GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,911 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

June 23, 2022

GM’s autonomous driving division, Cruise, has begun its paid driverless taxi service in San Francisco and officially took its first fares last night.

Cruise has been operating a free driverless taxi service in the area since earlier this year (and got pulled over once), but last night it began charging for this service. Both Cruise and its rival Waymo, a division of Google’s parent company Alphabet, have been hoping for some time to start charging for autonomous taxi rides in California. Waymo got permission in February but has not yet started charging fares.

Cruise’s program is still quite limited, only covering about a third of San Francisco with 30 cars. While anyone can sign up, Cruise is sending out limited invites for users given the limitations of their vehicle supply and geofenced area at the moment.
Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt went on CNBC to talk with Phil LeBeau about the news this morning:

Vogt said that there were “a number” of five-star reviews (how many?) for the “handful” of rides they offered, and that users originally have some hesitance when riding in a car with no driver but eventually come to like the idea of having their own space and not needing to share it with a stranger.
The system is currently geofenced to the Northwest corner of the city of San Francisco and only runs between 10pm and 6am. This is done mostly for safety – there are fewer pedestrians and other cars on the road during those hours, making for a simpler driving situation for the autonomous vehicles involved.
The geofencing also helps make driving simpler for these vehicles. The city of San Francisco proper is actually quite small – only about 7 by 7 miles – so vehicles are restricted to an area less than about 20 square miles. And while San Francisco is not an easy city to drive in, the Northwest corner of the city is the least complex portion, with mostly residential areas arranged into a grid of low-speed streets. The Northeast portion, the downtown area, is more complex, so it makes sense that Cruise is keeping their fared rides in the simpler part of town for now.
Cruise still operates unfared driverless rides in the rest of the city, but wants to expand paid rides across the city quickly. Vogt said that “as soon as the end of the year” it may have “hundreds” of vehicles “covering all of San Francisco.”
Vogt points out that Cruise should be able to offer drives for cheaper than taxis with drivers in them, because the driver does not need to be paid for their time.
So far, Cruise’s paid driverless taxi is less expensive than competing ride-hailing apps, but not by a lot. Cruise said that a trip would cost 90 cents per mile and 40 cents per minute, plus a $5 base fee. For a sample 1.3 mile trip, this would cost a total of $8.72 including taxes, whereas Uber would cost $10.41 for the same trip. So a cost reduction, sure, but not a tremendous one. Vogt claims that the cost will eventually drop to “far below” the cost of ride-hailing apps today as technology develops, but given that ride-hailing apps currently run at a loss anyway, we don’t really know how the economics of any of this will shake out in the long run.
Electrek’s Take
I’ve had a ride in a free autonomous taxi before (not from Cruise or Waymo) – but with a safety driver and a technician in the car, both instructed not to intervene unless necessary – and I was reasonably impressed by the experience. It was also in a geofenced area, similar to Cruise’s new effort, and the area was heavily mapped and chosen for its wide roads and relatively low traffic.

There were a couple iffy moments, but the car still handled even some complicated situations quite well. When we encountered construction with cones on the road and a worker with a handheld “SLOW” sign, the car slowed (to a crawl), to the point that the worker tried to wave us through, then noticed the driver with his hands off the wheel, then laughed with understanding once he noticed he was looking at a self-driving car.

The experience was more reassuring than what I’ve experienced in Tesla’s “Full Self-Driving” mode, which has a lot of issues with phantom braking and other weird decisions, though Tesla is not geofenced and thus has a more complex job to do.

As for the overall social issues with driverless taxis, I do see the value of having your own space as the COVID-19 pandemic continues on. While I am definitely a talkative taxi rider and enjoy having conversations with my driver, shared transport with strangers is one of the vectors of transmission, so having one’s own space is valuable, particularly as many have forgotten the necessity of wearing masks.

