Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Chandler, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix, Waymo's fleet of 600 minivans shuttling people from place to place. Ordering one feels almost exactly like calling a Lyft or Uber, except for one thing: the vans drive themselves. Alphabet's Waymo has been testing self-driving vehicles in Arizona since 2017 and we got a look at what it's like.
Alphabet’s self-driving car company Waymo has built the world’s smartest vehicles with access to the world’s best artificial intelligence, but there’s one barrier that it might have underestimated: people.
In the last few months, the company has gained regulatory approvals, improved its driving systems using Alphabet’a AI assets and partnered with other auto manufacturers. Its cars have driven more miles than any other company’s.
But the community closest to Waymo’s main testing grounds in Phoenix, Arizona, said that the human element remains complicated, from hiring more drivers and support staff to working with city officials and emergency response staff.
CNBC visited Phoenix to check out Waymo’s progress earlier this month, weeks after the company launched its first actual business, Waymo One, a commercial robotaxi service in the Phoenix area. Meanwhile, competitors like Uber, Tesla and General Motors subsidiary Cruise are all planning their own self-driving car technology in a market estimated to garner $556.67 billion by 2026.
There's an axiom in philosophy that states that just because one can do something, it does not logically follow that one ought to do that thing or that one should do it or must do it.
I mention that because cities, counties and States are under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to implement or permit the use of driver-less vehicles.
I mention that because you shouldn't be shocked or surprise to discover that some cities, counties or States will ban or prohibit the use of driver-less vehicles.
I have to wonder about Phoenix. That's the Geography Minor in me talking.
Geographically, Boston is an old European-style city. There's no such thing as "going around the block."
On the other hand, Cincinnati is a new city not built to European specs and you can "go around the block."
Both cities are much older than Phoenix.
I mention that because Cincinnati is built on a flood plain at the base of seven hills, just like Rome. In the early part of the 20th Century, street cars could not climb the hills from the down-town area to the up-town area. They used inclines like the Mount Adams Incline (one of the 7 Hills). The street car would pull onto a platform an a winch would basically lift the platform from the bottom of the hill to the top of the hill and the street car would continue its route.
So, the streets here are hilly and they are curvy and sometimes hilly and curvy.
I mention that because I don't find a test in a city like Phoenix which is flat and has straight roads to inspire confidence in driver-less cars.
That's a mickey mouse test. A soft-ball that's easy to catch.
If they want to prove driver-less cars work, they need to test them in a more practical environment, like Cincinnati. If you can get your driver-less cars to work here, they'll work everywhere.
But, just because it works in Phoenix doesn't mean it will work in other cities.
The thing about taxis is that they provide revenues for cities, counties and States.
Those revenues are in the form of annual licensing fees, and also income taxes paid by the taxi drivers to the city and sometimes the county and often the State.
Since they will be losing revenues, they'll have to figure out how to make up for the revenue losses and they can do that through higher annual registration fees or a surcharge on taxi fares or both.
Or, they can just increase taxes on businesses and workers and people.
I'll sure you'll be happy about that.
Then, there's that legal thing.
You know, if someone is injured or killed by a driver-less taxi, their damages are going to exceed $75,000.
I mention that because when your damages exceed $75,000 and the defendant lives in a different State than the plaintiff who was injured/killed, that allows one to file the claim in a federal court under diversity of citizenship instead of a State court.
Why is that important?
Because in addition to monetary damages, plaintiffs often seek injunctive relief.
What is injunctive relief?
That's when a judge issues an order barring or prohibiting anyone from taking certain actions.
Injunctive relief in a case involving a driver-less car would involving banning the use of driver-less cars until such time as the judge declared they were safe to use, or lifted the temporary restraining order for other reasons or until the case was settled or a verdict was issued by a jury.
Can you imagine the turmoil caused by grounding the entire fleet of driver-less cars in the US?
There's an axiom in philosophy that states that just because one can do something, it does not logically follow that one ought to do that thing or that one should do it or must do it.
I mention that because cities, counties and States are under no moral, ethical or legal obligation to implement or permit the use of driver-less vehicles.
I mention that because you shouldn't be shocked or surprise to discover that some cities, counties or States will ban or prohibit the use of driver-less vehicles.
I have to wonder about Phoenix. That's the Geography Minor in me talking.
Geographically, Boston is an old European-style city. There's no such thing as "going around the block."
On the other hand, Cincinnati is a new city not built to European specs and you can "go around the block."
Both cities are much older than Phoenix.
I mention that because Cincinnati is built on a flood plain at the base of seven hills, just like Rome. In the early part of the 20th Century, street cars could not climb the hills from the down-town area to the up-town area. They used inclines like the Mount Adams Incline (one of the 7 Hills). The street car would pull onto a platform an a winch would basically lift the platform from the bottom of the hill to the top of the hill and the street car would continue its route.
So, the streets here are hilly and they are curvy and sometimes hilly and curvy.
I mention that because I don't find a test in a city like Phoenix which is flat and has straight roads to inspire confidence in driver-less cars.
That's a mickey mouse test. A soft-ball that's easy to catch.
