• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

Waymo One passengers reveal what it's really like to ride in Alphabet's self-driving taxis

Single Malt

Active Member
https://www.businessinsider.com/waymo-one-riders-open-up-about-their-self-driving-experiences-2019-2

"In total, the pair have easily taken more than 100 rides in Waymo's cars — and they spoke candidly about how flawless the service already is, even with backup safety drivers still present in the driver's seat. Here's what they had to say:"

"It really works a lot like a lot of the other ride-hail services like Uber, Lyft and things like that," Metz, a 30-year-old operations manager, told Business Insider. "You just tell it where you want it to pick you up and then tell it where your destination is."

"One of the things that really surprised us is how nice the cars are inside," Metz said. "At first we were kind of neutral about it being a minivan — but actually, it's completely leather upholstered and surprisingly nice inside."
 

everythingsuber

Well-Known Member
“I can literally count on my hands the number of minutes that the safety driver has been driving,”

There's the thing. It's like saying “I can literally count on my hands the number of times that I would have ended up under a truck.” The safety drivers can not be required ever. Not once in 100,000 miles.
Not in any conditions. That's the level they need to get to to be anything other than a failure.
 
Last edited:

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
"In total, the pair have easily taken more than 100 rides in Waymo's cars — and they spoke candidly about how flawless the service already is..."
This part of the intro immediately exposes the author as an idiot. There is no "how flawless" something is. It is a superlative. Something is either flawless or it is not. It's like a woman being pregnant. Either she is or she is not. There is no, "She's quite pregnant today". Regarding the cars, the self driving car service is not flawless because safety drivers are still required.

The author then goes on to make a comparison between UberLyft and Waymo, describing amenities inside the cars:

"There's a screen behind the front-seat headrest that's not unlike the Waymo One app. It shows GPS-navigation, destination, and a current mop."

I have no mop in my car, current or otherwise. I have a couple of sponges and a cloth in the trunk, though.

Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed.

Shoddy journalism as usual from Business Insider.
 

goneubering

Well-Known Member
“I can literally count on my hands the number of minutes that the safety driver has been driving,”

There's the thing. It's like saying “I can literally count on my hands the number of times that I would have ended up under a truck.” The safety drivers can not be required ever. Not once in 100,000 miles.
Not in any conditions. That's the level they need to get to to be anything other than a failure.
But hey!! Leather upholstery. :wink:
 

ECOMCON

Well-Known Member
This part of the intro immediately exposes the author as an idiot. There is no "how flawless" something is. It is a superlative. Something is either flawless or it is not. It's like a woman being pregnant. Either she is or she is not. There is no, "She's quite pregnant today". Regarding the cars, the self driving car service is not flawless because safety drivers are still required.

The author then goes on to make a comparison between UberLyft and Waymo, describing amenities inside the cars:

"There's a screen behind the front-seat headrest that's not unlike the Waymo One app. It shows GPS-navigation, destination, and a current mop."

I have no mop in my car, current or otherwise. I have a couple of sponges and a cloth in the trunk, though.

Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed.

Shoddy journalism as usual from Business Insider.
Either “Shoddy journalism”
Or
Shoddy Review by Non-Objective uber Driver


non·ob·jec·tive
adjective: non-objective
  1. 1. (of a person or their judgment) influenced by personal feeling or opinions in considering and representing facts.
 

Single Malt

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
This part of the intro immediately exposes the author as an idiot. There is no "how flawless" something is. It is a superlative. Something is either flawless or it is not. It's like a woman being pregnant. Either she is or she is not. There is no, "She's quite pregnant today". Regarding the cars, the self driving car service is not flawless because safety drivers are still required.

The author then goes on to make a comparison between UberLyft and Waymo, describing amenities inside the cars:

"There's a screen behind the front-seat headrest that's not unlike the Waymo One app. It shows GPS-navigation, destination, and a current mop."

I have no mop in my car, current or otherwise. I have a couple of sponges and a cloth in the trunk, though.

Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed.

