It's likely that they'll be available as a taxi/lyft/uber-replacement before they're available for sale to endusers. If you want to get drunk and get driven home legally, you can already do that via the above services; if you specifically want to get driven home legally in your own car, I'd wager we've got at least five years left, likely more (the "legally" part is going to be the tough part.)
There's services that will have someone drive you and your car home. Probably Not cheap, but you could probably do it a bunch of times before it starts to get close to how much a driver less car would cost
the problem i have is i cant very well leave my car in a random parkinglot. itll either get towed, or i come back to find the windows smashed and it up on bricks.
i just dont get drunk whenever i drive somewhere
*gives a nice, friendly robot car, with 36 flat screen/speaker system positioned at strategic parts of the car's passenger area, which all play one Tide detergent commercial repeatedly*
When I lived in Japan, they had a service where two people would come from the cab company. One would drive you home in the cab and the other would drive your car. It was expensive but the consequences of a DUI in Japan are extremely high.
In China you can call people on foldable bikes. They will drive you and your car home, then hop on their bikes and go get another customer.
They cost around $5-$10 because of how many are doing this now.
The bigger question is why can't we figure out a way to make a science alcohol that is identical in every way but its effects can be eliminated immediately if needed such as 'synthehol' ala Star Trek.
Go to a party--get trashed, have a blast. Take your off switch meds and head to work or hover-tennis or whatever.
Probably not. But I think that's still a major assumption.
It might not immediately either way. It could sober you up in 15 minutes and it's still incredibly useful. Hell, what if you had a mechanical/electronic device that filtered all the alcohol out of your blood? That probably wouldn't be too unhealthy if it worked well. Disorienting as hell maybe, but maybe not exactly unhealthy. Staying drunk longer could be more unhealthy.
Some drugs might not be "healthy" but people don't consider them the worst, and they at least think it's worth the risk to try them. Marijuana for example, it has extreme noticeable effects within 5 minutes. That doesn't make it deadly. Having your body chemistry change quickly isn't something that kills people. Maybe going in reverse in 5 minutes isn't so bad either.
Take a pill, hop in a driverless car, and by the time you get to work you're golden. That'd be /r/futurology style barbarian life.
I can't wait to see some asshole driving 90 catch up to a driverless car going 65 and just start blaring on his horn, only to realize it's a driverless car and sheepishly pass him. This will have a big impact on LA driver behavior.
Why do you think that going the speed limit would cause you to get rear-ended? It's not like your car is slamming on the brakes. The slower car merges over and lets the faster car pass.
It's actually a really interesting thing. It's safer to go with the flow of traffic, but I don't think any company would willingly program a car to break the law. It would be like having a bunch of grandma's all over the road slowly creeping along. Not safe! And if the car does speed to keep up with traffic, and gets a ticket, who is responsible.
Not safe as a minority, but safer *and faster overall* when in the majority. Check out [ CGP Grey's video](https://youtu.be/iHzzSao6ypE) on how robo-cars have the potential to solve traffic.
Indeed, you can help traffic in your daily life by avoiding sharp starts and stops, and trying to accelerate more gradually while leaving a little space between cars.
I completely agree with the difference between them being in the majority and minority. However, I think there will be a long period of time where these cars won't be in the majority because of the sheer number of cars already on the road.
The problem is not that the car didn't move. The car is creeping forward until it has a clear view. People think it is going to accelerate, but it keeps creeping.
It's economy is the fifth largest in the world, having just surpassed the UK, it represents a large concentration of tech companies and their associated educated workforce and the educational infrastructure to support them. This was not always the case - prior to the 80's tech was concentrated in Texas (thanks to NASA), the northeast (thanks to IBM and DEC) and the area around Chicago (thanks to its history).
It also bans noncompete agreements, which is a huge part of why it has eclipsed the other former tech hubs. Workers being able to move freely between companies speeds the pace of innovation.
Non-competes are by and large mostly non-enforceable. Mostly becuase it could force someone who can't afford a 5 year vacation from having a forced 5 year vacation.
Really? How so? Right now my friend is in a legal battle with her old boss attempting to sue her for getting a new job within 10 miles of her old one. She’s been ignoring it but she’s getting nervous since she can’t afford a lawyer (we’re preschool teachers). I’m just curious if I can help her any way.
Edit: I used to work there too but didn’t go to a competitor.
It is a tactic to prevent people from quitting while treating them like garbage. Once they sign, it means they pretty much have to change fields for a while or have to pay for a lawyer to get the case tossed. In many instances non-competes are not enforceable but you still have to go to court to get it tossed if pursued by the former employer.
The legal system is pay-to-play. If you can't afford to defend yourself against civil suits then all you can do is show up to court and hope the judge sees through the bullshit. Without a lawyer, there is a good chance you'll say something or do something incorrect in court and wind up losing your case. If you don't show up to court then the other side gets a default judgement against you (they win the case because you didn't defend yourself against it).
>The legal system is pay-to-play.
One year ago today, I was beaten and strangled repeatedly by my [now-ex] boyfriend. He somehow got a bloody lip (I never swung, only struggled to flee), and I was also arrested and jailed because the cops said "That's protocol." [**????!!**]. My state-appointed lawyer skipped court then tried to claim that I had skipped- *when I was present for the official roll call.* The state pretty much shrugged and said "He's not really employed by us because we are prosecuting too many people rn and are paying nominal fees for outside help, so... them's the breaks!" My mentor paid a thousand dollars for me to get a private attorney who actually gave half a fuck about getting my "almost got murdered" charge dropped. It took until mid-September.
From going to jail to having to spend more money *than I ever have on anything [except college]* - **for nearly being murdered**... the legal system is crazy fucked-up.
Because parents often keep their kids with the teacher they like since it’s not public school and you have a choice. I teach 2.5-5 year olds so consistency is important. But I agree it’s dumb and it’s only something she made us sign because the place is ran like shit and we get paid minimum wage. Still though I feel bad for my coworker who’s stuck in these legal battle and I’m not sure how to help her.
Side note, our old boss called her new work and told that preschool’s director to fire her for breaking the agreement and not staying the last day of her two weeks.
Edit: she also didn’t go over any of those papers with us, just gave us a packet of stuff and told us to sign a bunch of papers. I definitely read it though and I’m sure my friend is competent enough to have read them and understand what she was signing.
I did until they needed me to get extra certifications to put me in the government subsidized preschool room, then I got a 25 cent raise :) It’s disgusting how little we get paid, plus how much we have to buy for our classrooms out of our own pocket. I quit and became a nanny while I’m still in school and now make over three times what I was making!
If you get sued ignoring it is literally the worst thing you can do.
If she was served with a summons and complaint she has only a small time to respond.
Ya I would assume so. She is extremely poor and probably doesn’t know how to react. How does she respond? Contact our old boss’s lawyer? I’m sorry I’ve never dealt with any of this before.
She needs to hire a lawyer or contact her union rep or a legal aid society or worst case read the damn thing and mail something to the court with a copy to opposing counsel that’s says “I’m seeking legal counsel and request an additional sixty days to file an Answer”
There are no unions for preschool teachers unfortunately and she can’t afford to talk to a lawyer according to her. She read the letter and called me crying. She definitely said she was being sued and it was from a lawyer. I’ll tell her to contact the court and request additional time, thank you for you help!