But on a longer timeline and with a wider lens, in order to fight climate change we should also be moving towards less car-dependent public transit and more mass public transit (trains, buses, or perhaps driverless ride-share taxis which pick up multiple riders) and micromobility. While single-occupancy taxis will have their use, there are better solutions for transportation if we are really going to take the necessary steps to redesign our cities to tackle climate change.
Plus there is the issue of labor – paid driverless taxis will put drivers out of a job, and while that results in cost and efficiency savings for society as a whole, what it also does is channel that money away from the sizeable chunk of workers who currently make a living off of driving and towards the owners of autonomous vehicles, whether that be individuals who can purchase robotaxis as Tesla envisions, or large companies who operate fleets like GM Cruise. As a society, we need to decide whether it’s a good or bad thing to concentrate the revenue from transportation into
fewer hands, or how to better distribute it if not.

LINK
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,343 Posts
Pretty ironic that the slow moving legacy auto company known as GM beat all of the fast moving, innovative tech companies to market (or at least to the point they are allowed to charge money).

I hadn't thought about the safety issue where women would prefer a driverless car.

There were a couple iffy moments, but the car still handled even some complicated situations quite well. When we encountered construction with cones on the road and a worker with a handheld “SLOW” sign, the car slowed (to a crawl), to the point that the worker tried to wave us through, then noticed the driver with his hands off the wheel, then laughed with understanding once he noticed he was looking at a self-driving car.
Anyone know how this works? I assume the car is looking for specific shaped signs and wording and can read the word "slow" and act appropriately - that is amazing!
 

·
Registered
2014 BMW 320i; 2015 Chevy Spark EV (wife's car)
Joined
·
5,061 Posts
But on a longer timeline and with a wider lens, in order to fight climate change we should also be moving towards less car-dependent public transit and more mass public transit (trains, buses, or perhaps driverless ride-share taxis which pick up multiple riders) and micromobility. While single-occupancy taxis will have their use, there are better solutions for transportation if we are really going to take the necessary steps to redesign our cities to tackle climate change.
As expected, this Electrek writer is a member of the government central planning cabal, using the globaloney warming hoax as a pretext to "redesign cities" and deny their citizens the benefits cars (with or without human drivers) provide.
 

·
Registered
2014 BMW 320i; 2015 Chevy Spark EV (wife's car)
Joined
·
5,061 Posts
Pretty ironic that the slow moving legacy auto company known as GM beat all of the fast moving, innovative tech companies to market (or at least to the point they are allowed to charge money).
GM's autonomous driving technology capabilities are the best in the world. Back in the mid 1980s, GM and its then subsidiary Delco Electronics worked with the researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University that pioneered techniques used today for self-driving vehicles.

A couple years ago, I thought that Waymo might be the first to offer a robotaxi service without a safety driver to paying customers, but I'm not surprised that GM Cruise beat them in terms of offering such a service.

Waymo relies on partners JLR and Stellantis to provide vehicles on which the autonomous driving components are installed, whereas with Cruise everything is done in-house at GM. Advantage: GM.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,343 Posts
GM's autonomous driving technology capabilities are the best in the world. Back in the mid 1980s, GM and its then subsidiary Delco Electronics worked with the researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University that pioneered techniques used today for self-driving vehicles.

A couple years ago, I thought that Waymo might be the first to offer a robotaxi service without a safety driver to paying customers, but I'm not surprised that GM Cruise beat them in terms of offering such a service.

Waymo relies on partners JLR and Stellantis to provide vehicles on which the autonomous driving components are installed, whereas with Cruise everything is done in-house at GM. Advantage: GM.
I assume Waymo is not far behind...

Funny thing is I bet Google (Waymo) stock will be up on this news of GM's accomplishment and a big, fat $0 for GM. (so much for my guess - both are up in an up market as of 10:44 AM EST - Google up $80+ and GM up a huge $1.50+
 

·
Registered
2014 BMW 320i; 2015 Chevy Spark EV (wife's car)
Joined
·
5,061 Posts
I assume Waymo is not far behind...
That's correct BlackGTP. The robotaxi services market in the U.S. currently could be described as "GM Cruise and Waymo vie for the lead, everyone else is on the sidelines". ;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,674 Posts
Hey! Maybe I should disguise my Soul (the vehicle) as a bot, fix me up an outfit like JohnnyCab, and see what kind of money I can shake loose?
Do you suppose passengers tip the robots?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
36,517 Posts
I assume Waymo is not far behind...

