I am currently approved for Waymo and can travel driverless within ~most of SF anytime.
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ278 | |
| 2 | Ṁ72 | |
| 3 | Ṁ48 | |
| 4 | Ṁ18 | |
| 5 | Ṁ15 |
People are also trading
@dreev I agree - I think they will focus on expanding coverage within SF first and nailing that down before going to Palo Alto. There is also not really a precedent of Waymo's going on highways, so it's not clear that will be feasible in the near-term.
Couple clarifying question before I bet toooo heavily:
Does it only count if there's no human in the driver's seat? What about a backup human who doesn't appear to be touching the steering wheel?
What if you're called out of town or something and believe you would've been able to hail such a ride but aren't able to for personal reasons? More generally, any ways for this to resolve YES without you personally completing the round trip?
@dreev
1. I also count backup human. But FYI I've never been in an AV with a backup human. Doesn't count if the backup human has to take control at any point.
2. Yes, I would resolve positively if I'm logistically unable to complete the trip but could in theory. I'll try to actually complete the trip if I can, but if it is too expensive or if I don't have a reason to go to Palo Alto then I might resolve positively without physically calling the AV.
Hope this helps!
@CarsonGale Thanks! I'm not sure about #1. If there's a backup human monitoring carefully and ready to take over at a moment's notice then that's a fairly far cry from an autonomous vehicle. Unless in practice the human never does take over. But you won't know that from one sample ride.
So the presence of a backup human means it's not very strong evidence that the car is autonomous, even if the human doesn't happen to intervene on a particular trip.
@dreev I agree that it's theoretically possible that I am able to ride in a self-driving car that just happens to work in my ride but isn't truly autonomous in practice. But (i) seems super unlikely that I specifically will be included in such a situation, given I have never before been used as a subject for driverless test trials, and (ii) such a situation still seems like it would satisfy the wording of the original market - i.e., it seems odd to be driven autonomously w/o driver interference on the designated route and NOT resolve yes.
Thoughts?
@CarsonGale Yeah, I'd say it's not likely enough to worry about much and it's ok to just give a verdict on the hypothetical just in case. Sounds like that verdict is: backup human allowed as long they don't take control on your sample trip. (And that you believe they take control so infrequently that a backup human wouldn't be strictly necessary? Or at least have no reason to believe otherwise?)
@dreev Yes that seems right. If I have reason to think that a successful ride is an anomaly I reserve rights to resolve as I deem fit, but seems extremely likely that if I am successful in my ride I will resolve positively.