
Waymo gets green light in California to pick up passengers in self-driving cars - jonbaer
https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/3/20680938/waymo-self-driving-cars-passengers-permit-california-pick-up
======
brendanmc6
I have a feeling our regulatory environment is going to be unfairly hostile
towards AVs in the coming months and years. Of course we all want a safe and
responsible rollout of this tech, but people too easily forget how ABSURDLY
dangerous driving is already.

Like with Tesla, every accident and injury caused by a Waymo vehicle is going
recieve disproportionate media coverage and subsequent public backlash. I hope
we can view these incidents in context.

Admittedly, safety is just one speedbump-- social and economic disprution is a
whole 'nother beast.

Whatever happens it's an exciting time to be alive! AVs have the _potential_
to bring more sustainable, safe, efficient, and affordable mobility and I
can't wait to see how it all plays out.

~~~
nothis
Since I don't think anyone on hackernews thinks much different, I feel like
defending the other side of this: Yes, in theory self-driving cars can be
safer than human drivers. But the tech simply isn't mature. It just isn't.
Early tech always has hiccups, not the ones that are calculated into the risk
but the ones _no one expects_. So there's a somewhat high probability that a
bug that works totally different from what anyone expects is just waiting to
happen and it's steering a 4000 pound block of metal. Let's start this, but
it's okay to start slow.

~~~
jussij
Except humans are also steering those 4000 pound blocks of metal around and
not doing such a great job of it.

Here in Australia, with a population of 25 Million there where 1,140 road
deaths in 2018.

The USA with it's 327 million population had some 40,000 road deaths on 2018.

I find it hard to imagine the av will end up doing any worse a job driving
than the humans currently on the road.

And since, even with the occasional bug, the av would be doing a better job of
it, that means they will end up saving lives (and lots of them).

~~~
cameronbrown
Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game? The difference between
those two scenarios is that different people will die. It also assumes we all
adopt AVs too. Now of course everybody has equal value, but are you prepared
to accept that a software bug and a lapse in human judgement are also equal?
Without accepting that at a societal level the average person will not accept
AVs.

Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again,
or be punished if alcohol was involved. With an AV, currently nobody knows. It
could be as simple as "we've checked in the bugfix to prevent this from
happening again" with no emotion behind it.

~~~
jussij
> Do we really want to turn this into a numbers game?

The reality is lots of people die on the road and the numbers show this sad
fact.

Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their
own. They die at the hands of the other driver.

The sooner we can take away that human element from driving the better,
because that one act will end up saving lots of lives.

> Humans who cause accidents will have remorse and learn never to do it again

That is so untrue, at least for what happens here in Australia.

Here in Australia we have many hundreds in not thousands of repeat drink
driving, speeding offenders on the roads, and short of locking them up there
is no way to keep them off the roads.

Taking away their license makes no difference as they just drive without a
license.

~~~
6gvONxR4sf7o
>Now the reality is some of those who are killed, die from no fault of their
own. They die at the hands of the other driver.

That's _way_ fewer

~~~
jussij
This seems like a very circular argument.

The argument in this thread seems to suggest we should be slow at adopting av
technology because it could kill some innocent people.

Now I accept that point as a fact. There is no doubt people will die in av
cars just like people die in cars today.

Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which
is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would
help to greatly reduce that number.

~~~
AdieuToLogic
> Yet, on the other we have human drivers killing innocent people today, which
> is acceptable collateral damage, even though introducing av technology would
> help to greatly reduce that number.

Speaking for no one other than myself, vehicular deaths are not "acceptable
collateral damage" so much as a statistical inevitability, one sought to be
minimized as much as possible.

The problem with introducing autonomous vehicle technology, again IMHO, is the
_assumption_ that it "would help to greatly reduce that number."

This is not a known result.

~~~
jussij
> This is not a known result.

And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get
answered.

But logic suggests they would help only because, with the exceptions of bugs
in the system, the av:

. would not drive drunk

. would not speed

. would not run red lights

. would not get tired

. has better reaction times than humans

. has better eyesight than humans

. is not distracted by mobile phones, passengers or pretty girls/guys walking
on the foot path