Funny thing is I bet Google (Waymo) stock will be up on this news of GM's accomplishment and a big, fat $0 for GM. (so much for my guess - both are up in an up market as of 10:44 AM EST - Google up $80+ and GM up a huge $1.50+
If Mary Barrah can successfully monetize data related services , then she can get Google’s value.

on her income statement, she needs to show a subscription revenue line item growing, and she is worth a trillion dollars
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
37,674 Posts
It would be cool. But GM is a legacy company and I think hard to change stock buyers perceptions...
It would be hard to change this stock buyer's perception since our GM stock tanked to zero dollars and zero cents a few years back. T'anks for duh memories, Le Grande General!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gkr778

·
Registered
Joined
·
45,355 Posts
Pretty ironic that the slow moving legacy auto company known as GM beat all of the fast moving, innovative tech companies to market (or at least to the point they are allowed to charge money).
Not really.
GM just acquired the right company to get a leg up on the autonomous driving systems.

All other companies created JV's or partnered with the tech companies — like Waymo-JLR-Google.

I hadn't thought about the safety issue where women would prefer a driverless car.
Most people don't.


Anyone know how this works? I assume the car is looking for specific shaped signs and wording and can read the word "slow" and act appropriately - that is amazing!
I assume no different than existing sign-recognition technologies currently in place in most cars, where they'd read speed limit signs and translate that to the car.
Now... if it's a handwritten sign on a 8.5x11 piece of paper... that would be amazing.
 

·
Registered
2014 BMW 320i; 2015 Chevy Spark EV (wife's car)
Joined
·
5,061 Posts
I hadn't thought about the safety issue where women would prefer a driverless car.
Most people don't.
Good points. Research at University of Leeds found that most people prefer to travel in their own car, alone. When it comes to robotaxi, both males and females prefer solo occupant (exclusive use within a vehicle) services over pooled (shared by multiple people in a vehicle).

However, women show a marked preference to owning a personal autonomous vehicle over solo occupant robotaxi services, whereas the majority of men are indifferent to owning a personal autonomous vehicle vs. using a solo occupant robotaxi services.

To own or not to own – That is the question: The value of owning a (fully automated) vehicle
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,206 Posts
And still, there’s no standardised government mandated testing regime to prove the competency of self driving vehicles. Just because an AV can complete a journey without incident is no measure of competency to do so, thousands of drunk drives do the same every day. I’m not saying this because it’s a GM vehicle, I just don’t like the idea of this tech not being properly scrutineers beyond manufacturers claims.

Also, I don’t agree with doing field testing on an unsuspecting public that just assumes that they must be safe because I’m in it…
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,343 Posts
Good points. Research at University of Leeds found that most people prefer to travel in their own car, alone. When it comes to robotaxi, both males and females prefer solo occupant (exclusive use within a vehicle) services over pooled (shared by multiple people in a vehicle).

However, women show a marked preference to owning a personal autonomous vehicle over solo occupant robotaxi services, whereas the majority of men are indifferent to owning a personal autonomous vehicle vs. using a solo occupant robotaxi services.

To own or not to own – That is the question: The value of owning a (fully automated) vehicle
And human psychology makes things difficult :D

My point of view is that once cars become truly self-driving, I don't see the point in owning one unless there is some kind of inconvenience factor to get one to pick me up, or, if financially it makes more sense to buy one.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,343 Posts
Not really.
GM just acquired the right company to get a leg up on the autonomous driving systems.

All other companies created JV's or partnered with the tech companies — like Waymo-JLR-Google.



Most people don't.




I assume no different than existing sign-recognition technologies currently in place in most cars, where they'd read speed limit signs and translate that to the car.
Now... if it's a handwritten sign on a 8.5x11 piece of paper... that would be amazing.
Still part of GM and they, in this case, made the right choice and provided the proper oversight to allow them to be first to market. As you said, many other companies did similar, yet GM did it first. Could just be dumb luck, or could be good management on GM's part.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top