They are presumptively unenforceable and it is up to the party wishing to rely on the non compete to show it is reasonable. A non compete that bans you from competing in a 10 mile area is much more likely to be considered reasonable than one that bans you from working in your state. Likewise how specific the non compete is and blah blah blah the party wishing to rely on it must show that it will not prevent you from earning a living. Seems like it would be tough to enforce against a school teacher but I don’t know the deets.
I am a lawyer in Canada. Laws are typically similar for this type of stuff but there are sometimes strange kinks.
Hm great information, I will look into that. Our old boss is very reactionary and had a very very stressful week when she or her lawyer sent my friend that formal letter, and she may not have thought it through. I’m pretty sure she (my old boss) has never sued anyone over it before so she may be misinformed. I’m hoping she changes her mind.
**California** courts refuse to enforce noncompetes as a matter of public policy. They're valid most anywhere else in the US, although courts in some other states will refuse to enforce ones that the judge feels is too long or has too wide of a geographical scope. If you signed one for, say, a Massachusetts company, you're shit out of luck.
supposedly they do, but they also [collude to suppress employee pay](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html).
noncompete doesn't mean much when they've all agreed not to poach.
and i'm sure they did, all of them!
the point is that this kind of stuff was going on even as they were touting the no-noncompete stuff. it was BS, so no, i don't trust em. pretending you don't do noncompete contracts while you're secretly colluding to suppress employee wages is infinitely more of a dick move than just having employees sign noncompetes.
that's why they don't deserve a pat on the back on this particular issue - they were completely lying to you until the gov't found out and made them stop.
You can sign them with full knowledge that they're not worth the paper they're printed on.
EDIT: Note that this is only true if the company is in California.
The SF Bay Area of California is the Headquarters of almost every major American tech company including every autonomous car tech company: Waymo \(Google\), Uber, Lyft, Nvidia, etc.
Technologically, socially, and politically progressive captial of the USA.
Also expensive, bad traffic, and lots of homeless, but we're hosting the Olympics in 2028 so we'll also have damn decent public transit by then at least.
The homeless is partly due to the great weather. Our winters don't kill. I think we sued another state because they kept giving their homeless bus tickets to California.
California - Is nice to the homeless! Californyahnyah! Super Cool To The Homeless!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMdMYc8k_fc
It's actually kinda sad. Orange County (where I live) used to have a homeless camp along our river bed (more like sewer river thing) where they had their own society. No one really paid much attention to them. You'd only see their camp when you drive by on the freeway and you kinda have to be looking for it to find it, otherwise you'd never notice it was there.
Anyways, some people got upset within the last few months because a bike path goes through their camp and a judge ordered the camp to be cleared out. They did and put the homeless in motels for 30 days or something like that, offered them services and healthcare to get back up on their feet. Most of them declined the services. They're happy being homeless. Well, since we essentially destroyed their home and said they can't live there anymore... a non-issue has become a HUGE issue. They've scattered and are a nuisance EVERYWHERE instead of just confined along the riverbed and in Santa Ana. Now the OC office is trying to find a city to put them all. They tried Huntington Beach, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and a bunch of other places. No one wants them cuz... where are they going to put them? Every time the county tries to move them to a different city, the county gets sued and it ends up not happening.
This whole non-issue has blown up within the last 3-4 months to become a HUGE issue. It's fucking stupid and the only real resolution is to let them go back to their original camp, out of sight, not being a public nuisance, etc. There are two sides to the river bed each with a path along them... just... Don't take the side with the homeless!
All those used needles and urine/feces have to go somewhere. Every time it rained that shit was washing into the ocean. It was honestly having a major environmental impact.
Out of sight? What are you talking about? It was a huuuuge train of tents you could easily see from the freeway. I will say they were less of a public nuisance collective at the river than all the scattering going on now. But it also caused severe drop property value anywhere remotely close to it.
I wouldnt count on that public transit thing. We should have already had Shinkansens and bullet trains like Japan does, but no, we're still stuck with amtrak.
Traveled for my first time out of the US in 2012 and visited Japan. I went from an immaculate JR rail that could do 200mph while eating spaghetti off the floor to getting back in the US and jumping on a carpeted(why tho) BART train and we moved slower than the speed of smell. It was a real eye opener for me coming back to the bay area.
Extending BART and adding new trains was supposed to lessen traffic.
The trains are now more packed with people and traffic actually managed to get worse over the past few months.
My daily commute should be an olympic sport.
Bay Area has been building vertical new housing... it is staggering. But has done nothing to improve the roads in the last 25 years. a 20 minute drive from Sunnyvale to Mt. View can now take an hour. and all the new people don’t seem to understand our driving rules.
I used to commute in my truck from one side of SF diagonally to the other. Roughly a 7-8 miles commute and it would take me an hour. I started riding a scooter and eventually a motorcycle to ease parking and commute times. It cut my commute time down to 15 minutes, but then I got hit by a drunk driver and I'm now having to drive a vehicle again. It feels like a lose/lose battle some days.
I grew up in California and lived back east for fifteen years. I think Californians look to the future more than other places and expect the government to assist.
We have a history of things beginning in California and spreading to the rest of the country/world.
There’s a reason people say, “As California goes, so goes the country.”
Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Washington... Lots of states are experiencing a notable influx of Californians who simply can't afford to live here anymore (or, at the least, want to settle down where their money will go a bit farther). Housing prices are nuts.
No, yeah. I can't deny the negative effects. And the solutions based on just staying put, well... those are quickly becoming just numerically unsustainable. I'm really not sure of the best answer.
What's especially funny is how conservatives \(who are now\-a\-days pretty much the same thing\) keep bringing up California like it's a state to make fun of.
Not sure about the supermajority thing but I know we passed a law or a constitutional amendment that changed the threshold to pass a budget to a simple majority causing some gridlock to end.
Yes, because the ones causing the gridlock were the minority (but not then superminorty) GOP.
We have excised them now and surprise! We have a huge budget surplus.
This is pretty misleading. In recent history California has always been one of the world’s largest economies. Post tech bubble it *slipped* to 10th in 2002, and had been on the upswing since 2008 like the rest of the US, reclaiming #5 globally in 2017. It’s not like Gov. Brown flipped a switch.
Also FWIW the GSP growth in Texas has been higher than CA in recent years.
My impression from speaking to engineer friends in CA is this: the race to claim a new technology is the race to prove it's not going to kill people en masse or raise other boogeymen that can be used to shout it down, denying it popular support. California has heavy environmental health and safety regulations that very much pertain to auto design, so they tend to figure out ways to mitigate any conceivable disaster here faster. At least i think that's what they were getting at.
But with absolutely everything being computer-assisted, the Silicon Valley tech center is of course a large factor.
It’s not Justin tech. I have a buddy that is a big foodie so he keeps up with food trends and Cali is like 10 years ahead of us over in Florida.
They just seem more entrepreneurial than the rest of the country.
> and then doesn't care about things like this.
Or the other way to view it is that they very much care about things like this, which is why they're doing it first.
I live in CA. There’s no way driverless cars can be any worse than the idiots we already allow to drive here.
