The difference is that accidents on a freeway are far more likely to be fatal than accidents on a city street.
Waymo didn't avoid freeways because they were hard, they avoided them because they were dangerous.
Maybe. We don’t know for sure.
You seem to frame that a bit like Waymo is cheating or padding their numbers.
But I see that as them taking appropriate care and avoiding stupid risks.
Anyway as someone else pointed out they recently started doing freeways in Austin so we’ll know soon.
Not sure how you read that. I'm saying Waymo was prioritizing safety.
Same argument, different sentiment.
LIDAR gives Waymo a fundamental advantage.
Tesla FSD is crap. But I also think we wouldn't see quite so much praise of Waymo unless Tesla also had aspirations in this domain. Genuinely, what is so great about a robo taxi even if it works well? Do people really hate immigrants this much?
What’s so great about a robotaxi even if it works well? It’s neat. As a technology person I like it exists. I don’t know past that. I’ve never used one they’re not deployed where I live.
I don't live in a covered area, but when I am in range I will gladly pay 10-20% more for a Waymo ride than an Uber/Lyft/etc.
Driving around in good weather and never on freeways is not much of an achievement. Having vehicles that continually interfere in active medical and police cordons isn't particularly safe, even though there haven't been terrible consequences from it, yet.
If all you're doing is observing a single number you're drastically under prepared for what happens when they expand this program beyond these paltry self imposed limits.
> Some of us call them out.
You should be working to get their certificate pulled at the government level. If this program is so dangerous then why wouldn't you do that?
> And they seem to keep providing evidence we may be right.
It's tragic you can't apply the same logic in isolation to Waymo.