The question is "would you ride in a robotaxi"? I feel like almost everyone has answered that question. It's potentially a little vague or not entirely clear to everyone. "Robotaxi" is not a term that I've ever heard used before, but since I'm aware of Waymo, I assumed that's what was being asked. It is possible that not everyone knows what was intended by the term "robotaxi".

But thanks for being rude and condescending.

Me too!

I rode in a tourist helicopter in NYC recently. so I would probably go for a ride in a Robotaxi.

I spent two years in AI and autonomous driving for a GM-backed startup, long story short I have expertise with these and have lots of experience riding in autonomous vehicles both on the track and in major cities globally. Take it from the guy who has seen all of the data: level 4 autonomous vehicles (e.g. Waymo) are demonstrably safer drivers than humans and have been since around 2021.

But, safety and being a better driver than a human is not the entire picture... there are a lot of legitimate complaints about robotoxis. One of the biggest real world complaints about them (and also about level 2 autonomy like you have with Tesla "self driving") is that the vehicles follow the law to a fault and that is actually pretty annoying to human drivers, myself included. They drive the speed limit, they will never cross a solid white line, they will never act assertively to someone jaywalking etc, and by being such great followers of the law and rules of the road they are annoying to many drivers. You can tell your human taxi driver to "drop me off right here" and the driver will pull over illegally, you see that all the time and don't think twice about it... but a robotaxi won't do that because that is breaking the rules.

This thread and some of the responses therein highlight some of the real world headwinds to autonomous driving. Being demonstrably better and safer drivers than humans is not sufficient for many people to accept robotaxis or level 4 autonomous vehicles generally. Wrapped up in this is a simple truth: if your loved one is hit and killed by a human driver that is a tragedy, but a tragedy that is somehow more understandable and ultimately acceptable than if your loved one is hit and killed by an autonomous machine. The result is the same, but something about a machine causing someone's injury or death provokes an outrage which just isn't present with a human driver.

One of the big concerns that I read about years ago wrt self-driving vehicles is that human drivers would bully them...cut them off or pretend to drive into their path just to see how they would react or to have a laugh.

I haven't really witnessed that but the people who live adjacent to the Waymo charging lot in Santa Monica have done things like set up barriers so that they can't get in the lot because the beeping noise when they back up is majorly disturbing them.

That was a very interesting post, Tishabet, thank you.

I agree Level 4 vehicles are safer.

With your experience, can you recommend an overview of a system, or systems, to help folks like me catch up?

I would also be very interested in the testing protocols but that is for another time:D

Thanks again.

Interesting. Yesterday I had no idea there was even a thing called venmo, or different levels of autonomy. Would be good to have a thread just on that- latest AI stuff, whats involved in testing, etc.

edit- We should document the evolution of our impending overlords!

Very interesting stuff . I still ain't getting in one! :D

Nope. I learned about local life and non mass media promoted issues by talking with taxi/uber drivers on a recent vacation. Enjoyed almost every moment of it (one guy should NOT be driving for a living).

The older i get the more i value authentic human contact and the less i value polished and agenda driven 'statements'.

This also brings up the question of how all this goes down.

Like HOV lanes, will there be the introduction of autonomous only lanes? Will there be "Autonomous only" zones of urban transport infrastructure?

Thank you for responding with so much real world and behind the scenes info and insight. About the last point, you are absolutely spot-on. If a human gets in an accident, that sucks, but doesn't seem crazy. If a machine gets in an accident, then that seems incomprehensible because a machine is not expected to make a mistake despite the fact that the machine is told how to work and what to expect by people that make mistakes and in a complex environment where not every possible scenario can be expected/anticipated (especially when humans are involved).

I've been thinking about that sort of thing for years, probably due to some of the sci-fi movies that I've seen.

The first time that I saw this, I thought "hmm, 'technology lanes', I wonder what that's going to eventually turn into?" Today there's no discussion of autonomous vehicles, but it's not much of a leap to think that could be enabled practically at the flip of a switch.

https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2024/06/05/us-75-technology-lanes-low-emission-vehicles

excerpts

Hmmm i think i have a problem with the idea of 'tech lanes' on a fundamental level. I don't like the gov't actively making life easier on people who patronize tech co's over choosing to drive themselves. Also will tend to place more value artificially on EV's as they are most likely to be used as driverless.

Just all around misguided concept imo.

^that's what I was thinking.

on a tech level though...It would be interesting to see how some of the AI decisions are evaluated in real time- For instance, at highway speed with a tight formation of cars, something falls out of a pickup truck right in front of the autonomous vehicle. How does the AI interpret the threat- for example, a bag of leaves (lightweight- hit it if you need to) vs. something heavy like an anvil or spare truck tire, or guy who fell off his motorcycle suddenly bouncing at you(need to veer out of lane and into brakedown lane, etc...) How does the system evaluate and decide on a course of action on what seems to be an infinite number of scenarios?

I had an hour long conversation with an Uber driver in Tampa who was also an investor in the marijuana industry. Actually learned a lot, especially how it’s more of a conventional big business than most people think. Most people think it’s a bunch of stoners in tie died shirts coming up with new blends, when it’s actually a bunch of PhD chemists in a lab. Interesting stuff.

(notwithstanding this venue of customers fixing 'old gasser personal transportation'..)
Sure, less cars equals 'less pollution'.
Here.

Over fifty or so years the ICE has been refined to burn petrocarbons almost as clean as it can get so far.
There are a few more band-aids not found yet, besides electric hybrid.

True efficiency is actually hindered by vehicles forced to becoming larger due to added electronic requirements, private insurance crash standards, and CAFE regulations which actually penalize building smaller lightweight efficient cars. These a good ideas sometimes gone wrong. Sometimes manipulating economies by injecting bad policies. There is no universal application to new technology.

But there will always be a lack of viable alternatives of personal transportation.
For a long time...
Multiple train companies to offer choice? Trolleys? Busses?
Or limited taxi services? The NYC taxi medallions have lost almost all their value.
Cheap transportation for cheap workers to commute to the workplace drives the entire economy.
I will stop there.

This entire country was built on the framework of the national highway system in the 1950's.
All existing roads and satellite communities are built upon the same.

Yer talking about opening a can 'o worms there.

Excellent points. Hit a deer or swerve and lose control. I would like to think that an autonomous vehicle should be better able to perform the "moose test" than 98% of drivers on the road.

<iframe width="720" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eYzgBfZBU2U" title="🦌 Moose Test: 10 Sedans (Many EVs!) That Failed Hard" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Narrow street with cars parked on both sides?
Big potential for the hazard of cars pulling out of their driveways, opening doors, people crossing, bicyclists, kids and pets, so better slow down.

But the stated speed limit is 25 or 35mph. Computer drivers have no skin in the game.

Boy howdy some of your hugs are old skul…

Ever ride in a roboplane?

If you’ve flown recently, odds are that you have.

What’s worse?

No schite. :cool:

Autopilot being monitored by two pilots is substantially different than fully automated driving with no driver. Not to mention the airspace at 35,000 ft is far more predicable and controlled than a side street in LA. Also you’re flying in an aircraft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and test to very rigorous FAA standards.

Public roads aren't controlled by ATC with Federal consequences for failure to abide.