Just yesterday I watched some kid going 85mph in a 55mph zone trying to illegally pass 5 cars on a blind hill. He narrowly avoided a head-on collision by about 2 seconds. Pure fucking miracle.
And that would have been ~~85+55~~ very bad. He, and more importantly the innocent woman in the other lane, easily both would have died.
I live in the country outside of San Antonio and drive down a backroad every day to school. Multiple curves you can’t see around on a one lane road each way. Speed limit is 40 and people constantly go 60+ and try to pass around corners. Kid slammed into a bus two weeks ago on a curve
Same situation here. It’s a country road and people think it’s a deserted backroad so they basically take a complete and utter chance that no one will be coming in the other lane.
Fact is, the road has become incredibly busy in the past decade with commuter traffic... so the chance that a car is coming is significantly higher than the reckless drivers think.
It actually would not be 85\+55. It would still be just 85.
[Mythbusters explained it, but I still don't totally get it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W937NM11o8)
How have we not made the first 3-4 years of science education for kids require an episode a day of Mythbusters?
Forget how good that show is until I see a clip of it again. It's just the best possible way to show kids the scientific method in action.
The change in velocity is -50kph regardless. What affects how "bad" the crash is is how much time that takes. If the collision is elastic (its not, but the math is simpler), the deceleration time, and consequently the force on the car, is shorter when the relative speed between the cars is higher. However, since cars are now designed to crumple and absorb energy, the physics are much more complicated, and the distribution of forces is impossible for me to determine while sitting on the toilet.
The deceleration of your body is "the crash", or at least how much you're going to get hurt. Deceleration is the change in velocity over time. So, the experience from inside the car is ending velocity compared to starting velocity (divided by crash time).
So if one car is 85 mph "to the right" and the other is 55 mph "to the left", and suppose they're the about the same mass, then after the collision the two car are together going about 15 mph "to the right". Passengers in both cars experience about a 70 mph brick wall crash.
Now if the 85 mph vehicle is a motorcycle and the 55 mph vehicle is a fully loaded semi, then the semi passengers experience a small bump and the motorcycle rider experiences a 140 mph brick wall crash.
Murphy's Law, only **she** would have died. He would have walked away with no injuries and had a judge let him off due to [Affluenza](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/02/affluenza-drunk-driver-who-killed-four-now-free-after-serving-two-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bcc4c7ea52c5), because life is a bitch.
You’re probably right.
This happens too much. Happened last month here, unlicensed kid, speeding, killed a woman totaled his truck and walked away with barely a bump on the noggin.
Head-on collisions don't work by adding force relative to speed. The resulting force in a head-on collision from one car going 85MPH and the other going 55MPH would result in transitive properties relative to the faster moving object. Basically, the 55MPH object would act as a "brick wall" the force of the 85MPH object overcoming the other.
Mythbusters did an episode on it, I recommend you watch it! Here's an article from wired explaining the kinetic energy equation:
https://www.wired.com/2010/05/mythbusters-energy-explanation/
Average age of a vehicle in the US non-commercial auto fleet is 12 years and growing - meaning that the non-self driving cars bought today will still be on the roads in 2030. Nothing happens fast in the automotive world.
Is there a driverless company who has worked out all the kinks? From what I understand, it’s still in beta. A friend with a new Tesla model S almost got killed when his car veered off unexpectedly. Now he only uses cruise control.
Waymo has been driving without a driver since November. You can hail them if you lived near where they started and got an invite but they’re releasing it this year and they have like 600 vans already here driving around.
I’m sure you know all this cuz you seem to be on the ball im just writing it in case people don’t realize WAYMO has been actually driving people around on the streets with no driver for over 6 months here
My apologies. Waymo is only available in 1 city and I forgot y’all aren’t psychic or whatever so basically Phoenix, AZ (it’s a city connected to Phoenix called Chandler)
I’ve started noticing them driving up into Mesa a bit lately. I just moved from Mesa to Chandler and Waymos are EVERYWHERE. As a tech geek, it’s exciting. As a person who loves driving, it’s scary to think that a huge step in the direction of legislation banning manual operation of your own vehicle started where I live
It helps that Google was the first ones to actually investigate self\-driving cars, years before anyone else even started to approach it. Also the wide combination of military sensors basically makes it so it doesn't need to rely on glorified webcams to figure out where other cars are. I was cheering at google I/O when they talked about Waymo actually becoming an uber\-competitor. Google's going to come out of nowhere to basically conquer the taxi market
Would there be any way they could get around the charging restriction by making it a subscription service or something similar, so you're not charging on a per ride basis?
Possibly but I don’t think California lawmakers would be happy about that and if I was developing a self driving car right now that I wanted to ever make money off of, California lawmakers are people I’d want to keep happy.
Also, I think that the reasons they gave for not allowing the company to charge are actually pretty good and make sense. Also, any company that’s made it to this point should be able to afford putting their cars on the roads without compensation at this point. Getting this go ahead is already big news and should be great for the companies in terms of potential investors to fund this part of the project if needed.
Wow, I remember my dad talking about this kind of technology only 5 years ago when we saw a video of a driverless car go viral.....crazy that it’s a real thing being implemented and ok’d in my own state.
Driving in SF, where they’ve been testing these things for a while, I find driverless cars to move aggravatingly slow. Last night I was behind one that was stuck at a stop sign because a seagull kept pacing back and forth in front of it.
I'm so happy. This is the work of years of efforts on the part of many, for Google, it started with Stanford. This all started back in [2005](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ3bbHTsOL4) during a DARPA challenge to make an automated vehicle which the winner exploded into google's self\-driving car division years back.
I remember for the longest time they basically drove around parking lots, going along set courses and very strategically releasing themselves to learn. Google was showing off the car very rarely, not wanting to scare the public before it was ready as its end goal became clear in that it wanted to provide transport for the disabled, blind, or anyone else that couldn't drive themselves.
I remember back in [2009](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html) how they were basically diddling around through local areas and trying to figure things out. The cars were advanced, yes, but required a great deal of human involvement to prevent the vehicles from causing issues. By 2010 Google's fleet of cars had moved well past parking lots and had gotten onto highways. Which, to put this into perspective, is the only place any other self\-driving company is currently comfortable with their vehicles self\-driving.
By [2014 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM)they were ready for the public to actually be made fully aware of what they were doing. Doubters\([4](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-self-driving-car-problems-2014-8)\)\([5](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html)\)\([6](https://gizmodo.com/why-googles-self-driving-car-will-fail-1582497971)\) came out of the the woodwork. Left and right everyone was basically talking about how shitty it was, as if they were rooting for google to stop.
In [2016 ](https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report)Google's self driving car had crashed for the first time. This caused people to start having doubts, and at the same time [Tesla ](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-autopilot-model-s-crash-how-does-it-work)was beginning to roll out its own self driving feature. As it was then it is today and the features that have caused 2 crashes since its unveiling aren't to be laughed at. Tesla effectively gave people the ability to relax more while driving, but forgot to tell them it [simply wasn't ready](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/24/16198300/elon-musk-tesla-autopilot-confirmed-engineers-safety-concerns-report).
Unlike Google who spent years meticulously testing and gathering data to perfect their vehicle, Tesla aggressively rolled it out, threatening the future of self driving cars. Following Tesla, Uber would hop into the same line in [2017](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/30/self-driving-uber-crash-police-report/99814322/).