Shoddy journalism as usual from Business Insider.
Valid attempt. Granted you don't have much to work with because the naysayer mantra that SDC's are still ten years away is hanging by a thread, but until that last thread breaks I say stand your ground.


295297
 
Last edited:

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Either “Shoddy journalism”
Or
Shoddy Review by Non-Objective uber Driver


non·ob·jec·tive
adjective: non-objective
  1. 1. (of a person or their judgment) influenced by personal feeling or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Are you talking about my review of the article, or your review of my review? It seems that you could be talking about either.

There is no evidence in what I wrote to denote that I am either a supporter of / believer in SDC or a detractor. My comments were factual and concerned only the author's poor journalistic ability.

Since you based your comment not on fact, as I did, I will assume, by definition, that you are talking about the non-objectivity in your post.
 
Last edited:

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Valid attempt. Granted you don't have much to work with because the naysayer mantra that SDC's are still ten years away is hanging by a thread, but until that last thread breaks I say stand your ground.


View attachment 295297
I made no reference in my review of this article to how far away SDC are. The content of my review referenced only the article itself. The article, and my comments, concerned what is possible and happening in the SDC arena now. No inference regarding how far into the future I think SDC may/may not be can be made from my comments. Any attempt to extrapolate what I said and somehow apply it to SDC's future is therefore a failure.
 

Single Malt

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
I made no reference in my review of this article to how far away SDC are. The content of my review referenced only the article itself. The article, and my comments, concerned what is possible and happening in the SDC arena now. No inference regarding how far into the future I think SDC may/may not be can be made from my comments. Any attempt to extrapolate what I said and somehow apply it to SDC's future is therefore a failure.
"Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed."

Do you feel the author should also point out that Uber is subsidizing fares to the tune of 40 to 60 percent via investor cash?
 

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
"Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed."

Do you feel the author should also point out that Uber is subsidizing fares to the tune of 40 to 60 percent via investor cash?
Yes
 

Single Malt

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
This part of the intro immediately exposes the author as an idiot. There is no "how flawless" something is. It is a superlative. Something is either flawless or it is not. It's like a woman being pregnant. Either she is or she is not. There is no, "She's quite pregnant today". Regarding the cars, the self driving car service is not flawless because safety drivers are still required.

The author then goes on to make a comparison between UberLyft and Waymo, describing amenities inside the cars:

"There's a screen behind the front-seat headrest that's not unlike the Waymo One app. It shows GPS-navigation, destination, and a current mop."

I have no mop in my car, current or otherwise. I have a couple of sponges and a cloth in the trunk, though.

Finally the author compares the cost of trips, seemingly celebrating that the cost to pax is lower on Waymo than on UberLyft, ignoring the fact that the prices charged by Waymo are just token amounts and do not reflect the cost of putting on the service. This is the final manifestation of the main mistake the author makes (other than grammar and basic typo-checking) - that of trying to compare, on level terms, a commercial operation in full production (UberLyft) with a development test-bed.

Shoddy journalism as usual from Business Insider.
What is your critique of this Business Insider article?

https://www.businessinsider.com/travis-kalanick-interview-on-self-driving-cars-future-driver-jobs-2016-8

Kalanick: "So if that's happening, what would happen if we weren't a part of that future? If we weren't part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way," he said.

"If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that's in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, then Uber is no longer a thing," Kalanick said.
 

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Skimming through it, it seems to be error-free in terms of grammar, without glaring amateurish clangers, and the author manages to express him/herself lucidly without bias.
Kalanick: "So if that's happening, what would happen if we weren't a part of that future? If we weren't part of the autonomy thing? Then the future passes us by basically, in a very expeditious and efficient way," he said.

"If we are not tied for first, then the person who is in first, or the entity that's in first, then rolls out a ride-sharing network that is far cheaper or far higher-quality than Uber's, then Uber is no longer a thing," Kalanick said.
It seems the mistake Kalanick made personally was not worrying what would happen if Uber was not part of an autonomous future, but what would happen if he was not part of Uber.
 

