alt.hn

8/4/2026 at 6:29:41 PM

Waymo in Dallas

 https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/dallas-open-to-all/

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 10:40:32 PM

As someone who works in commercial real estate, involved in about $300M of housing development, some of it affordable, i will say without any doubt that driverless cars are a very effective affordable housing policy that is not being considered or discussed by anyone.

Any public dollar that gets contributed to housing, basically adds a 50% cost factor and assume whatever it is used for will take 2-3x as long to deliver anything you can live in.

So instead, Cities should lease Waymos (or other brands), and provide these vehicles for use by affordable tenants in properties with limited parking.

Building housing with no parking is not feasible for 95% of deals. You simply won't get financing or you'll end up handing the keys back to the lender and bankrupt on the deal. Instead, if you could hand to your investors and lender an agreement which provides a car for every 3 units, that tenants have first priority to use for free (or an amount subsidized per month) up to reasonable limits, then you'd address the concern "where are people going to park and how to get to work?".

it's way more efficient than building $100 billion in transit that will take 200 years to build.

What's it cost per year to lease? $30k? That car can be full time serving 4-10 units daily? The cars can be rented to the public on off hours to offset their operating cost.

It's a lot more cost efficient and can be done TODAY, not 5 years after complicated LIHTC financing with 4 layers of other public funding, 3 years of approvals, and 2 years of construction.

by eagleinparadise

8/4/2026 at 11:02:04 PM

As someone who knows anything about Texas cities, I assure you that parking space is not an issue in Dallas

by PsylentKnight

8/4/2026 at 11:01:57 PM

Self-driving cars will kill off your kind of real estate developers once and for all. Because there is no such thing as "affordable housing".

All housing on the market is by definition "affordable". If someone buys it, then somebody can afford it. The proper term is _subsidized_ housing.

Anything subsidized is destructive in the long run.

Fortunately, self-driving cars and mild carpooling (3-4 people per car) will eliminate road congestion and allow comfortable suburban living while still having access to the dense city cores. And mild carpooling does not have the main disadvantage of transit: turtle-slow average speed.

by cyberax

8/4/2026 at 10:43:20 PM

America, the place where they will try anything except for building good public transportation, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.

by oblio

8/4/2026 at 10:59:23 PM

i know multiple developers with public dollars to build housing $800k-$1.2M per unit. so i don't know, maybe come up with a better solution I'd be happy to hear your idea that is realistic and will deliver more units at a lower cost.

by eagleinparadise

8/4/2026 at 11:03:20 PM

Have you tried "building good public transportation, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods"?

by theappsecguy

8/4/2026 at 10:56:31 PM

I get what you're saying, but in this particular case we're talking about Texas. The people down there think that bike lanes and walkable neighborhoods are a plot to send in UN soldiers who will forcibly vaccinate them with 5G nanobots. I'm only slightly exaggerating.

by Analemma_

8/4/2026 at 10:57:33 PM

> Any public dollar that gets contributed to housing

... in the US

> Building housing with no parking is not feasible for 95% of deals. You simply won't get financing

Because of completely broken land use, transportation polices, building regulation in the US, they are very feasible in many other parts of the world.

> if you could hand to your investors and lender an agreement which provides a car for every 3 units

Or some kind of vehicle that comes by every 15min and connects to a network of other transports that are time interval based.

Or have car share vehicles attached to the property. Something that is routinely done in Europe for decades.

> it's way more efficient than building $100 billion in transit that will take 200 years to build.

Except it doesn't last that long and is not that expensive unless you are incompetent and live in a broken society.

Cities in China added 100s of miles of metro since 2010. Making bad excuses and doubling down on car dependency are a big part on why its not happening.

And btw. the US has so many fucking roads already (btw they are also very expensive, but I guess that money doesn't count), if the were competent they could spend 6 month and few 100 million and build absolutely amazing bus transit system. But of course taking a lane away from cars wouldn't be acceptable, better give money to waymo so people can sit in traffic in a Waymo vehicle.

