←back to thread

Waymo robotaxis are now giving rides on freeways in LA, SF and Phoenix

(techcrunch.com)
281 points nharada | 2 comments | 12 Nov 25 16:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mmmlinux ◴[12 Nov 25 17:06 UTC] No.45902647[source]▶
I was in SF a few weekend ago and rode both Waymo and normal Lyft style taxi cars. the Waymo was a better experience in every single way. One of the Lyfts i was in drove on the shoulder for a while like it was a lane. The Waymos were just smooth consistent driving. No aggressive driving to get you dumped off so they can get to the next fair.
replies(12): >>45902760 #>>45902967 #>>45902998 #>>45903093 #>>45903449 #>>45904903 #>>45904913 #>>45905127 #>>45905613 #>>45906080 #>>45906696 #>>45908668 #
toast0 ◴[12 Nov 25 17:31 UTC] No.45902998[source]▶
> Waymo was a better experience in every single way. One of the Lyfts i was in drove on the shoulder for a while like it was a lane.

These sentances conflict. I recently took a taxi from JFK to Manhattan during rush hour, and I estimate if the driver didn't use all of the paved surface, it would have taken at least 10 more minutes to arrive. (And it wouldn't have been an authentic NYC experience)

It's ok if you prefer the Waymo experience, and if you find it a better experience overall, but if a human driver saves you time, the Waymo wasn't better in every single way.

I am assuming the Lyft driver used the shoulder effectively. My experience with Lyft+Uber has been hit or miss... Some drivers are like traditional taxi drivers: it's an exciting ride because the driver knows the capabilities of their vehicle and uses them and they navigate obstacles within inches; some drivers are the opposite, it's an exciting ride because it feels like Star Tours (is this your first time? well, it's mine too) and they're using your ride to find the capabilities of their vehicle. The first type of driver is likely to use the shoulder effectively, and the second not so much.

replies(5): >>45903048 #>>45903050 #>>45903077 #>>45903097 #>>45903355 #
1. asadm ◴[12 Nov 25 17:37 UTC] No.45903077[source]▶
couldn't you have arrived 10 minutes later or was endangering life worth it?
replies(1): >>45905418 #
2. toast0 ◴[12 Nov 25 19:51 UTC] No.45905418[source]▶
I certainly could have arrived 10 minutes later, but I wouldn't say that arriving 10 minutes later would result in a better experience in every way. It might result in a hypothetically safer experience (in the instance, there were no collisions so safety was achieved) or a morally better experience (according to the HN consensus morals that deem me a psychopath for either taking a cab at all or because I did not intervene and let the cab driver drive as he saw fit). Up to you what criteria you judge the overall trip on, I'm just pointing out that if the trip time is longer, the trip is not better in every way; at least absent an unusual requirement such as if you wanted to see the sights on the way, a shorter but less scenic trip would be a negative; or if you had a timing constraint that you must not arrive before a certain time, a shorter trip might infringe that constraint and would be a negative --- no such constraint was mentioned.

I don't know that any life was endangered either. I would accept an argument that property was endangered, certainly the margin between vehicles was very close, but at speeds where a collision would not have been injurious.