber and | Lyft[0] had COVID-related cleaning protocols that require | their drivers to disinfect some surfaces of the car after | each ride. How can a driverless car do that? | | [0] https://www.lyft.com/driver/clean | akavi wrote: | Sounds like getting rid of some hygiene theater is another | benefit of self-driving cars then. | | Covid transmission via surfaces is basically non-existent, | as far as we can tell. | dag11 wrote: | Do they? I've ridden plenty of ubers in the past year and | haven't noticed any such disinfecting. | kelnos wrote: | Why would you? Presumably they don't do it while you're | there. | thebean11 wrote: | You would smell the alcohol | mandarax8 wrote: | And you still think they do it? | stevage wrote: | Easy to add cameras and have someone remotely decide to send | the car to get cleaned. | DavidAdams wrote: | I'm sure that any of these services are going to depend on | customers reporting when a car shows up in an unacceptable | condition. | asdff wrote: | That sounds like a great way to burn reputation among your | customers. "Why would I take a self driving car from the | bar, the last one was full of puke?" | richardw wrote: | No forced chitchat, no chance I'll be rated badly, (eventually) | safer than many of the drivers I've had. | | I'd use it daily if it were an appliance rather than an | interaction. Right now I have a car. | asdff wrote: | This is why I like cabs. Customers should not have a rating. | paxys wrote: | For the passenger - unless the cars drive significantly better | there's really no difference. Rides may get cheaper but the | overall market will decide that. | | The benefits to the company who runs the service is, of course, | huge. | dbbk wrote: | Cheaper and greater availability at all hours I'd imagine, as | the driver doesn't need to take shifts. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-01 23:00 UTC)