. is not susceptible to road rage

. etc etc.

~~~
AdieuToLogic
>> This is not a known result.

> And without actually doing the implementation that question will never get
> answered.

Exactly. Which is why it is imperative the engineering community does not
assume outcomes beforehand.

Much of the concerns you list I agree are likely benefits, with the "not drive
drunk", "not get tired", and "not susceptible to road rage" items being a near
certainty due to eliminating biological aspects.

What autonomous vehicles might not be better at could be:

. snow

. black ice

. mud

. severe thunderstorms

. able to operate in high dust environments

. adapting to rapid unexpected operating conditions

. when to run a red light (emergencies, external threats, some combination of
conditions above)

Are these edge conditions? Maybe. Or you could call them functional
requirements not often discussed.

All I'm saying is that there is a lot more to general-purpose driving than
what can be shown in a limited setting.

IOW, show me an autonomous vehicle which can complete the Paris-Dakar Rally[0]
and I'll show you someone who will say it's time for people to stop driving
;-).

0 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakar_Rally)

EDIT: formatting

~~~
mapcars
Humans learned to drive for years, initially, we will be better, but as time
goes there is no chance against an automated solution. The whole
industrialization process is just this and there were problems and bad things
happened, but it works in the end.

------
mdorazio
Pretty key restrictions here: "though it may not charge riders, and a human
safety driver must remain behind the wheel"

This is basically greenlighting further testing on CA roads, not actual
driverless taxis. I don't expect that to be legally available on CA roads for
a couple more years.

~~~
munk-a
That is indeed key for restricting running a profitable business - but google
could really build demand and public support by running these at a loss. If
they're on the streets and commonly visible then they'll quickly be accepted
as reality.

~~~
dheera
As a user I sure would love free taxis for a while.

~~~
xenospn
“Just log in using your Facebook account to receive free rides!”

~~~
dheera
Maybe they can pool you preferentially with friends of friends, too!

And then there can be the LinkedIn version which pools you with potential
hires/recruiters.

Or the Github account version which pools Java and Python programmers together
and livestreams the arguments to the Youtube account car ...

------
carapace
I don't think it's okay to test big powerful robots on public roads.

Just because a robot looks like a car and has people sitting inside it doesn't
make it okay to ignore common sense. These things have already killed at least
one person.

I've said it before: we could build self-driving light-weight "nerf" golf
carts that would be useful without being deadly. Trying to jump immediately to
self-driving _cars_ is a techno-fetish.

\- - - -

Edit to add: "People kill people so robots should be allowed to kill people
too." is a rotten argument, eh?

~~~
AOsborn
In isolation, you're right. Why on earth should giant robots be tested on
public roads, especially when they can kill people?

When we actually look at safety on public roads, you know what kills more
people? Other people.

We don't need the robots to be perfect to get them on the road. We just need
them to be safer than human drivers.

That is a much lower bar to meet.

~~~
carapace
> We don't need the robots to be perfect to get them on the road. We just need
> them to be safer than human drivers.

> That is a much lower bar to meet.

First, _maybe_.

I don't doubt that auto-autos will be able to handle anything that's "in the
book", and that, if we set it up right, "the book" will be constantly
expanding and becoming more comprehensive as each machine in the fleet shares
its history in near-realtime and offline processors integrate the data into
new stimulus-response patterns or whatever. Etc. Handwave.

But I also suspect that driving safely IRL requires GAI. (After all, we
evolved GAI to deal with the world, eh? If the world were simpler we would be
dumber, no?)

Anyhow, let's grant the point for the sake of discussion:

> We just need them to be safer than human drivers.

Okay, fine... How do you know when they pass that point?

Until we are sure that's the case, don't test them on the public roads with
moms and dads and kids and old people and cats and dogs, eh? eh?

\- - - -

And what about the nerf golf cart?

I would love to have a machine into which I could confidently place my mother,
who is suffering from dementia and can no longer drive or even ride the bus by
herself, and have it transport her _safely_ to and from, say, an appointment
with her doctor.

That machine doesn't have to travel more than 5-10 kph.

One of the basic principles of safe auto-autos is that they should _never_
travel faster than they can stop. Meaning, whatever the conditions, the aa
should be 100% "confident" that it could stop before a collision, even if that
means traveling at a walking pace. (If this isn't the case then _you have
built a killer robot_ whatever else it is. And it won't even protect you from
the Terrible Secret of Space.)

That's what I mean about self-driving _cars_ being a techno-fetish. We could
build something tomorrow that _wouldn 't be able to kill people_ and sell it,
but we're obsessed with speed and don't even realize it. We're blinded by
visions of driving Knight Industries Two Thousand.

------
sam_goody
My take on the future.

ATM self driving has two issues - the places where it fails in safety are not
yet well enough known, and it causes major disruptions for the other cars on
the road while turning, parking, or anything that involves interaction /
guessing the bahavior of human drivers for something more complex than staying
in a lane.

If we would ONLY have self driving cars (no human drivers) and there was some
standard they would use to communicate cross company, than self driving would
be MUCH faster, not inconvenient, safer and what not else.

