Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I am curious how they will route the cars. My experience with various navigation programs is they sometimes take very odd routes or go through unsafe areas because their algorithm says it is the quickest. How's at fault when a map error cause an accident or other problem such a stunning onto an active runway?

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-24246646
 
It's fairly obvious that at some point the driverless car companies will be asking the government to make changes to the existing roadways to make it easier for driverless cars to operate. Taxpayers will be financing part of their business model at some point GUARANTEED.
 
I'm sure their drivers love to hear this. Could you imagine working for a company that was actively working towards a goal of getting rid of about 99% of their workforce? I'm all for progress, but that would make me feel really weird.

According to this quote from the Washington Post:



That's going to be a lot of people to lay off several years down the road, and that's only the tip of the iceberg. According to the website All Trucking:



So that's a lot more people who will be eventually replaced. See this story about semi-autonomous trucks driving across Europe to get a glimpse of where things are headed. Then there are other jobs to consider: Postal and package delivery drivers, bus drivers, chauffers, maybe even tow truck drivers and more. Then you have tertiary industries, such as automotive insurance, which could eventually no longer be needed or at least have a very reduced role. That means adjusters, agents, managers, call centers and more jobs would be no longer needed, or have a severe reduction in number of positions. The reduction in accidents would also mean that auto mechanics would have a reduced role in society, especially for collision repair. This also means that fewer auto parts would need to be made, which impacts other industries, and could make auto repair in general more costly. You would also need fewer patrol officers, and cities would get less income from speeding tickets, parking tickets, and more—which is, perhaps surprising to some, a big part of many city budgets.

And I'm not even touching on the job impacts of a move from oil to electric.

To reiterate, I'm all for progress, and am in no way saying that these changes are bad. I'm all for a more efficient system that makes life easier and is better for the environment. But I just hope that organizational think tanks and governing bodies are acting now to research the impacts that this will have on our economy and the employment outlook, because this is going to be a tremendous period of transformation affecting many fundamental aspects of our society. And yet again, I'm not even touching on the privacy aspects revolving around government surveillance, the law aspects for whose fault an unlikely accident would be, and more. That's a whole other can of worms. It's really incredible how much change this will bring. It's an exciting time to be alive, but change can be difficult, especially when it has the potential to be this disruptive. But I'm hopeful our society will eventually benefit greatly from these improvements. The potential to greatly empower the elderly, people with disabilities and more with easy access to transportation will be fantastic, as well as the reduction in automobile deaths and pollution from energy efficient autonomous driving.
This was an awesome post and exactly what I was thinking. I'm all for progress but I'm not for turning the world into 100% robots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macduke
Instead of 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by human error, you'll have 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by the autonomous driving that was programmed by people. You can't take the people out of the equation.
 
Instead of 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by human error, you'll have 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by the autonomous driving that was programmed by people. You can't take the people out of the equation.

It also opens up new failure modes as well. It is already possible to hack into today's vehicles' control systems; I can't see autonomous vehicles being any more secure. Someday some one will decide to send a bunch to the same location, if only for laughs or just to make it wander aimlessly.
 
I think an autonomous Uber is great for the Customer. It would at least rid of some of the scary and smelly drivers I have been in the car with.
 
As if the drivers didn't already make any money, now they'll pay you half and expect you to sit in the car to make sure you can override if safety becomes an issue.

Here's 0.01 a mile pal. That's before taxes too!
 
In the end, I don't think this will matter as any self-driving car will eventually just become a shuttle to go from point A to B. Google's Car don't even have a driving wheel...

And I guess Apple's Car will be some kind of living room on 4 wheels... with a table in the middle to place your belongings and your drink. At that point, nobody will ever care how the car is handled. You also won't care about the remaining real *sshole drivers on the road since you'll be too busy reading your favorite book... or working on your next project. :)
 
But how would Uber's automatic-driving cars fuel up/charge up? Either they have to pass that responsibility onto the customer, or have the car drive back to Uber employees/volunteers to fill up in between rides.
Really? You think after making a driverless car they could not think of a way to charge or fuel a car without humans?
 
This shouldn't surprise anyone, smart move by Uber. They're proving to be a very smart and forward-thinking company, way more than just a cheap taxi alternative.

Wow, is someone running a vacuum cleaner here?
It's not a surprise because it's just another case of a company trying to reduce their employee headcount to save money. The fact it's "in a car" or "through an app" doesn't make Uber a golden prodigy of corporate innovation. [biggest eyeroll ever here]

Kinda poor choice of words on the title on this article. Let's be careful on 3000 pounds of steel propelling itself around on the trust it will do it right. Rushing to be first is one of the biggest reasons companies cut corners on safety. Driverless cars will happen, yes. But this is one thing that does not need to be a "race".
 