If they want to prove driver-less cars work, they need to test them in a more practical environment, like Cincinnati. If you can get your driver-less cars to work here, they'll work everywhere.
But, just because it works in Phoenix doesn't mean it will work in other cities.
The thing about taxis is that they provide revenues for cities, counties and States.
Those revenues are in the form of annual licensing fees, and also income taxes paid by the taxi drivers to the city and sometimes the county and often the State.
Since they will be losing revenues, they'll have to figure out how to make up for the revenue losses and they can do that through higher annual registration fees or a surcharge on taxi fares or both.
Or, they can just increase taxes on businesses and workers and people.
I'll sure you'll be happy about that.
Then, there's that legal thing.
You know, if someone is injured or killed by a driver-less taxi, their damages are going to exceed $75,000.
I mention that because when your damages exceed $75,000 and the defendant lives in a different State than the plaintiff who was injured/killed, that allows one to file the claim in a federal court under diversity of citizenship instead of a State court.
Why is that important?
Because in addition to monetary damages, plaintiffs often seek injunctive relief.
What is injunctive relief?
That's when a judge issues an order barring or prohibiting anyone from taking certain actions.
Injunctive relief in a case involving a driver-less car would involving banning the use of driver-less cars until such time as the judge declared they were safe to use, or lifted the temporary restraining order for other reasons or until the case was settled or a verdict was issued by a jury.
Can you imagine the turmoil caused by grounding the entire fleet of driver-less cars in the US?
They will have those things sorted out legally long before self drive goes nationwide or mandatory though.
Regarding the cities that have banned them, at the time when the motor car was first invented, lots of people and cities were concerned about the safety of these new 'motorized vehicles' too, they were also concerned with their impact on roads, bridges, etc, Although Im not sure, I would bet some cities went so far as to ban motorized vehicles at some point.
Whats so interesting about this, when motorized cars started taking over everywhere and less horse and buggies were used, there were NUMEROUS wrecks, deaths, etc related to the use of motor vehicles...but we can see, even though they were MUCH more dangerous than the previous mode of transportation, every city ultimately allowed them on their roads, plus, look around today, do you see anyone calling to go back the use of horse and buggy? LOL So, it seems to me, society has weighed the death toll and found that motor vehicles are worth keeping around, even though they kill and injure 10s of 1000s!
I have a feeling, any negatives stemming from self drive cars, will be HEAVILY outweighed by all the benefits that come with them....big industry, shipping, transportation of materials, etc they will all benefit greatly from self drive trucks (this alone would probably ensure laws banning them, are reversed).
Though driverless cars will benefit seniors, some disabled, children, and others for other reasons who cannot drive today as the labor cost of the human driver is eliminated and hopefully a reduction in road accidents for everyone, some things to consider:
1) These cars are limited by weather. Why is testing done in Phoenix? No snow to confuse the cars' automation by not seeing lane markings. These cars are affected too by blizzards, heavy precipitation, dense fog, and sand storms.
2) Until Google and the other map makers get more place points on the maps and more accuracy for the dots out there, driverless cars will not work going certain places. Take the local cemetery, which only has two points for the cemetery office and the funeral home, or worse Arlington National Cemetery with dozens of sections more than a mile apart. Very large buildings with multiple entrances.
3) Some people use their cars for storing stuff. If you do not own the car and have it in your possession 24 x 7, that's a habit hard for some to give up.
4) Someone pukes in a car after a night at the bar. How will the driverless car know it will need to be cleaned up before the next trip's passenger gets into the car.
5) Driverless cars will open up opportunities for people both good and bad to go everywhere. Today some criminals in cities are limited to public transit reach. Temples in Podunk, Idaho?
6) The cell companies are now rolling out 5G networks so driverless cars can communicate with each other better. With such a system the mini towers or micro cells can be no more than 2000 feet apart. Those mini towers on street light poles many more and much more time to repair if a major storm and are more subject to vandalism except for next sentence. Though much unsaid in tech media, whether the cell companies themselves, the local government, or others, video cameras on these cells watching your every move and what you say. Hello George Orwell 1984. Definitely not a world looking forward to.
7) Driverless cars subject to computer hacking individually or en mass, sometimes even before they hit the road. If overseas programmers are used with not good intentions, it could be interesting.
8) Liability lawsuits if someone gets seriously injured or killed by a driverless car. If the vast majority of driverless cars are owned by major corporations, its private individuals against companies with huge legal teams, no different if your private car is an accident with a large trucking company today. And legally those lawsuits will be more fun, do you go after the corporation who owns the driverless car, the manufacturer, or the company who did the computer coding?
9) Driverless cars will not replace all transportation in dense cities. Taking all people off the subway in Manhattan and putting them in vehicles in the streets. There is not enough room.
10) Job losses. People who drive today for a living, many will lose jobs adding to unemployment. Some will be skilled enough for other jobs, but not so for others due to lacking education and training or other life factors. Driver job opportunities will be more limited.
11) Disabled or senior riders alone needing assistance putting a folding wheelchair in the trunk. A totally blind rider with a cane. Human drivers can help with that. A driverless car not so much.
