News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by JamilD on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @07:14PM (#13181056)
I want self-driving cars to happen as quickly as possible, but Uber seems like they were extremely reckless and negligent here. Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side?

And with at least two reported incidents of these cars running red lights, it seems like driver training and attentiveness was lacking. If the software wasn't ready, fine, but you have to be aware of that and train your drivers to be 100% attentive to their surroundings, especially since it's the first day of real, commercial trials.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by abraca on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:33AM (#13182870)
Uber has enough money and power to be negligent and reckless unfortunately. I was a big Uber user but the way they treated me after an accident (where I was the hurt passenger) was truly terrifying. I thought the whole Uber is "evil" thing was overblown but it is not. Be very, very careful with Uber. They have a lot of resources to fight with, and most people don't have the emotional or financial resources to go to trial with them. They're like a playground bully who gets away with anything because even the teachers can't win against them.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by teej on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:40AM (#13182892)
Are you able to speak more about your specific experience?
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by abraca on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:13AM (#13183009)
I can't, I'm sorry. I could get some media around my story but I am a private person. Plus Uber would probably just discredit me and lie. I wish I didn't have to deal with them over the accident stuff because they fight really dirty.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by majewsky on Thursday December 15, 2016 @05:26AM (#13183626)
It's too late now since you used your normal account here, but next time, you might want to use a throwaway account to speak more freely.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by kinkdr on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @10:44PM (#13182207)
> Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side?

When did Uber obey the law? Why would they start now?

Edit: Apologies for my tone, but Uber has demonstrated quite a few times in the past that they don't have any respect for the law.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by MichaelBurge on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:30PM (#13182421)
> When did Uber obey the law?

In absolute numbers, their company probably follows more laws than most people on this forum, since they operate in many different jurisdictions. It wouldn't surprise me if the average HN commenter committed more felonies than the average Uber executive, or of Uber as a whole.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by dap on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:49AM (#13182737)
It doesn't matter how many laws you follow. It matters how many you break.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by placeybordeaux on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:09AM (#13182794)
What kind of bizarre argument are you making?
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by StavrosK on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:32AM (#13183874)
That if you follow enough laws, it doesn't matter if you break some.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by Hydraulix989 on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:01AM (#13182772)
That is such an apples to oranges comparison.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by johnchristopher on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @07:30PM (#13181162)
Then we are better off driving for real because `not driving, meaning not being in control, but being ready to take the helm at any time` must be more exhausting (because you have to focus on everything not under your control vs focus on everything that you don't have control minus what you actually control) and increase our reaction time (since some time will pass between the moment you notice you have to take the helm and the moment when you actually are in control) than just driving.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by greglindahl on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @07:52PM (#13181312)
Being ready to take the helm at any time is required by law, at this point. It applies to Google's test cars, to Tesla Autopilot, etc.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by johnchristopher on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:43AM (#13183303)
To be clear (late posting, sorry) I believe that even if you have your hands on the wheel when the car is driving by itself it is more exhausting and dangerous than just driving the car yourself.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by deathanatos on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:13PM (#13182335)
Are Google's / Waymo's vehicles not steering-wheel and pedal free? E.g., go to Waymo's own site here[1], scroll to "2015 World’s first fully self-driving ride on public roads", and watch the video: they give, if I'm not mistaken, a blind man a ride in a steering-wheel-free, pedals-free autonomous vehicle on public roads, in Texas. Now, granted, the original article is about the CA DMV, but I've seen vehicles that are indistinguishable from the prototype car in the video driving in Mountain View. Unless there's a model with steering wheels and pedals (it is hard to say from the outside), that would seem to imply that Google is testing fully autonomous cars in California. (Note that I'm not trying to imply that this is illegal: I'm not well-versed enough in the DMV's rules around autonomous vehicles to know if it requires "being ready to take the helm at any time" or not. I also did not realize, until Waymo's announcement recently, that they were so far along.)

[1]: https://waymo.com/journey/

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by rgbrenner on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:46PM (#13182495)
even though those cars are steering wheel and pedal free, a google employee is riding inside, with a laptop attached, and a big red stop button. Here's an image:

http://www.mycoolbin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Googles-...

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by rwmj on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:46AM (#13183316)
What happens after they hit the big red button and the car stops in the middle of the street? Do they wait for a tow truck? Or do they rely on restarting the self-driving mode after the danger has passed?
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by eginhard on Thursday December 15, 2016 @05:57AM (#13183747)
"The prototype vehicles in particular are equipped with removable steering wheels, accelerator pedals and brake pedals that allow test drivers to take over driving if desired." [1]

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0RESYe...