It is not about cost, its about political will and the societal believe that public transit is for the unwashed poor and racially inferiors, spending money on it is charity, not transportation policy, and that any upstanding citizen in a car needs to have unlimited freedom to drive everywhere and never get into trouble.

> That car can be full time serving 4-10 units daily?

This has been done for many decades with carsharing already, its standard practice in many developments. What exactly does Waymo or self driving change here from an investor perspective? Ok maybe if its really close buy the Waymo can go back when you don't need it anymore. So maybe you need half as many. But of course the Waymo vehicle is also much more expensive and has capacity you don't need.

But of course, even with that carsharing concept, the far better solution that almost everybody in the developed world does, outside the US, is to simply have good public transport, you build it first, and then build the new housing around those transport links. Car sharing is only for very niche situations and that's a good thing, because more cars in cities are bad.

by panick21_

8/4/2026 at 10:46:31 PM

> provide these vehicles for use by affordable tenants in properties with limited parking

Translation: Poors are allowed to exercise their freedom of movement iff they stay in a huge corpo's good graces.

by Lammy

8/4/2026 at 11:00:52 PM

> Translation: Poors are allowed to exercise their freedom of movement iff they stay in a huge corpo's good graces.

Would it placate you, if we did it for non-poors instead then?

I am a non-poor, and I would like a free/subsidized waymo with priority mode set for sharing with my neighbors. My belief is that it would help the poors more than me, but if doing so is oppressive or freedom-restricting or smth like that, I would gladly take that burden off their hands.

by filoleg

8/4/2026 at 10:52:09 PM

"huge corpos" - obviously you don't know what you're talking about. Most affordable housing is owned and operated by non-profit organizations or entities, most of which are very small.

plus, the government needs to solve for affordable and workforce housing. The market can deliver plenty of market rate units if you don't be stupid and over regulate it.

by eagleinparadise

8/4/2026 at 10:59:28 PM

> "huge corpos" - obviously you don't know what you're talking about.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204426...

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity: $595281000000.

How big to they have to be before they count as ‘big’ to you? In your ideal world, getting your Google account banned not only means losing all your photos, documents, contacts, conversations, and access to all your other accounts (GMail) but now also means you can't go anywhere besides what you can reach on foot, via whatever anemic local transit exists, or via similarly-expensive Uber/etc. Super cool; sign me up.

by Lammy

8/4/2026 at 8:01:12 PM

Surprisingly low hype for a company running perhaps the most advanced consumer-interactive robots. I’m quite fond of these machines and will periodically rescue them when someone has misused them (door not closed, most commonly). Hope they do well. Very good road participants.

by arjie

8/4/2026 at 10:08:00 PM

People seem so used to it now. I love them, I think they're probably one of the most exciting tech I've used in the last ten years. They're also like magical little rescue pods when socially overwhelmed in a busy city.

by padolsey

8/4/2026 at 10:43:11 PM

the easiest way to understand their value is to be a pedestrian. it is insane how quickly you realize how safe and careful they are vs. humans. the "bugs" with getting stuck in intersections and stuff like that means very little to me if I can bike or cross a crosswalk with confidence

by 121789

8/4/2026 at 10:24:57 PM

I want trains.

by Zambyte

8/4/2026 at 10:28:15 PM

Too much capex

by amazingamazing

8/4/2026 at 10:44:27 PM

Ok, self driving buses on fixed routes. Likely 10-1000x cheaper to implement than fully autonomous cars.

by oblio

8/4/2026 at 8:05:24 PM

[flagged]

by cyanregiment

8/4/2026 at 10:16:02 PM

They're also covered in cameras the police have access to, which have been used to track down legal protestors in the past. That's why there was a spate of people setting them on fire a few months ago. Basically, every Waymo car is a Flock camera.

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 10:19:02 PM

Stop spreading FUD. The police do not in any meaningful way "have access" to Waymo cameras.

They can subpoena recordings and Waymo will call the cops on you if you commit a crime in one of their cars, but your statement implies Flock-like access which the police simply don't have.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 10:24:18 PM

https://gizmodo.com/waymos-driverless-cars-revealed-to-be-na...

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 10:28:54 PM

Did you read your article?