As time goes by, there are more and more cars that are being built with the
sensors to do self driving, even if they don't have the capability or legal
rights.

We will find ourselves in a few years where the majority of cars in certain
areas will have the capabilities built in. At that point, some cities will
start requiring self driving only, and the software will be built on that
assumption. And then suddenly all this effort that Waymo is putting into
coexisting with humans will be redundant.

~~~
monk_e_boy
> And then suddenly all this effort that Waymo is > putting into coexisting
> with humans will be redundant

I can't imagine this will ever be removed. Take rural UK, there are still
steam powered traction engines on the road (occasionally), pony and traps,
horses, cyclists.

India will never be 100% AI cars .... not even in the cities.

------
fgnoplm
It amazes me how many otherwise intelligent people believe in the bullshit
hype of fully-self-driving cars. In reality, a car that can drive you from New
York to Boston with zero human intervention as safely as an average human
driver is probably several decades away at least.

~~~
stefanmichael
I think you're likely completely misinformed on the state and progress rate of
the solutions to this particular problem. I would be shocked if it were legal
to drive as a human being on public roads in "several decades"

~~~
rayiner
When I was a kid, scientists told me we'd be going to mars within a couple of
decades. According to them, it should've happened about a decade ago. Same
thing for supersonic airliners, etc.

~~~
icebraining
Are you saying supersonic airlines never happened?

~~~
rayiner
We never worked out the gating issues to make them commercially viable. The
last 10% is 90% of the work and whatnot.

------
shirro
Self driving vehicles are already in operation in many locations though
usually under more restricted use such as a fixed bus route. I wonder if the
question is not if the technology can do the job but if it should.

Having a small self driving electric shuttle bus moving old people around a
regional town in rural Australia seems like an empowering use of technology to
provide a service to people who otherwise would not be served. But when we
have youth unemployment over 10% we should be looking to services that employ
people.

~~~
a13n
Why is unemployment a bad thing?

~~~
shirro
Good question. I don't believe it is fundamentally bad but in the context of
an economy and society where personal advancement and prosperity are strongly
connected to employment it doesn't help. There may be other ways such as
universal income but I still can't get my head around how that is sustainable.

In Australia we are teetering into our first recession in decades. Retail
spending is down, property values are going backwards and increased defaults
put the stability of the financial system at risk. Wages growth has stagnated,
work has become casualised and the only people getting richer are those who
were rich to begin with. In that context having public funds go towards
technology instead of giving someone an income seems wrong. The people who
made the self driving bus aren't spending at local shops like a driver would.

California may not have the same economic pressures but I would be surprised
if people aren't asking some of the same questions. There is a massive number
of people employed operating vehicles. They feed families and contribute to
local economies. What happens when they lose their jobs?

~~~
soup10
"Busy work" jobs that aren't needed is not good. Investing in technology
creates wealth and better standard of living. Most people are smart and
resourceful when they want to be. If their job gets automated they should find
a different one, and if there are no jobs then entrepreneurs and governments
should think up ways to make use of the surplus labor.

------
acchow
These clickbait headlines are not helping set public expectations around
autonomous vehicles...

~~~
misterprime
I agree. However, it is an interesting topic and milestone for this forum,
imo. I'd like to try recommending a title edit.

~~Waymo gets green light in California to pick up passengers in self-driving
cars~~

"California authorizes next step of Waymo testing, including picking up but
not charging passengers."

------
bamboozled
Imagine if California just had proper trains ? Sydney, Australia has
driverless trains now.

~~~
quickthrower2
Sydney is not the shining beacon for public transport. London is far superior.

~~~
tialaramex
Politics means that London only has one GoA 3 system (the Docklands Light
Railway, a grade-separated system where each train has a human operator who
closes the doors and interacts with passengers) and no GoA 4 systems (which
don't have any staff, humans are merely passengers). Even in the longer term
London has no specific plans for GoA 4, although some London Underground lines
which are below ground for their entire run will likely become GoA 3 and
several are already GoA 2 (meaning a driver sits at the front but they don't
make most routine operating decisions they just close the doors and watch the
track ahead)

Sydney has a GoA 4 system already.

~~~
quickthrower2
But in basic terms of getting from A to B without a car, for most A and B it
is a lot more practical in London.

I've been thinking about this and to be fair London has a much higher daily
influx population than Sydney, from much further distances. The sheer volume
of commuters will be funding all this transport, way in excess of the
population of London itself.

------
ronilan
I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere and not sure I fully understand the legal
speak of the permit, so I’m wondering - are they allowed to drive their cars
(in California or elsewhere) with no people at all?