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by stickfigure on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:34AM (#13182678)
these cars running red lights

I watched quite the opposite problem the other day. Uber self-driving car pulled up to a red light on a busy intersection, in the left turn lane. The light turned green. I could tell that the car was in self-driving mode because it didn't step into the intersection like humans would do - not even slightly. The opposing traffic never let up enough to make a left turn, so the car stayed put, even through the yellow. Poor thing skipped a complete green light cycle. I think I heard a horn from some of the drivers backed up behind it.

Self-driving cars might be a little too polite.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by cmurf on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:18AM (#13182827)
Humans do this also. It makes me wonder what the driver did before left turn arrows were common. In driver's ed, i was tought to pull into the intersection blocking the right lane of perpendicular traffic (to my left), the lane just after the crosswalk. A surprising number of people don't pull up at all.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by Shank on Thursday December 15, 2016 @04:01AM (#13183351)
As a new driver, I would much, much rather play it safe if I'm unfamiliar with the intersection & traffic flow than pull out. Does it seem silly to you? Probably. To me? No. I don't want to be caught in an intersection that I'm not supposed to be in when the light turns red.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by nixy on Thursday December 15, 2016 @05:09AM (#13183572)
But a green light allows you, even as you're turning left, to enter the intersection. The light lets you in to the intersection so that you can leave it when conditions are favorable to do so.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by dllthomas on Thursday December 15, 2016 @10:55AM (#13185402)
Assuming there is space for you in your destination lane.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by rfrey on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:42AM (#13183916)
In Toronto where I live, you'd better pack a lunch if you have any left turns on your route. Probably supper, too.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by metafunctor on Thursday December 15, 2016 @05:35AM (#13183659)
Pardon me if this sounds rude, but where did you learn to drive? I was taught in driving school that you are supposed to pull up when turning left at an intersection with lights but no left turn arrow.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by serge2k on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:33PM (#13187456)
I think a lot of people don't like doing it because it feels wrong to be in the intersection and turning on a red, assuming you get stuck and turn on the red.

I got told by the instructor on my test to pull out into the intersection.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by serge2k on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:31PM (#13187440)
It's what you are supposed to do. Pull in to the intersection and wait until you have a gap to turn. Other cars have the right of way, but are supposed to (yeah right) yield to you when the light turns yellow. Even if they don't you are in the intersection so you just go when safe (even if you have to wait for the red).
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by andygates on Thursday December 15, 2016 @06:37AM (#13183890)
The Goog mentioned in one of their progress reports that this was a thing, and that they'd be tweaking their code to nose forward the way humans do.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by euyyn on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:55AM (#13182755)
Imagine the poor Google koala car in the streets around Union Square...
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by serge2k on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:30PM (#13187426)
> I could tell that the car was in self-driving mode because it didn't step into the intersection like humans would do - not even slightly.

So it's a bad driver.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by trymas on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:17AM (#13182616)
> Why not apply for a permit and stay on the safe side?

Because in our world - 'do it first and ask for mercy later' works better. It probably depends on situation if it's a unethical/bad tactics or not, though.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @10:47PM (#13182220)
Uber seems like they were extremely reckless

YES. I live 10 feet away from the garage. I've noticed over the past few months that they've been ramping in typical startup fashion: hockey stick growth.

After reading about Lyft's CEO, a narrative of "nice guys finishing last", I started realizing how unscrupulous Uber is. Sadly, cut-throat businesses win.

I recently took an Uber ride, where the driver was an un-retired man in his 70s. He recently just abandoned his failing dry clean business. This one hits close to home for me, because my parents are approaching their 70s, holding on to a failing dry clean business, too. For me, hardworking people like this, with arguably bad business acumen, are counter example to the notion of "if you're poor, it's because you didn't work hard enough." Before the dry clean business, the Uber driver ran a deli business, but that was a failure, too. No doubt he possesses an entrepreneurial spirit, albeit he probably shouldn't. I can't fault him for not being smarter. He proceeded to tell me about his idea to create a website where people upload images of their face, at different angle, and can get a custom printed 3d figurine, that he would hand paint them. I didn't have the heart to tell him that as someone in the top 1% income bracket of 20-something year olds, who consistently blows money on expensive toys / gadgets / dinners, I would never spend $300 bucks on a custom painted figurine. See, he was an artist before coming to America. He said "I want to be an artist before I die. I was too busy making a living when I came to America".