Single Malt

Active Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
There's the thing. It's like saying “I can literally count on my hands the number of times that I would have ended up under a truck.”
Actually it's not. The safety drivers are not taking over for safety related issues because there are none. They took over a handful of times out of convenience, such as as a parking lot, to help speeds things up as opposed to waiting for permission from the command center to proceed. Soon they'll pull the safety drivers and rely on the command center to unstick the car. As with most trips the car drove entirely by itself in this video
 

ECOMCON

Well-Known Member
Skimming through it, it seems to be error-free in terms of grammar, without glaring amateurish clangers, and the author manages to express him/herself lucidly without bias.​
It seems the mistake Kalanick made personally was not worrying what would happen if Uber was not part of an autonomous future, but what would happen if he was not part of Uber.
Trust me, as founder with a personal worth of $4 billion, Kalanick is still very much on Dara Khosrowshahi speed dial.
I seriously seriously doubt Uber executive suite decisions are being made without TK input.

In the world of the rich and influential Kalanick is a celebrity & rock star. I understand the working poor driver disdain for him, but drivers are a non factor and frankly not part of uber’s Future plans.




Please attempt to reply without childish emotional outburst and personal attack.
I’m very sensitive​
 

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Please attempt to reply without childish emotional outburst and personal attack.
I’m very sensitive
Don't worry; you won't need to access your safe space for the duration of this post.
Kalanick is still very much on Dara Khosrowshahi speed dial.
I doubt that. In 2017, as part of his new power consolidation efforts, Dara pushed through changes to dilute Kalanick's own power. These included:

  • Converting Kalanick's founders' shares (that previously had 10x the voting rights) into ordinary shares
  • Adding 6 further board members (up from 11)
  • Requiring two-thirds vote from the board for future elections of CEO
Dara pushed for, and acheived these changes, which effectively curtailed Kalanick's influence in the company. The two men are rivals, and certainly not "on each other's speed dial".
In the world of the rich and influential Knick is a celebrity & rock star. I understand the working poor driver disdain for him, but drivers are a non factor and frankly not part of uber’s Future plans.
I don't think it's just we working poor who have disdain for him. Pax also do. Among phrases never heard in a rideshare car by pax: "How about that Travis guy, huh? What a guy!". In fact, I can't think of any time when that's been said by anyone.

Drivers are a non-factor in what? We're certainly a factor in Uber generating billions in losses every year. They couldn't do it without us! As far as drivers not being part of Uber's future plans, that may be true. That's fine, though; Uber isn't part of mine either.

 

ECOMCON

Well-Known Member
Don't worry; you won't need to access your safe space for the duration of this post.
I doubt that. In 2017, as part of his new power consolidation efforts, Dara pushed through changes to dilute Kalanick's own power. These included:

  • Converting Kalanick's founders' shares (that previously had 10x the voting rights) into ordinary shares
  • Adding 6 further board members (up from 11)
  • Requiring two-thirds vote from the board for future elections of CEO
Dara pushed for, and acheived these changes, which effectively curtailed Kalanick's influence in the company. The two men are rivals, and certainly not "on each other's speed dial".
I don't think it's just we working poor who have disdain for him. Pax also do. Among phrases never heard in a rideshare car by pax: "How about that Travis guy, huh? What a guy!". In fact, I can't think of any time when that's been said by anyone.

Drivers are a non-factor in what? We're certainly a factor in Uber generating billions in losses every year. They couldn't do it without us! As far as drivers not being part of Uber's future plans, that may be true. That's fine, though; Uber isn't part of mine either.

And now I have more information
Ho....Ho....Ho


 

tohunt4me

Well-Known Member
They wont be Neat
Nice
Or Clean for Long !
“I can literally count on my hands the number of minutes that the safety driver has been driving,”

There's the thing. It's like saying “I can literally count on my hands the number of times that I would have ended up under a truck.” The safety drivers can not be required ever. Not once in 100,000 miles.
Not in any conditions. That's the level they need to get to to be anything other than a failure.
 

Top