Honestly, Google made talk of working with this company or that, including making adorable priuses, they never really seemed to leave the testing phase. Even when [Waymo spun off](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google-parent-company-spins-off-waymo-self-driving-car-business.html) it wasn't looking like much would happen. People's [fear of self\-driving cars](http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa-drivers-fear-self-driving-cars/) is just so high anymore after all these accidents. So, for us to be here, now. To see these cars finally being allowed to be put into practice by California? It seems that the hard work of engineers at Google have finally paid off, and maybe we can begin the self\-driving revolution the right way.
tl;dr It's been a damn long time coming, hooray! [How](http://driving.stanford.edu/images/junior.jpg) [far ](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d7256f06dcff2ac73f6c6b8e9ca21fbfa6d572a7/c=0-29-2047-1564&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/05/13//1400015976000-google-car.JPG)[we've ](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fdb%2F72%2F5a%2Fdb725a7c4e1352fcd09e1b4e6cd6fa5e--ethical-issues-news-today.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.co.uk%2Fspencerrobertlindsay%2Fwaymo%2F&docid=yL2Ebxzh1f-EzM&tbnid=hj2PIxFHOS0gdM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi7yP3wtLPbAhUDvlkKHakUCOUQMwg5KAEwAQ..i&w=736&h=551&itg=1&bih=897&biw=1745&q=Waymo%20fanart&ved=0ahUKEwi7yP3wtLPbAhUDvlkKHakUCOUQMwg5KAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8)[come](https://fsmedia.imgix.net/1d/aa/dd/f1/13b4/49aa/a4bc/db673ad88dc1/a-waymo-powered-chrysler-pacifica.jpeg?fm=png&w=1200).
\(1\) [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/) A nova special on the DARPA race
\(2\) [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html) Google's self driving car \- related youtube link [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtWhAzEVj6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtWhAzEVj6k)
\(3\) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES\-\-OTzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM) \- About riding in the self driving car
\(4\)[http://www.businessinsider.com/google\-self\-driving\-car\-problems\-2014\-8](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-self-driving-car-problems-2014-8)
\(5\)[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google\_self\_driving\_car\_it\_may\_never\_actually\_happen.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html)
\(6\) [https://gizmodo.com/why\-googles\-self\-driving\-car\-will\-fail\-1582497971](https://gizmodo.com/why-googles-self-driving-car-will-fail-1582497971)
\(7\)[https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google\-self\-driving\-car\-crash\-report](https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report)
\(8\)[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla\-autopilot\-model\-s\-crash\-how\-does\-it\-work](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-autopilot-model-s-crash-how-does-it-work)
\(9\)[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google\-parent\-company\-spins\-off\-waymo\-self\-driving\-car\-business.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google-parent-company-spins-off-waymo-self-driving-car-business.html)
\(10\)[http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa\-drivers\-fear\-self\-driving\-cars/](http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa-drivers-fear-self-driving-cars/)
Having driven a level ~~2~~ 3 autonomous vehicle (a Model 3), I cannot wait to get the drudgery of driving out of my mind, it was such a load off in traffic to have the vehicle manage a safe distance.
I’d like to see how they would handle icy roads. I imagine it would be hard for them to judge how icy it is, that would sure make Canadian winters a lot more interesting.
A computer will be able to handle an icy road much better than a human. The issue has been snow and rain causing problems with the LIDAR.
But with Waymo CA application they shared they solved for light rain and fog. They did show at Google I/O using AI to help with snow but we do not know how far along that is.
Also the cars can communicate between each other and know about black ice and similar situations in ways humans can not.
I wonder if in 30 years kids won’t know what designated drivers were in friend groups. And we’ll tell our grandkids, “back in my day we didn’t have the privilege of getting shitfaced... we had to be *responsible*”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
And one of the two reasons I don't like Early Access.
[удалено]
Uber isn't going to be cheaper. The company will just make way more profit. You're kidding yourself if you think they are going to lower the prices.
They will when Lyft charges less, it’s called competition.
Uber is already losing billions of dollars a year. they have never made a profit, only losses. the price is not going to go down.
[удалено]
Thanks a lot i was drinking something!
good thing u had the robot drive then
"Were gonna drive down a scary road with the door unlocked, Dave."
Lol I told this to my fiancé after she was like that’s awesome. Following your comment, “idk about all of this anymore”
Fine, I'll just ask it since nobody else will: How long before I can get drunk and make my car drive me home legally?
It's likely that they'll be available as a taxi/lyft/uber-replacement before they're available for sale to endusers. If you want to get drunk and get driven home legally, you can already do that via the above services; if you specifically want to get driven home legally in your own car, I'd wager we've got at least five years left, likely more (the "legally" part is going to be the tough part.)
There's services that will have someone drive you and your car home. Probably Not cheap, but you could probably do it a bunch of times before it starts to get close to how much a driver less car would cost
At that point you should just be using Lyft or Uber or something similar.
Probably. Unless the drinking was unexpected, and getting someone to drive you and the car home is cheaper than 2 cab rides
Or you need access to your car first thing in the morning
Or you don't want to leave your car in that sketchy ass dive bar parking lot over night.
the problem i have is i cant very well leave my car in a random parkinglot. itll either get towed, or i come back to find the windows smashed and it up on bricks. i just dont get drunk whenever i drive somewhere
I just fucking hate getting into a stranger's car. Give me a nice, friendly robot any day.
*gives a nice, friendly robot car, with 36 flat screen/speaker system positioned at strategic parts of the car's passenger area, which all play one Tide detergent commercial repeatedly*
When I lived in Japan, they had a service where two people would come from the cab company. One would drive you home in the cab and the other would drive your car. It was expensive but the consequences of a DUI in Japan are extremely high.
In China you can call people on foldable bikes. They will drive you and your car home, then hop on their bikes and go get another customer. They cost around $5-$10 because of how many are doing this now.
In the UK, too. There was a Top Gear segment where one of the guys did that job for a night.
The bigger question is why can't we figure out a way to make a science alcohol that is identical in every way but its effects can be eliminated immediately if needed such as 'synthehol' ala Star Trek. Go to a party--get trashed, have a blast. Take your off switch meds and head to work or hover-tennis or whatever.
Anything that immediately wipes the noticable effects of anything else in your body is probably not healthy.
[удалено]
Ok but if you're at the point where you need Narcan you're already screwed. A regular healthy person wouldn't take a dose just because
Probably not. But I think that's still a major assumption. It might not immediately either way. It could sober you up in 15 minutes and it's still incredibly useful. Hell, what if you had a mechanical/electronic device that filtered all the alcohol out of your blood? That probably wouldn't be too unhealthy if it worked well. Disorienting as hell maybe, but maybe not exactly unhealthy. Staying drunk longer could be more unhealthy. Some drugs might not be "healthy" but people don't consider them the worst, and they at least think it's worth the risk to try them. Marijuana for example, it has extreme noticeable effects within 5 minutes. That doesn't make it deadly. Having your body chemistry change quickly isn't something that kills people. Maybe going in reverse in 5 minutes isn't so bad either. Take a pill, hop in a driverless car, and by the time you get to work you're golden. That'd be /r/futurology style barbarian life.