Uber gave this man a job. That's good. But he's being paid near minimum wage. To achieve that, he has to work 12+ hour days to acquire the bonuses that Uber uses to incentivize their drivers to become addicted. These are the kinds of risk Uber induces on its drivers, customers, and other people on the road. The sad reality is, he's going to be displaced from this minimum wage job by automation, much earlier than people expect. Uber doesn't care. I'm not saying Uber or any private company MUST care. I'm just illustrating how a company's values permeates itself, and precipitates to individuals' livelihoods.

I recently read an article about the unit economics of Uber. It doesn't work out. Uber, in it's current form is based on leveraging free VC money to subsidize and incentivize somewhat artificial demand. It's predatory monopolistic tactics. They won't be able to live up to their unicorn IPO valuation hype. They NEED to expand into other domains. Recently, Uber acquired an A.I. startup, which I think is an indicator of this. Alternatively, they can fix the unit economics equation to be profitable. Autonomous vehicles is the purported answer. This VC and unicorn valuation environment, I believe, is resulting in this kind of hastiness, at the increased risk of human lives.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by linkregister on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:38AM (#13182696)
Agreed, I think that driving only makes sense as a minimum wage job.

The notion that Lyft is significantly better is untrue. Lyft actually created the "ride sharing" portion of both apps (UberX emulated Lyft's model). Lyft didn't get regulatory approval either. Both have been ejected from Austin and other cities.

I think the unit economics work out, but perhaps not to the level their current valuation suggests. I think Lyft could have been successful if it had not been outspent/out-VC-raised by Uber. Lyft was the original innovator of the true ride sharing segment. Uber at the time was a broker/dispatcher for commercial limousines.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:44AM (#13183309)
I think the unit economics work out, but perhaps not to the level their current valuation suggests.

Yes. I agree. This is the qualification that was needed as to not make an overstatement.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by bsder on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:58PM (#13182550)
Given your assessment, at least take Lyft instead.

If I have a choice, I don't take Uber.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:05AM (#13182575)
I have both apps installed. I use the one that offers me the significantly better rate.

Edit: Not just better rate, but better economic advantage. Money + Time. I'm not too rigorous about the precise trade off, but ideally, I will act as to maximize my utility frontier.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by erlehmann_ on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:25PM (#13182401)
If you evaluate Uber like that, why do you take Uber rides?
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Thursday December 15, 2016 @12:08AM (#13182586)
I'm an opportunist, and not an idealist. I will gladly take subsidized rides, while VCs continue to cover my fare. Uber is consistently cheaper for me than Lyft. If pricing was equal, I will choose Lyft without hesitation. If I knew with confidence that the probability of dieing in a Uber is greater than in a Lyft, I might still take the Uber if the price is attractive enough. But I can't possibly know, so my null hypothesis about the probability of dieing in either is zero, which, intuitively, not the case. Then again, I don't put money into my 401k concerned about the United States going bankrupt, either.

There is a difference between social / moral value judgments versus economic value judgment. For me, I commented on the social value judgments, but act on the economic one, unless of course the economic one is immoral. There is nothing immoral in me taking an Uber ride. I said "I'm not saying Uber or any private company MUST care", because to suggest otherwise is saying Uber HAS to act to some social value, rather than to their economic advantage.

Edit: I'll take a ride in Uber's self driving car, too. As long as it's "subsidized" at some attractive enough price. By that, I mean they pay me. What that threshold price is, I don't know, but I know it exists.

Edit 2: I love eating McDonald's. I will not boycott and refrain from eating chicken mcnuggets, even though I know their workers are being paid minimum wage. These are macroeconomic issues that I, cynically, lack the influence to affect. However, at a micro level, I give tips to employees at fastfood restaurant. I gave a $20 cash tip to this particular Uber driver, too. That's against Uber rules. That's also against what I just claimed about being economically maximizing. I don't consider the tip as part of my expense for some service / good, and rather just helping people out in general.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by B1FF_PSUVM on Thursday December 15, 2016 @04:18AM (#13183410)
> I would never spend $300 bucks on a custom painted figurine

Not for yourself. But there are many people who love to have portraits of themselves on the walls, especially if the artist has a knack for that business ...

(This 'selfie' thing didn't come out of nowhere at all, to think of it ...)

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by thetrb on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:17AM (#13182820)
> I recently read an article about the unit economics of Uber. It doesn't work out. Uber, in it's current form is based on leveraging free VC money to subsidize and incentivize somewhat artificial demand.

