> I'm curious what all the folks who claimed this was decades away are thinking?
What is the "this" you're talking about here? I don't think there were many skeptics out there saying that it'll be decades before a taxi service will be able to launch a small, manned trial in a single municipality. Given that it's manned it still isn't quite at Level 4.
The cynicism (and I'd consider myself a mild cynic I guess) was and is around the notion that the vast majority of us would be sat in self-driving cars by now. That was always wildly optimistic. We're making progress and that's great! But there were a lot of breathless predictions years back that have not come to fruition.
This market is manned and a serious challenge. The trial is Arizona is in an extremely quiet, predictable suburb as well as being small scale; unmanned but not as serious a challenge.
Each of these is different but neither's existence by itself proves unmanned in challenging locations is right around the corner. It's kind of an exercise in Baysian statistic, how much more likely this makes one think unmanned taxis in serious location is depends on what one thinks the initial probability is.
SF seems like a pretty serious location to me. Granted, its still manned, but it makes sense that they'd start out manned in any new environment out of an abundance of caution. It seems likely that we could see a switch to unmanned in SF in the next 1-2 years if things go well. I have to think at least Waymo believes this is likely, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this.
Surely this is just moving the goal posts. If they can launch in Chandler and in San Francisco then a huge amount of the contiguous United States is on the table.
Nope, not even close. There's a very specific reason they've picked Chandler, and it's that there's relatively little weather and the roads are fairly simple (among many other things specific to Chandler).
The vast majority of the contiguous United States is decidedly not "on the table" as of now.
"The contiguous United States" is still a decade (or more) away. It may literally never happen.
It generally doesn’t snow in SF or Chandler. I personally like snow, so I wouldn’t describe that weather as significantly worse. But my understanding is snow makes it hard for lane keeping, and then there’s all sorts of edge cases like streets that aren’t plowed and require special driving techniques, people placing cones to reserve parking spaces, etc.
I feel like San Francisco is a good progression - still generally good weather, but much more crowded, more traffic, more special cases, pedestrians and bikes, one-way roads, topography, limited visibility due to hills and no-setback buildings, construction, buses, etc. It's a significant leap in urban complexity, probably greater than 98% of the rest of the USA.
Regarding the weather, lots of people have mentioned snow, but much of the Midwest, Northeast, and especially the South can have sudden torrential rain. I haven't researched it but I would guess that a Florida rainstorm would be hard for both radar and visual guidance. I predict their next city will be Orlando, in partnership with Disney. Then somewhere like Boston (harder - older street pattern and more snow) or Philadelphia (easier). Each of those 3 would "unlock" new territory they can cover. I predict that NYC will be one of the last areas "unlocked".
I completely agree. I was pretty critical of them when they were just a tiny slice of Arizona, but going from n to n+1 is really major progress.
The fact that the +1 is a city as complex as SF is a really good sign as well. If they can handle SF, they can handle Charlotte, Atlanta, LA, and many other major metros just as "easily".
That's the point of this comment chain. They don't have to make it work everywhere in the contiguous United States to have a useful product. The (robo)taxi market is concentrated in big metro areas and that's what their focus is.
The thing is, with apps providing start and end point, they don't even need to be able to handle a full city to get a benefit. They can geofence really aggressively, and the moment they can ditch the safety drivers from a sufficient subset of journeys based on routes requested, they have an advantage.
Exactly. They can outright ignore really hard markets,. and be present in markets that have a decent percentage of routes they can handle and fall back to dispatching regular cars on routes their full automation can't handle.
AFAIK no one recently claimed level 4 with a safety driver was decades away, and I was working on self driving until a few months ago so I was kinda "plugged" into the news. A handful of serious companies have plans and funding to deploy L4 taxi fleets or L4 features to consumer cars in 4/5 years.
There's no commercial value at L4 whatsoever if you still pay a safety driver. It's usually even more expensive per hour than a normal human driver and the cars don't work under adverse weather conditions.
Did anyone claim _this_ was decades away? The claim is usually about when self-driving cars will actually be viable for anyone to use in arbitrary areas, not when experimental pilot programs are launched in individual cities.
That things are progressing about as expected. More specifically, Waymo is doing a bit better I than my general expectations, Cruise is about on par, and the rest slower.
Waymo has been at it for a bit over 12 years now. We'll have to see if Waymo's progress ramps up after San Francisco, but to me this is still looking like an 80/20 problem, with the added twist that each new region they expand to will have it's own unique 20% to learn that adds another 80% to the schedule. But that just validates Waymo's approach even more in my eyes.
AFAIK most of the cynicism around self driving cars is not that it is not possible, but rather that it doesn’t solve the problems they claim to be solving. E.g. self driving cars won’t solve traffic (busses do), they won’t be safer (trains are), they won’t be convenient (unless you are rich enough to afford one), and at the end of the day, they are still massive things that takes tonnes of space and infrastructure and pollute a bunch. Just like human driven cars.
I would think most commercial value comes when you eliminate the human labor from driving, which is the dominant cost of transporting when there is less than ~10 passengers. What makes you think Level 4 is the most economically impactful threshold?
I think almost no commercial value is at 4. I'm fact, it could be negative value. Because you need the expense of a "digital driver" and the expense of a human driver.
Level 4 (e.g. highways in good weather) is something that people buying cars will pay a significant amount for as an option in good weather. It does nothing for those who want robotaxis. But the former don't care about the latter.
You have multiple groups of drivers including those who appreciate self-driving assistance on long boring highway stretches and may not even drive in cities that much and those who never want to get behind a wheel or perhaps ever own a car.
Level 4 doesn't necessarily mean just highways - it could also easily include suburbs with well-designed roads that have been mapped in excruciating detail.
You could force the car to avoid certain intersections with lots of close calls, or give the car advance info about unexpected objects detected in the road by cars up ahead, etc. which would make the task a little easier.
Current California regulations for remote operators are identical regardless of whether the car is considered SAE level 4 or 5. I'm not sure what constitutes "continuous monitoring" there (I could interpret that as anything between eyes on road at all times down to positive SOH messages arrived).
Apart from regulations, level 4 doesn't require a remote operator monitoring at all times. It just requires them to be available when the car recognizes it can't handle the situation. Depending on how frequently interventions are needed, that could mean a remote operator for every car, or one for every 10 thousand.
The important part about Level 4 is that the car recognizes its own limits and doesn't act outside of them. How practical those limits are is completely undefined by SAE. Level 4 is a continuum whose limit is level 5. We will definitely be seeing practical commercial value as we approach level 5 but haven't yet gotten there.
Level 2 varies dramatically by car maker. On the low end you have companies like Ford and Honda doing lane keep cruise control, and on the high end you have Tesla which does automatic lane changes, takes on/off ramps, and stops for traffic lights. Tesla also charges a high premium for their software making it basically the opposite of a commodity.
I'm curious what all the folks who claimed this was decades away are thinking?