I’m a huge public transit fan, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of better.
I live at a train stop in SF. I take a bus to work. Public transit is great. I still use Waymo sometimes because coverage isn’t always amazing at all times. Sometimes I’m in a rush, sometimes I want some privacy, sometimes I’m carrying some heavy things.
Replacing low-occupancy human driven vehicles with low-occupancy robot driven vehicles is good if they’re safer. Today, they’ve proven to be safer. Today, lives are saved because a human driver chose not to drive. If a private individual wants to pay more (<2x, not a single order of magnitude), then let them. There is no reason that the private introduction of self driving cars needs to stop the investment in public transit.
Let us save lives on the road to the future, even if some stops along the way aren’t your chosen stops.
I haven't seen that data. Do these cars drive in rainy, wet, snowy weather or in cities with crazy streets such as the northeastern United States? Not that I know of. I think it's a wild leap to suggest they're safer already today.
You can unambiguously claim they are safer the moment Waymo reports parity with L5 automation criteria. Until that happens you're talking about a system that by Waymo's own admission under-performs human drivers.
What is so magical about L5 criteria? Today Waymo is performing drives on public roads, and it’s safer than a human. Today. With whatever Lx criteria it meets. The label is irrelevant, all that matters is the mile-per-mile record of being safer.
Not sure what “Waymos own admission” means, but they out perform not underperform.
Nah. The automation criteria are very well defined. Waymo's current self-reported automation level means there are things human drivers can do, situations they're capable of navigating correctly, that their equipment can't cope with.
My car is also pretty terrible at making me breakfast in the morning. So what?
Parent's point is that in the context where they do work, they save lives. You're arguing about something else entirely - whether they work in all situations. But that's irrelevant.
Is it really? Look how often comments here and elsewhere express impatience that the majority of vehicles on the road aren't fully autonomous. Since we know there are conditions under which self-driving tech loses the plot, ubiquity would necessarily involve deploying self driving equipment under those very conditions with predictable results (see also FSB early adopter shitshow).
Because as I understand it L5 is parity with human capabilities. Until you clear that you're underperforming in some measurable way with what even mediocre human operators are capable of.
If a robot taxi can drive way better than a mediocre (read: every human driver when drunk/tired/angry) human can, but is geofence limited to a single area, that is an L4 system.
As a fellow driver, I don't care that they can't drive out of that area, I care if tf they're a safer driver.
It would absolutely be the wrong bar if there wasn't a steady drum beat of calls for ubiquity. "I can't wait until the majority of vehicles..." etc etc. This kind of uncritical optimism has already lead to some pretty wild outcomes with half-baked automation.
It gets blurry towards the edges. There are certainly roads I should not be driving on that competent 4WD folks are (in the right vehicles). I;ve also driven in winter conditions that felt very sketchy to me that I may have felt the need to drive in for work or other reasons. You don't always have the option to just Nope. I'm going to stay at home.
And, of course, if you otherwise basically never drive, you're probably a hazard in those marginal conditions.
They systematically get in less accidents, the accidents they do get in are not their fault, and they tend to be less dangerous when they occur. As I understand it, that unambiguously means outperforming.
We don’t need to remove every manual car in the world overnight, but this seems like a clear win, at least in the regions they operate. They don’t need to cure cancer and drive in every road condition at all times in all places and also not ever make any mistakes at all to be an improvement. “L5” is just a label, which I guess doesn’t apply, while “safer”, “less accident prone” are different labels, which do apply.
Comments
I’m a huge public transit fan, but let’s not let perfect be the enemy of better.
I live at a train stop in SF. I take a bus to work. Public transit is great. I still use Waymo sometimes because coverage isn’t always amazing at all times. Sometimes I’m in a rush, sometimes I want some privacy, sometimes I’m carrying some heavy things.
Replacing low-occupancy human driven vehicles with low-occupancy robot driven vehicles is good if they’re safer. Today, they’ve proven to be safer. Today, lives are saved because a human driver chose not to drive. If a private individual wants to pay more (<2x, not a single order of magnitude), then let them. There is no reason that the private introduction of self driving cars needs to stop the investment in public transit.
Let us save lives on the road to the future, even if some stops along the way aren’t your chosen stops.
I haven't seen that data. Do these cars drive in rainy, wet, snowy weather or in cities with crazy streets such as the northeastern United States? Not that I know of. I think it's a wild leap to suggest they're safer already today.
You can unambiguously claim they are safer the moment Waymo reports parity with L5 automation criteria. Until that happens you're talking about a system that by Waymo's own admission under-performs human drivers.
Why? And what?
What is so magical about L5 criteria? Today Waymo is performing drives on public roads, and it’s safer than a human. Today. With whatever Lx criteria it meets. The label is irrelevant, all that matters is the mile-per-mile record of being safer.
Not sure what “Waymos own admission” means, but they out perform not underperform.
https://waymo.com/blog/2023/12/waymo-significantly-outperfor...
Nah. The automation criteria are very well defined. Waymo's current self-reported automation level means there are things human drivers can do, situations they're capable of navigating correctly, that their equipment can't cope with.
My car is also pretty terrible at making me breakfast in the morning. So what?
Parent's point is that in the context where they do work, they save lives. You're arguing about something else entirely - whether they work in all situations. But that's irrelevant.
Is it really? Look how often comments here and elsewhere express impatience that the majority of vehicles on the road aren't fully autonomous. Since we know there are conditions under which self-driving tech loses the plot, ubiquity would necessarily involve deploying self driving equipment under those very conditions with predictable results (see also FSB early adopter shitshow).
Why is L5 the bar to pass and not L4?
Because as I understand it L5 is parity with human capabilities. Until you clear that you're underperforming in some measurable way with what even mediocre human operators are capable of.
If a robot taxi can drive way better than a mediocre (read: every human driver when drunk/tired/angry) human can, but is geofence limited to a single area, that is an L4 system.
As a fellow driver, I don't care that they can't drive out of that area, I care if tf they're a safer driver.
As such, L5 seems to me like the wrong bar.
It would absolutely be the wrong bar if there wasn't a steady drum beat of calls for ubiquity. "I can't wait until the majority of vehicles..." etc etc. This kind of uncritical optimism has already lead to some pretty wild outcomes with half-baked automation.
It gets blurry towards the edges. There are certainly roads I should not be driving on that competent 4WD folks are (in the right vehicles). I;ve also driven in winter conditions that felt very sketchy to me that I may have felt the need to drive in for work or other reasons. You don't always have the option to just Nope. I'm going to stay at home.
And, of course, if you otherwise basically never drive, you're probably a hazard in those marginal conditions.
Well how are they underperforming?
They systematically get in less accidents, the accidents they do get in are not their fault, and they tend to be less dangerous when they occur. As I understand it, that unambiguously means outperforming.
We don’t need to remove every manual car in the world overnight, but this seems like a clear win, at least in the regions they operate. They don’t need to cure cancer and drive in every road condition at all times in all places and also not ever make any mistakes at all to be an improvement. “L5” is just a label, which I guess doesn’t apply, while “safer”, “less accident prone” are different labels, which do apply.
I assume because humans don't drive at L3.