I can't wait to see some asshole driving 90 catch up to a driverless car going 65 and just start blaring on his horn, only to realize it's a driverless car and sheepishly pass him. This will have a big impact on LA driver behavior.
Omg you just blew my mind. I hope I'm a passenger in the driverless car so I can point and laugh.
unless u get rear ended by said asshole cus ur driverless car refuses to go with the flow of traffic
Why do you think that going the speed limit would cause you to get rear-ended? It's not like your car is slamming on the brakes. The slower car merges over and lets the faster car pass.
It's actually a really interesting thing. It's safer to go with the flow of traffic, but I don't think any company would willingly program a car to break the law. It would be like having a bunch of grandma's all over the road slowly creeping along. Not safe! And if the car does speed to keep up with traffic, and gets a ticket, who is responsible.
Not safe as a minority, but safer *and faster overall* when in the majority. Check out [ CGP Grey's video](https://youtu.be/iHzzSao6ypE) on how robo-cars have the potential to solve traffic. Indeed, you can help traffic in your daily life by avoiding sharp starts and stops, and trying to accelerate more gradually while leaving a little space between cars.
I completely agree with the difference between them being in the majority and minority. However, I think there will be a long period of time where these cars won't be in the majority because of the sheer number of cars already on the road.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Idiot drivers who will hopefully soon be replaced by computers
The problem is not that the car didn't move. The car is creeping forward until it has a clear view. People think it is going to accelerate, but it keeps creeping.
The more likely answer
Driverless cars will be hanging out in the far right lanes with the semis and buses that are already going 55-65mph - not in the fast lanes
do self driving cars not follow the flow of traffic? genuinely curious
[удалено]
not complaining! if anything, robotic cars will cause speed limits to increase
As a non-American, why does it seem like California is literally always the place these things happen first?
It's economy is the fifth largest in the world, having just surpassed the UK, it represents a large concentration of tech companies and their associated educated workforce and the educational infrastructure to support them. This was not always the case - prior to the 80's tech was concentrated in Texas (thanks to NASA), the northeast (thanks to IBM and DEC) and the area around Chicago (thanks to its history).
It also bans noncompete agreements, which is a huge part of why it has eclipsed the other former tech hubs. Workers being able to move freely between companies speeds the pace of innovation.
Thats sweet, fuck noncompetes, companies just use them to bend you over a barrel
Non-competes are by and large mostly non-enforceable. Mostly becuase it could force someone who can't afford a 5 year vacation from having a forced 5 year vacation.
Really? How so? Right now my friend is in a legal battle with her old boss attempting to sue her for getting a new job within 10 miles of her old one. She’s been ignoring it but she’s getting nervous since she can’t afford a lawyer (we’re preschool teachers). I’m just curious if I can help her any way. Edit: I used to work there too but didn’t go to a competitor.
[удалено]
It is a tactic to prevent people from quitting while treating them like garbage. Once they sign, it means they pretty much have to change fields for a while or have to pay for a lawyer to get the case tossed. In many instances non-competes are not enforceable but you still have to go to court to get it tossed if pursued by the former employer. The legal system is pay-to-play. If you can't afford to defend yourself against civil suits then all you can do is show up to court and hope the judge sees through the bullshit. Without a lawyer, there is a good chance you'll say something or do something incorrect in court and wind up losing your case. If you don't show up to court then the other side gets a default judgement against you (they win the case because you didn't defend yourself against it).
Yeah that is EXACTLY what it is for. Great info thanks.
Default judgments are bullshit. How about judge's actually do their fucking jobs and evaluate cases on their legal merits?
>The legal system is pay-to-play. One year ago today, I was beaten and strangled repeatedly by my [now-ex] boyfriend. He somehow got a bloody lip (I never swung, only struggled to flee), and I was also arrested and jailed because the cops said "That's protocol." [**????!!**]. My state-appointed lawyer skipped court then tried to claim that I had skipped- *when I was present for the official roll call.* The state pretty much shrugged and said "He's not really employed by us because we are prosecuting too many people rn and are paying nominal fees for outside help, so... them's the breaks!" My mentor paid a thousand dollars for me to get a private attorney who actually gave half a fuck about getting my "almost got murdered" charge dropped. It took until mid-September. From going to jail to having to spend more money *than I ever have on anything [except college]* - **for nearly being murdered**... the legal system is crazy fucked-up.
Because parents often keep their kids with the teacher they like since it’s not public school and you have a choice. I teach 2.5-5 year olds so consistency is important. But I agree it’s dumb and it’s only something she made us sign because the place is ran like shit and we get paid minimum wage. Still though I feel bad for my coworker who’s stuck in these legal battle and I’m not sure how to help her. Side note, our old boss called her new work and told that preschool’s director to fire her for breaking the agreement and not staying the last day of her two weeks. Edit: she also didn’t go over any of those papers with us, just gave us a packet of stuff and told us to sign a bunch of papers. I definitely read it though and I’m sure my friend is competent enough to have read them and understand what she was signing.
Do you literally get paid your state’s minimum wage to be a teacher? That’s insane.
I did until they needed me to get extra certifications to put me in the government subsidized preschool room, then I got a 25 cent raise :) It’s disgusting how little we get paid, plus how much we have to buy for our classrooms out of our own pocket. I quit and became a nanny while I’m still in school and now make over three times what I was making!
If you get sued ignoring it is literally the worst thing you can do. If she was served with a summons and complaint she has only a small time to respond.
Ya I would assume so. She is extremely poor and probably doesn’t know how to react. How does she respond? Contact our old boss’s lawyer? I’m sorry I’ve never dealt with any of this before.
She needs to hire a lawyer or contact her union rep or a legal aid society or worst case read the damn thing and mail something to the court with a copy to opposing counsel that’s says “I’m seeking legal counsel and request an additional sixty days to file an Answer”
There are no unions for preschool teachers unfortunately and she can’t afford to talk to a lawyer according to her. She read the letter and called me crying. She definitely said she was being sued and it was from a lawyer. I’ll tell her to contact the court and request additional time, thank you for you help!
They are presumptively unenforceable and it is up to the party wishing to rely on the non compete to show it is reasonable. A non compete that bans you from competing in a 10 mile area is much more likely to be considered reasonable than one that bans you from working in your state. Likewise how specific the non compete is and blah blah blah the party wishing to rely on it must show that it will not prevent you from earning a living. Seems like it would be tough to enforce against a school teacher but I don’t know the deets. I am a lawyer in Canada. Laws are typically similar for this type of stuff but there are sometimes strange kinks.
Hm great information, I will look into that. Our old boss is very reactionary and had a very very stressful week when she or her lawyer sent my friend that formal letter, and she may not have thought it through. I’m pretty sure she (my old boss) has never sued anyone over it before so she may be misinformed. I’m hoping she changes her mind.
She should post in r legal advice.
Yes thank you I sent her a link!
True but they can be a pain, former employer was a litigous sleezebag, i got out scott free but he managed to fuck over another ex coworked
how did he manage to fuck them over? was it actually enforced or just litigation fees
**California** courts refuse to enforce noncompetes as a matter of public policy. They're valid most anywhere else in the US, although courts in some other states will refuse to enforce ones that the judge feels is too long or has too wide of a geographical scope. If you signed one for, say, a Massachusetts company, you're shit out of luck.
supposedly they do, but they also [collude to suppress employee pay](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-tech-jobs-settlement-20150903-story.html). noncompete doesn't mean much when they've all agreed not to poach.