I find this surreal. How do they deal with things like flat tires
The same way most people deal with flat tires... AAA.
[doublepost=1463768029][/doublepost]
.
Driveways & pizza deliveries: if all else fails, put a delivery person in the car. The difference is that, instead of needing to be a reasonably safe driver with a clean-is record , now, they only need to be capable of walking up a driveway and the training & safety induction only has to cover "leave your beer in the car, put out your joint and take a breath mint before ringing doorbell".


$2 extra service charge for a real delivery person. Problem solved.
[doublepost=1463769314][/doublepost]
I'm sure their drivers love to hear this. Could you imagine working for a company that was actively working towards a goal of getting rid of about 99% of their workforce?

Number of people who have driven for Uber: 162,000
Number of people who planned to work for Uber for life: 0
 
A decade ago, the sheer prospect of driverless cars becoming mainstream was a fantasy. A decade from now, we could be looking back and wondering how we ever did without.

Maybe mainstream driverless vehicles are coming that soon, and maybe they aren't. Either way, the road to self-driving vehicles, especially during any transitional/mixed period, is fraught with problems we haven't even begun to fathom yet. So I guess I'm saying my money is on self-driving vehicles NOT being mainstream anytime remotely soon.

However, I do think we'll soon see many "assisted-driving" and "safety" features as a result of all this research and investigation.
 
Instead of 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by human error, you'll have 1.3 million people dying each year in car accidents caused 94% of the time by the autonomous driving that was programmed by people. You can't take the people out of the equation.

That's a ridiculous statement. You're blending two distinct parts of driving: knowing the rules and safety precautions and actually following them. Humans know the former well, which are algorithmic and can be coded; it's the latter that we suffer with. Computers won't have to deal with distractions. Additionally, the driverless cars will be able to communicate with each other, allowing the cars to have a much more complete picture of the road and possible hazards than people do.

I'm not claiming that there won't be any more deaths once we have driverless cars, but if programmed properly, it will be a lower number.
 
Will uber be able to handle this usage scenario? (Johnny Cab didn't do so well)

Makes me wonder about manual override scenarios...
 
I was thinking that, but then they need an infrastructure for gas stations/charging stations with pumps/plugs that can automatically insert itself into the car. Just an overall complicated scenario!
Sorry I didn't mean like that. Car drives itself to a petrol station, or a uber fill up station and a staff would fuel up. I did not mean automatic fuel top-up. Sorry :)
 
I suspect Uber won't own any cars. They'll get their 'contractors' to own and maintain the cars, fuelling them up, cleaning them etc. Like it is now.

Lol, wut????!
I'm not sure you understand the article.

We are talking about DRIVERLESS cars.
You think Uber, is going to create software for driverless cars, have other people purchase & own these driverless cars, then they'll pay those people to use them???
I am seriously SO confused about what you're even envisioning....
 
Lol, wut????!
I'm not sure you understand the article.

We are talking about DRIVERLESS cars.
You think Uber, is going to create software for driverless cars, have other people purchase & own these driverless cars, then they'll pay those people to use them???
I am seriously SO confused about what you're even envisioning....

It's sort of like the FedEX Home Delivery model. You franchise out the name and the franchisee pays for the equipment, maintenance, etc. while you provide the product to them. In FedEX' case it's packages to deliver, in Uber's it's people (and packages I guess if they wanted). Uber would provide the back office and riders which means the would not need nearly as much capital as they would if they owned everything. Plus they have no money at risk if the service fails to generate enough revenue to cover the capital and operational costs.
In Uber's case, if they develop and build the cars they can make money selling or leasing them to their franchises, if they go that route, or to independent contractors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mactendo
Lol, wut????!
I'm not sure you understand the article.

We are talking about DRIVERLESS cars.
You think Uber, is going to create software for driverless cars, have other people purchase & own these driverless cars, then they'll pay those people to use them???
I am seriously SO confused about what you're even envisioning....

Yes, that's exactly what I think. Because it's exactly the same as their current, wildly successful business model, except the contractor gets a car instead of an iPhone.

Meanwhile you think they're going to build massive amount of physical infrastructure and engage hundreds or thousands of full-time employees to store, clean, and service all these cars in frantic overnight shifts in every city in which they operate?

Get a grip. Or better still get a dictionary and look up 'franchising'.
 
We are talking about DRIVERLESS cars.
You think Uber, is going to create software for driverless cars, have other people purchase & own these driverless cars, then they'll pay those people to use them???

Yes. Because that's how they insulate themselves from liability in their business model.

Their app and servers allow people to call drivers to pick them up, while the car's owner pays for the vehicle, and it's mechanical upkeep, cleaning, fuel expenses, and If anything goes wrong, they just say "Well, it's not our car." And you're left to make claims against the car owner's personal insurance.

...But then you find out their insurance company has a clause stating that their (consumer vehicle) policy is not in effect when the car's owner is engaged in "a paid 'ride sharing' or 'ride hailing' service" (i.e. Uber). And now you're SOL because the car was not really insured.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.