I don't buy that argument. By that logic no taxi service could ever work out. It might not work out at the current price levels, but once they squashed all competitors they're free to raise their prices (similar to what Amazon does).

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by TeMPOraL on Thursday December 15, 2016 @02:55AM (#13183163)
And that's supposedly a good thing?

Maybe regular taxis aren't that bad after all...

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by dx034 on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:45AM (#13183313)
It's not that hard to set up a business like Uber if you only start with one city. You don't need a global business. Taxi businesses also always worked per city. As soon as it'd be lucrative, there will be some competition in the city where it's worth most.

Sure, you can't just copy uber's app. But building a simple app with basic functionality isn't that expensive. And people will mainly decide by price.

Their only chance to ever make back the losses is the self driving business. If it works out they could be very profitable. If it doesn't, I don't believe that they'll ever make back the investments.

Amazon is actually a good example. They also haven't really made back the investments. They're still not very profitable. Maybe they never will be, who knows. As long as enough investors believe in them they can comfortably afford this style.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:48AM (#13183322)
people will mainly decide by price.

They have, they are, and they will.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by automatwon on Thursday December 15, 2016 @03:18AM (#13183227)
Can you explain how you arrived at the deduction that NO taxi service could exist?

I agree :

(1) SOME taxi service has to exist. By "work out", we mean profitable, if not non-negative

(2) the unit economics of Uber at the current prices are not profitable / sustainable

(3) The deca-unicorn valuation is based on Uber's revenue as a monopoly.

To ask Sam Altman's question: "If you win, will you stay the winner?"

In the case of Amazon, I can imagine a world where a retailer simultaneously satisfying (1) (profitability) and (3) (monopoly) can continue to exist. Amazon have logistical advantages and the largest catalog of products. It will be hard for a startup to de-thrown hypothetical monopoly Amazon. Hypothetical monopoly Amazon will reap monopoly profits, but demand for retail goods is not suddenly going to disappear.

Hypothetical Uber monopoly will reap monopoly profits per transaction. But will demand for taxi services remain as high as in the current environment of subsidized taxi prices? I'm sometimes able to land a 3-4 mile Uber pool ride in San Francisco for just $3. I have a feeling Uber is not making money here, and these prices are not sustainable, unless of course, someone invents Unicorn fuel * ahem *. This is comparable to public transit prices. If Uber monopoly starts charging unsubsidized and profitable rates, I will reduce my usage by an order of magnitude, if not two. Particularly in situations where public transit is a substitute good. 3 years ago, before moving to San Francisco, I lived just fine without ever using a Taxi. I used public transit to the airport, or got a lift from a friend. Being in San Francisco where subsidized Uber is so cheap, why WOULDN'T I use it? Taxi service is a price sensitive good, and I can live without taxi services 99% of the time.

What characteristics of Uber will allow it to remain a monopoly? Technology? Intellectual Property? Network effects? Lower costs than competitors? Autonomous vehicles? Or something else?

- Network Effects - if I'm using a taxi service, I don't really care if my friends or family use it. Network effects will definitely make me try it out, but ultimately it will be based on price.

- Intellectual Property / Technology - I don't mind making a phone call, rather than using a fancy app, if making a phone call to a cab company saves me money versus a monopoly

- Lower Costs - Will Uber's economy of scale allow them to get gasoline at a significantly lower cost than competitors? Or buy cars and maintenance at discount? Or what other cost advantage will monopoly Uber have?

- Intellectual Property / Technology - Maybe Uber's dispatching system is better than the competitor. What's to stop Google from calling along and integrating a comparable dispatching system?

- Autonomous Vehicles - Are Uber's autonomous vehicles at Level 4 autonomy?

What's to stop a local low-tech taxi cab company from coming along and offering profitable, sustainable, and most importantly (relatively) attractive non-monopoly prices?

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by hkmurakami on Thursday December 15, 2016 @01:39AM (#13182889)
I'm sad that I'm saying this, but why wait for a permit when there's little to no chance of actual drawback or punishment for being reckless?
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by amaks on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @08:41PM (#13181609)
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by nodesocket on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @08:24PM (#13181516)
The real question is how hard is this permit to obtain? I'm also guessing the permit limits Uber from doing what they want completely.
Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by chao- on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:45PM (#13182483)
> I'm also guessing the permit limits Uber from doing what they want completely.

Yes, it is in fact a key feature of laws and statutes that they (sometimes) keep people from just doing whatever they want.

Re:Uber ordered to stop self-driving vehicle service in San ... by andrewguenther on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:20PM (#13182376)
So that's a reason to just ignore it?