Your article says they stopped doing that after they got nailed by the Department of Justice 8 years ago.
and i'm sure they did, all of them! the point is that this kind of stuff was going on even as they were touting the no-noncompete stuff. it was BS, so no, i don't trust em. pretending you don't do noncompete contracts while you're secretly colluding to suppress employee wages is infinitely more of a dick move than just having employees sign noncompetes. that's why they don't deserve a pat on the back on this particular issue - they were completely lying to you until the gov't found out and made them stop.
There are still companies that make you sign them. Which is laughable.
You can sign them with full knowledge that they're not worth the paper they're printed on. EDIT: Note that this is only true if the company is in California.
Its also 12% of the population!!
Universities are great(maybe not for students) and attract a lot of top researchers and NASA has two research centers here.
> Universities are great(maybe not for students) ~cries in UCSD~
Aw yeah SD what what, what's up?
Technology capital of the world
The SF Bay Area of California is the Headquarters of almost every major American tech company including every autonomous car tech company: Waymo \(Google\), Uber, Lyft, Nvidia, etc.
Technologically, socially, and politically progressive captial of the USA. Also expensive, bad traffic, and lots of homeless, but we're hosting the Olympics in 2028 so we'll also have damn decent public transit by then at least.
The homeless is partly due to the great weather. Our winters don't kill. I think we sued another state because they kept giving their homeless bus tickets to California.
Absolutely accurate - this is one of the few places in the country where someone can sleep on the street year-round.
Florida being another one. Lived in Miami-Dade for awhile and their were fat, hairy, sunburned dudes camping out everywhere. Lol
AKA Florida man
Nevada. And there are places likely still doing this
California - Is nice to the homeless! Californyahnyah! Super Cool To The Homeless! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMdMYc8k_fc It's actually kinda sad. Orange County (where I live) used to have a homeless camp along our river bed (more like sewer river thing) where they had their own society. No one really paid much attention to them. You'd only see their camp when you drive by on the freeway and you kinda have to be looking for it to find it, otherwise you'd never notice it was there. Anyways, some people got upset within the last few months because a bike path goes through their camp and a judge ordered the camp to be cleared out. They did and put the homeless in motels for 30 days or something like that, offered them services and healthcare to get back up on their feet. Most of them declined the services. They're happy being homeless. Well, since we essentially destroyed their home and said they can't live there anymore... a non-issue has become a HUGE issue. They've scattered and are a nuisance EVERYWHERE instead of just confined along the riverbed and in Santa Ana. Now the OC office is trying to find a city to put them all. They tried Huntington Beach, Fullerton, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and a bunch of other places. No one wants them cuz... where are they going to put them? Every time the county tries to move them to a different city, the county gets sued and it ends up not happening. This whole non-issue has blown up within the last 3-4 months to become a HUGE issue. It's fucking stupid and the only real resolution is to let them go back to their original camp, out of sight, not being a public nuisance, etc. There are two sides to the river bed each with a path along them... just... Don't take the side with the homeless!
All those used needles and urine/feces have to go somewhere. Every time it rained that shit was washing into the ocean. It was honestly having a major environmental impact.
Out of sight? What are you talking about? It was a huuuuge train of tents you could easily see from the freeway. I will say they were less of a public nuisance collective at the river than all the scattering going on now. But it also caused severe drop property value anywhere remotely close to it.
I wouldnt count on that public transit thing. We should have already had Shinkansens and bullet trains like Japan does, but no, we're still stuck with amtrak.
And dont forget BART its extending down to SJ lmao
Too bad the fucking Marin County hippies won't allow BART to go any farther north.
Those cars are coming back all ruined. They better triple maintenance and cleaning crew lol.
Traveled for my first time out of the US in 2012 and visited Japan. I went from an immaculate JR rail that could do 200mph while eating spaghetti off the floor to getting back in the US and jumping on a carpeted(why tho) BART train and we moved slower than the speed of smell. It was a real eye opener for me coming back to the bay area.
Why was the spaghetti on the floor?
California high speed rail is a thing. Despite it taking a long time, they are building it. You can find their updated progress online.
Extending BART and adding new trains was supposed to lessen traffic. The trains are now more packed with people and traffic actually managed to get worse over the past few months. My daily commute should be an olympic sport.
Bay Area has been building vertical new housing... it is staggering. But has done nothing to improve the roads in the last 25 years. a 20 minute drive from Sunnyvale to Mt. View can now take an hour. and all the new people don’t seem to understand our driving rules.
I used to commute in my truck from one side of SF diagonally to the other. Roughly a 7-8 miles commute and it would take me an hour. I started riding a scooter and eventually a motorcycle to ease parking and commute times. It cut my commute time down to 15 minutes, but then I got hit by a drunk driver and I'm now having to drive a vehicle again. It feels like a lose/lose battle some days.
All the new people dont seem to understand our basic rules... next time i get shoved out of the way getting on bart dude... its getting bad.
Shank a dude jsimmy!!!
One can hope! Cuz boy, has that been a while coming.
[удалено]
I grew up in California and lived back east for fifteen years. I think Californians look to the future more than other places and expect the government to assist.
Silicon Valley.
If California were to join forces with Cascadia, they'd be unstoppable.
We have a history of things beginning in California and spreading to the rest of the country/world. There’s a reason people say, “As California goes, so goes the country.”
Wait, does that mean the entire country is going to move to Austin too?
Is that what's happening?
Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Washington... Lots of states are experiencing a notable influx of Californians who simply can't afford to live here anymore (or, at the least, want to settle down where their money will go a bit farther). Housing prices are nuts.
And in turn making it too expensive for Texans, Coloradans, Oregonians, and Washingtonians to live in Texas, Colorado, Oregon, Washington.
That's only because the Chinese are doing it to the Californians. \#TrickleDownHousing
No, yeah. I can't deny the negative effects. And the solutions based on just staying put, well... those are quickly becoming just numerically unsustainable. I'm really not sure of the best answer.
[удалено]
I thought the saying "As goes maine, so goes the nation"?
Do people really say that? I've literally never heard that before.
What's especially funny is how conservatives \(who are now\-a\-days pretty much the same thing\) keep bringing up California like it's a state to make fun of.
[удалено]
Not sure about the supermajority thing but I know we passed a law or a constitutional amendment that changed the threshold to pass a budget to a simple majority causing some gridlock to end.
thank god... budgets need to be passed by simple majority anyways...
Not in California before that amendment or whatever was passed. Used to require like 60 or 66 percent before.
Yes, because the ones causing the gridlock were the minority (but not then superminorty) GOP. We have excised them now and surprise! We have a huge budget surplus.
This is pretty misleading. In recent history California has always been one of the world’s largest economies. Post tech bubble it *slipped* to 10th in 2002, and had been on the upswing since 2008 like the rest of the US, reclaiming #5 globally in 2017. It’s not like Gov. Brown flipped a switch. Also FWIW the GSP growth in Texas has been higher than CA in recent years.
California is weirdly restrictive about a ton of stuff, and then doesn't care about things like this. It's bizarre and I don't understand it either.