12) A driverless car mechanically dies in the middle of the highway. Will there be some mechanism to get it safely to the side of the road.
Though driverless cars will benefit seniors, some disabled, children, and others for other reasons who cannot drive today as the labor cost of the human driver is eliminated and hopefully a reduction in road accidents for everyone, some things to consider:
1) These cars are limited by weather. Why is testing done in Phoenix? No snow to confuse the cars' automation by not seeing lane markings. These cars are affected too by blizzards, heavy precipitation, dense fog, and sand storms.
2) Until Google and the other map makers get more place points on the maps and more accuracy for the dots out there, driverless cars will not work going certain places. Take the local cemetery, which only has two points for the cemetery office and the funeral home, or worse Arlington National Cemetery with dozens of sections more than a mile apart. Very large buildings with multiple entrances.
3) Some people use their cars for storing stuff. If you do not own the car and have it in your possession 24 x 7, that's a habit hard for some to give up.
4) Someone pukes in a car after a night at the bar. How will the driverless car know it will need to be cleaned up before the next trip's passenger gets into the car.
5) Driverless cars will open up opportunities for people both good and bad to go everywhere. Today some criminals in cities are limited to public transit reach. Temples in Podunk, Idaho?
6) The cell companies are now rolling out 5G networks so driverless cars can communicate with each other better. With such a system the mini towers or micro cells can be no more than 2000 feet apart. Those mini towers on street light poles many more and much more time to repair if a major storm and are more subject to vandalism except for next sentence. Though much unsaid in tech media, whether the cell companies themselves, the local government, or others, video cameras on these cells watching your every move and what you say. Hello George Orwell 1984. Definitely not a world looking forward to.
7) Driverless cars subject to computer hacking individually or en mass, sometimes even before they hit the road. If overseas programmers are used with not good intentions, it could be interesting.
8) Liability lawsuits if someone gets seriously injured or killed by a driverless car. If the vast majority of driverless cars are owned by major corporations, its private individuals against companies with huge legal teams, no different if your private car is an accident with a large trucking company today. And legally those lawsuits will be more fun, do you go after the corporation who owns the driverless car, the manufacturer, or the company who did the computer coding?
9) Driverless cars will not replace all transportation in dense cities. Taking all people off the subway in Manhattan and putting them in vehicles in the streets. There is not enough room.
10) Job losses. People who drive today for a living, many will lose jobs adding to unemployment. Some will be skilled enough for other jobs, but not so for others due to lacking education and training or other life factors. Driver job opportunities will be more limited.
11) Disabled or senior riders alone needing assistance putting a folding wheelchair in the trunk. A totally blind rider with a cane. Human drivers can help with that. A driverless car not so much.
12) A driverless car mechanically dies in the middle of the highway. Will there be some mechanism to get it safely to the side of the road.
Google has #2 covered,as I had the team that was doing the street mapping, stop into our store over a year ago. They had all sorts of equipment mounted to the front and sides of car, the way they explained it, it was all being done for the transition to self drive, they claimed it was basically going to be like GPS, only MUCH MUCH more detailed and accurate, they said there mapping every square inch of roadway in 3D, He said people will be amazed when they see this all work together, it will seem like 'magic'.
I find it strange there are so many people out there that are so against this transition! We pretty much rely on computers to run everything else nowadays, why would transportation be any different? Computers make FAR LESS mistakes than humans do, they are faster at detection and recognition than humans, seems like if computers were controlling ALL cars on the road, it would a whole lot safer than it is now!
We wouldnt need stop signs, traffic lights, etc anymore either, traffic would move so much smoother and faster!
I find it strange there are so many people out there that are so against this transition! We pretty much rely on computers to run everything else nowadays, why would transportation be any different? Computers make FAR LESS mistakes than humans do, they are faster at detection and recognition than humans, seems like if computers were controlling ALL cars on the road, it would a whole lot safer than it is now!
We wouldnt need stop signs, traffic lights, etc anymore either, traffic would move so much smoother and faster!
I find it strange there are so many people out there that are so against this transition! We pretty much rely on computers to run everything else nowadays, why would transportation be any different? Computers make FAR LESS mistakes than humans do, they are faster at detection and recognition than humans, seems like if computers were controlling ALL cars on the road, it would a whole lot safer than it is now!
We wouldnt need stop signs, traffic lights, etc anymore either, traffic would move so much smoother and faster!
How do car manufacturers sell their vehicles: they push horsepower, open roads, freedom of the roads. They also use sex, not directly; but indirectly. It will be a hard transition from having control of one's destiny to allowing computers to control us.
Like has been pointed out; AI has not conquered all driving conditions. Nor do they have the sensors to identify all problems. They might in the future; but they can very easily push too far and too fast in their race to get approval/ With our current system, most times, it is one driver suing another driver with limitations on how much money is in the pool. If you watch any TV it is filled with adds looking for people to sue big pharma due to faulty products. When lawyers smell money; they will go after it and AI and the corporations that use that AI will not be immune.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