Reason is that while being an autonomous Uber might be the holy grail, self-
driving empty capability will surely bring immediate value in balancing and
maintaining car share and rental fleets.

Is this being explored by Waymo? Others?

~~~
notus
They can't currently but that is the end goal. That's kind of why I feel Uber
drivers trying to organize is just going to backfire on them since they are
just temporary drivers until automation can take over.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
So you think the drivers' strategy should be to fight for lower wages for
themselves in hopes that Uber will be able to stay in business should self-
driving cars emerge as a viable competitor?

~~~
notus
I think they shouldn't bite the hand that feeds.

------
Animats
Not really self-driving. Waymo is still using "safety drivers". Until the
technology gets past that, it's not adding any value.

------
docker_up
If a human has to be behind the wheel, then it will be even more expensive
than Uber. They won't be able to handle the demand and wait times will be
huge. So as a competitor to Uber I can't see how it will be effective. It's
definitely an interesting development but financially it doesn't make sense
unless the human is out of the equation.

~~~
lazyasciiart
Just like Uber, it will burn investor money in the hopes of one day making
financial sense.

------
ec109685
These different classes of permits are hard to parse.

Has waymo driven a single mile on a public road in California or Phoenix
without a safety driver behind the wheel?

------
astannard
As long as a scapegoat, erm I mean "human saftey driver" is present

------
spermboy
The article makes it seem like they are going to start competing with Uber
right this moment. In reality the body of the article indicates that a human
driver will have to be employed and that only Waymo employees and their
friends will be using them. So in other words, it will be more expensive than
Uber and it will only be active in an area where Uber drivers would rather not
be anyway.

This terrifies me. Uber is a very good source of income for a lot of people.
So google is going to run Waymo at a loss out of their endless pockets and
starve thousands of people of essential income? And we are all supposed to
dangle on the edge of our seats while we wait to see whether or not this task
is within the capabilities of our current technology, with all these people’s
livelihoods at stake? This is fucking bullshit. There aren’t good jobs to
transition into at the same skill level because of automation and outsourcing.
Expecting everyone to go to college, let alone go to college and become
programmers, is mental gymnastics levels of rationalization. Rationalizing
away the difficult and uncomfortable question of whether or not technology is
leading is to a place we want to be and what we can do a about it.

One job after another will disappear and don’t believe for a second that
programming is safe. They used to say it about lots of writing tasks that are
now automated by gtp2. I would bet most “journalists” could be automated by
gtp2 because most of their readership doesn’t look for or recognize high-level
order or coherency or even truth anyway. And don’t for even one split second
try to tell yourself that high level order and logic are off the table for
robots.

~~~
falcor84
I for one welcome our jobless future, even though I'm pretty sure we'll keep
inventing new roles for quite a few decades more.

~~~
spermboy
I just hate that I have to make all my plans around the fact that The economy
will be scrambled in as little as a couple decades. I wish I was born in a
time when things were stable and you could count on certain basic things like
the value of human labor.

~~~
Fricken
Technology and automation has always eliminated jobs, and has always created
more jobs than it eliminated. Most people today are employed doing trivial
shit. 200 years ago sectors like advertising, entertainment and media, law,
finance, education and healthcare were a tiny fraction of what they are today,
and there was certainly no such thing as silicon valley. Job churn today is
lower than it was in 1980, things really aren't changing that fast.

Chris Urmson, who is one of the most authoritative voices in self-driving cars
doesn't expect autonomous vehicles to be widely available in America for 3-5
decades, which is much slower than the rate at which automobiles swept the
nation in the first half of the 20th century.

~~~
tialaramex
The reason to expect it might be different this time is that computers are
_meta-applicable_. A bunch of men (the most famous being Turing) figured this
out in principle in the 1930s, but Grace Hopper actually put it into practice
by writing her "compiler".

The Spinning Jenny made it possible to do more spinning with fewer people
employed as spinners, but no advances on the Spinning Jenny would deplete the
newly created jobs of maintaining this machine or inventing further machines.

In contrast, a meta-applicable machine can automate not only a task it was
set, but also meta-tasks such as maintaining and further optimising the
machine itself or finding better tasks to do.

The Spinning Jenny is also illustrative because what actually ended up
happening was not only that many spinners became unemployed, but that fabric
production shot up and prices collapsed so that most people would now own more
clothing. That's why you own lots of clothes. But as you may have noticed, us
purchasing lots of clothes is itself an environmental disaster, and so we
probably need to cut back. If a machine makes it possible to create ten times
as much stuff for the same labour, yes, it's possible we'll just make ten
times as much stuff, but it's also possible we'll refrain and cut the labour
to one tenth...