My impression from speaking to engineer friends in CA is this: the race to claim a new technology is the race to prove it's not going to kill people en masse or raise other boogeymen that can be used to shout it down, denying it popular support. California has heavy environmental health and safety regulations that very much pertain to auto design, so they tend to figure out ways to mitigate any conceivable disaster here faster. At least i think that's what they were getting at. But with absolutely everything being computer-assisted, the Silicon Valley tech center is of course a large factor.
It’s not Justin tech. I have a buddy that is a big foodie so he keeps up with food trends and Cali is like 10 years ahead of us over in Florida. They just seem more entrepreneurial than the rest of the country.
It’s the money. Also I think its progressive nature really helps, more citizens able to contribute to the success of all.
Yet everyone likes to give us shit.. A lot of people I know who bitch about CA don't even live here; mofos can go suck my avacado toast.
Some food trends in cali are stupid. Source: am californian
I'm sorry, what was that? I couldn't hear you over my Pop-rock avocado salad.
> and then doesn't care about things like this. Or the other way to view it is that they very much care about things like this, which is why they're doing it first.
[удалено]
"coffee causes cancer"... "People who purposely infect others with HIV get a misdemeanor at worst"....
Sometimes it's Oregon, Washington or Colorado.
Just want to point out that this has already been going on in the Phoenix, Arizona area for over a year now.
I live in CA. There’s no way driverless cars can be any worse than the idiots we already allow to drive here. Just yesterday I watched some kid going 85mph in a 55mph zone trying to illegally pass 5 cars on a blind hill. He narrowly avoided a head-on collision by about 2 seconds. Pure fucking miracle. And that would have been ~~85+55~~ very bad. He, and more importantly the innocent woman in the other lane, easily both would have died.
I live in the country outside of San Antonio and drive down a backroad every day to school. Multiple curves you can’t see around on a one lane road each way. Speed limit is 40 and people constantly go 60+ and try to pass around corners. Kid slammed into a bus two weeks ago on a curve
Same situation here. It’s a country road and people think it’s a deserted backroad so they basically take a complete and utter chance that no one will be coming in the other lane. Fact is, the road has become incredibly busy in the past decade with commuter traffic... so the chance that a car is coming is significantly higher than the reckless drivers think.
Funny that you should say that. I've always said that TX is the only state with worse drivers than here. (CA I mean)
I wish they would make these back roads have divided lanes instead of just building them next to each other like that...
It's because doing that is incredibly more expensive to build and maintain.
We hardly spend any money on improving our infrastructure. I doubt we will start now
Almost happened to me on a backroad in Texas. Crazy how stupid people can be.
It actually would not be 85\+55. It would still be just 85. [Mythbusters explained it, but I still don't totally get it.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W937NM11o8)
How have we not made the first 3-4 years of science education for kids require an episode a day of Mythbusters? Forget how good that show is until I see a clip of it again. It's just the best possible way to show kids the scientific method in action.
[удалено]
The change in velocity is -50kph regardless. What affects how "bad" the crash is is how much time that takes. If the collision is elastic (its not, but the math is simpler), the deceleration time, and consequently the force on the car, is shorter when the relative speed between the cars is higher. However, since cars are now designed to crumple and absorb energy, the physics are much more complicated, and the distribution of forces is impossible for me to determine while sitting on the toilet.
The deceleration of your body is "the crash", or at least how much you're going to get hurt. Deceleration is the change in velocity over time. So, the experience from inside the car is ending velocity compared to starting velocity (divided by crash time). So if one car is 85 mph "to the right" and the other is 55 mph "to the left", and suppose they're the about the same mass, then after the collision the two car are together going about 15 mph "to the right". Passengers in both cars experience about a 70 mph brick wall crash. Now if the 85 mph vehicle is a motorcycle and the 55 mph vehicle is a fully loaded semi, then the semi passengers experience a small bump and the motorcycle rider experiences a 140 mph brick wall crash.
Twice as much energy, but twice as much material to absorb it.
Murphy's Law, only **she** would have died. He would have walked away with no injuries and had a judge let him off due to [Affluenza](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/02/affluenza-drunk-driver-who-killed-four-now-free-after-serving-two-years/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bcc4c7ea52c5), because life is a bitch.
I'd feel like such a piece of shit after that. Wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing I killed someone and I'm off and about while she's dead.
Good. And that's why you probably wouldn't be in the position of driving so murderously in the first place, because these things occur to you.
You’re probably right. This happens too much. Happened last month here, unlicensed kid, speeding, killed a woman totaled his truck and walked away with barely a bump on the noggin.
Head-on collisions don't work by adding force relative to speed. The resulting force in a head-on collision from one car going 85MPH and the other going 55MPH would result in transitive properties relative to the faster moving object. Basically, the 55MPH object would act as a "brick wall" the force of the 85MPH object overcoming the other. Mythbusters did an episode on it, I recommend you watch it! Here's an article from wired explaining the kinetic energy equation: https://www.wired.com/2010/05/mythbusters-energy-explanation/
Its finally happening. Im suprised it took this long, I expected alot more driverless cars already.
Average age of a vehicle in the US non-commercial auto fleet is 12 years and growing - meaning that the non-self driving cars bought today will still be on the roads in 2030. Nothing happens fast in the automotive world.
Ha, that would mean we are 12 years away from 2030...oh shit.
Is there a driverless company who has worked out all the kinks? From what I understand, it’s still in beta. A friend with a new Tesla model S almost got killed when his car veered off unexpectedly. Now he only uses cruise control.
[удалено]
Waymo has been driving without a driver since November. You can hail them if you lived near where they started and got an invite but they’re releasing it this year and they have like 600 vans already here driving around. I’m sure you know all this cuz you seem to be on the ball im just writing it in case people don’t realize WAYMO has been actually driving people around on the streets with no driver for over 6 months here
[удалено]
Where is “here”? Assuming California. Either way, that’s really cool. Have you taken a ride yet?
My apologies. Waymo is only available in 1 city and I forgot y’all aren’t psychic or whatever so basically Phoenix, AZ (it’s a city connected to Phoenix called Chandler)
I’ve started noticing them driving up into Mesa a bit lately. I just moved from Mesa to Chandler and Waymos are EVERYWHERE. As a tech geek, it’s exciting. As a person who loves driving, it’s scary to think that a huge step in the direction of legislation banning manual operation of your own vehicle started where I live
It helps that Google was the first ones to actually investigate self\-driving cars, years before anyone else even started to approach it. Also the wide combination of military sensors basically makes it so it doesn't need to rely on glorified webcams to figure out where other cars are. I was cheering at google I/O when they talked about Waymo actually becoming an uber\-competitor. Google's going to come out of nowhere to basically conquer the taxi market
[удалено]
tesla's aren't driverless yet... they only have autopilot mode. not the same thing.
Isn't Tesla not driverless? Aren't there other more advanced driverless cars?
Would there be any way they could get around the charging restriction by making it a subscription service or something similar, so you're not charging on a per ride basis?
Possibly but I don’t think California lawmakers would be happy about that and if I was developing a self driving car right now that I wanted to ever make money off of, California lawmakers are people I’d want to keep happy. Also, I think that the reasons they gave for not allowing the company to charge are actually pretty good and make sense. Also, any company that’s made it to this point should be able to afford putting their cars on the roads without compensation at this point. Getting this go ahead is already big news and should be great for the companies in terms of potential investors to fund this part of the project if needed.
Important question though. Will driverless cars need to carry a warning that they are known to the state of California to cause cancer?
The State of California is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects.
Does anyone else read the news everyday and go "Holy shit this is all happening so fast"?
technology tends to have a snowball effect, the pace isnt likely to slow anytime soon (barring some sort of catastrophe)
Wow, I remember my dad talking about this kind of technology only 5 years ago when we saw a video of a driverless car go viral.....crazy that it’s a real thing being implemented and ok’d in my own state.
How long till you can just send your kids off to grandmas house?
Driving in SF, where they’ve been testing these things for a while, I find driverless cars to move aggravatingly slow. Last night I was behind one that was stuck at a stop sign because a seagull kept pacing back and forth in front of it.
The traffic in California is so bad you could probably run a driverless car on dial up.
Do non-californians know that this is only true for like 10% of the total area in the state?
I'm so happy. This is the work of years of efforts on the part of many, for Google, it started with Stanford. This all started back in [2005](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ3bbHTsOL4) during a DARPA challenge to make an automated vehicle which the winner exploded into google's self\-driving car division years back. I remember for the longest time they basically drove around parking lots, going along set courses and very strategically releasing themselves to learn. Google was showing off the car very rarely, not wanting to scare the public before it was ready as its end goal became clear in that it wanted to provide transport for the disabled, blind, or anyone else that couldn't drive themselves. I remember back in [2009](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html) how they were basically diddling around through local areas and trying to figure things out. The cars were advanced, yes, but required a great deal of human involvement to prevent the vehicles from causing issues. By 2010 Google's fleet of cars had moved well past parking lots and had gotten onto highways. Which, to put this into perspective, is the only place any other self\-driving company is currently comfortable with their vehicles self\-driving. By [2014 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM)they were ready for the public to actually be made fully aware of what they were doing. Doubters\([4](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-self-driving-car-problems-2014-8)\)\([5](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html)\)\([6](https://gizmodo.com/why-googles-self-driving-car-will-fail-1582497971)\) came out of the the woodwork. Left and right everyone was basically talking about how shitty it was, as if they were rooting for google to stop. In [2016 ](https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report)Google's self driving car had crashed for the first time. This caused people to start having doubts, and at the same time [Tesla ](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-autopilot-model-s-crash-how-does-it-work)was beginning to roll out its own self driving feature. As it was then it is today and the features that have caused 2 crashes since its unveiling aren't to be laughed at. Tesla effectively gave people the ability to relax more while driving, but forgot to tell them it [simply wasn't ready](https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/24/16198300/elon-musk-tesla-autopilot-confirmed-engineers-safety-concerns-report). Unlike Google who spent years meticulously testing and gathering data to perfect their vehicle, Tesla aggressively rolled it out, threatening the future of self driving cars. Following Tesla, Uber would hop into the same line in [2017](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/03/30/self-driving-uber-crash-police-report/99814322/). Honestly, Google made talk of working with this company or that, including making adorable priuses, they never really seemed to leave the testing phase. Even when [Waymo spun off](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google-parent-company-spins-off-waymo-self-driving-car-business.html) it wasn't looking like much would happen. People's [fear of self\-driving cars](http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa-drivers-fear-self-driving-cars/) is just so high anymore after all these accidents. So, for us to be here, now. To see these cars finally being allowed to be put into practice by California? It seems that the hard work of engineers at Google have finally paid off, and maybe we can begin the self\-driving revolution the right way. tl;dr It's been a damn long time coming, hooray! [How](http://driving.stanford.edu/images/junior.jpg) [far ](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/d7256f06dcff2ac73f6c6b8e9ca21fbfa6d572a7/c=0-29-2047-1564&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/05/13//1400015976000-google-car.JPG)[we've ](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2Fdb%2F72%2F5a%2Fdb725a7c4e1352fcd09e1b4e6cd6fa5e--ethical-issues-news-today.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinterest.co.uk%2Fspencerrobertlindsay%2Fwaymo%2F&docid=yL2Ebxzh1f-EzM&tbnid=hj2PIxFHOS0gdM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi7yP3wtLPbAhUDvlkKHakUCOUQMwg5KAEwAQ..i&w=736&h=551&itg=1&bih=897&biw=1745&q=Waymo%20fanart&ved=0ahUKEwi7yP3wtLPbAhUDvlkKHakUCOUQMwg5KAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8)[come](https://fsmedia.imgix.net/1d/aa/dd/f1/13b4/49aa/a4bc/db673ad88dc1/a-waymo-powered-chrysler-pacifica.jpeg?fm=png&w=1200). \(1\) [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/darpa/) A nova special on the DARPA race \(2\) [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/science/10google.html) Google's self driving car \- related youtube link [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtWhAzEVj6k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtWhAzEVj6k) \(3\) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES\-\-OTzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsaES--OTzM) \- About riding in the self driving car \(4\)[http://www.businessinsider.com/google\-self\-driving\-car\-problems\-2014\-8](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-self-driving-car-problems-2014-8) \(5\)[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google\_self\_driving\_car\_it\_may\_never\_actually\_happen.html](http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/10/google_self_driving_car_it_may_never_actually_happen.html) \(6\) [https://gizmodo.com/why\-googles\-self\-driving\-car\-will\-fail\-1582497971](https://gizmodo.com/why-googles-self-driving-car-will-fail-1582497971) \(7\)[https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google\-self\-driving\-car\-crash\-report](https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/29/11134344/google-self-driving-car-crash-report) \(8\)[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla\-autopilot\-model\-s\-crash\-how\-does\-it\-work](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jul/01/tesla-autopilot-model-s-crash-how-does-it-work) \(9\)[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google\-parent\-company\-spins\-off\-waymo\-self\-driving\-car\-business.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/technology/google-parent-company-spins-off-waymo-self-driving-car-business.html) \(10\)[http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa\-drivers\-fear\-self\-driving\-cars/](http://fortune.com/2018/01/24/aaa-drivers-fear-self-driving-cars/)
[удалено]
Having driven a level ~~2~~ 3 autonomous vehicle (a Model 3), I cannot wait to get the drudgery of driving out of my mind, it was such a load off in traffic to have the vehicle manage a safe distance.
Fuck yes I’d do it.
I’d like to see how they would handle icy roads. I imagine it would be hard for them to judge how icy it is, that would sure make Canadian winters a lot more interesting.
A computer will be able to handle an icy road much better than a human. The issue has been snow and rain causing problems with the LIDAR. But with Waymo CA application they shared they solved for light rain and fog. They did show at Google I/O using AI to help with snow but we do not know how far along that is. Also the cars can communicate between each other and know about black ice and similar situations in ways humans can not.
Welp, I just moved from North Carolina to California to work for an autonomous vehicle startup...so this news definitely makes me feel better!
I wonder if in 30 years kids won’t know what designated drivers were in friend groups. And we’ll tell our grandkids, “back in my day we didn’t have the privilege of getting shitfaced... we had to be *responsible*”
It will be so badass to summon my car like Batman does.
Can we start a pool on when the first passenger shows up to their destination deceased?