> Waymo does not provide information or data to law enforcement without a valid legal request, usually in the form of a warrant, subpoena, or court order.

Waymo is no more required to turn over data to the government than you are.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 10:47:44 PM

What percentage of “valid” legal requests are granted versus denied?

by Lammy

8/4/2026 at 10:51:02 PM

Presumably Waymo complies with their legal obligations...

The point is that there's a process, it applies both to Waymo and to you as a rando. The police don't have special access to Waymo cameras.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 11:07:12 PM

> The point is that there's a process

That is the opposite of reassuring, because here are the stats for those processes as a whole (just ‘requests for user information’, not broken down by data type or Google product). The ‘process’ is a formality lol: https://transparencyreport.google.com/user-data/overview?hl=...

by Lammy

8/4/2026 at 11:03:49 PM

So if I sent an email to Waymo I could get camera footage of a crime?

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 10:54:00 PM

Irrelevant. They turn it over.

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 8:03:18 PM

I live very close to LAX, and we have hundreds of Waymos in our area. At first i was a little weary, and kinda weirded out by all of them.

They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers).

I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and it was a bit annoying and kind of funny, but again, it does not happen nearly as often as for human drivers.

I also like taking them. It is nice to just get in and relax and not have to talk to anyone or worry about who is going to pick you up. You can control the temperature and music from your phone, you can drop the pin exactly where you want to be dropped off and picked up, and the ride is smooth and comfortable.

We can debate all the knock on effects of Waymos, but the user experience is pretty great.

by cortesoft

8/4/2026 at 8:58:28 PM

>and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers.

Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news.

Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...

by WarmWash

8/4/2026 at 9:57:42 PM

Would we apply this same logic to Tesla Autopilot?

As a disclaimer, this is neither an anti-Waymo comment or a pro-Tesla comment, I just find in interesting how these small sample size incidents are both covered and perceived in the absence of actual verifiable safety statistics.

by slg

8/4/2026 at 10:20:22 PM

I'm sure we could, but since vehicles using Tesla FSD require human supervision almost everywhere and Tesla is aggressive about getting drivers in autopilot-related crashes to sign NDAs the comparison is kind of moot.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 10:10:31 PM

I'm under the impression (worth a check) that we do have verifiable safety statistics and that Waymos are significantly safer than Teslas at this point?

That's not to say that Tesla's autopilot isn't safer than the average human driver—it might be—but I thought it was settled territory that Waymos are better on safety.

by jackp96

8/4/2026 at 10:24:08 PM

Not really a fair comparison between Tesla's autopilot and Waymo though. You'd have to compare Tesla's Robotaxi but I believe they have been running for a far shorter period and I'm not sure how much data is out yet or how reliable it would be at this stage. The Robotaxi runs I believe a different version of autopilot meant to not have a human driver and has a lot more work that goes into making sure it's highly tested in the area it is being deployed. Whereas the Tesla Autopilot I believe can work in pretty much any area, so it may have more potential issues that come up.

Also a common thing I see happening with the Tesla Autopilot for an accident is that it's often not the fault of the autopilot. It's often the fault of the human driver who takes over last second. Naturally the driver will lie or not even realize they were the problem as they may have had auto pilot active 1 second before the crash. I think it's that natural human instinct when you see something happening to crap the wheel or hit the pedal in that "oh shit" kind of reflex. And that sometimes causes the driver to make a mistake.

I actually was in a crash with a person driving a Tesla vehicle where I think this was the cause. 3 lane highway, they were in the center lane, I was in the left lane, transport truck in the right lane. The transport truck slightly drift towards the edge of their lane and the Tesla driver freaked out and over corrected their steering wheel to the left and came swerving into my lane and was losing control of their car between both lanes until they suddenly slammed on their brakes in front of me. I gotta say, the Tesla brakes combined with the regenerative braking have some impressive stopping power. Unfortunately that also meant they stopped way faster and so suddenly that I hit their rear a bit. I got very lucky that insurance ruled in my favour and had them 100% at fault.

Apologies for the tangent, just trying to illustrate a point via a personal story of how even when the system is working well and keeping the driver safe, they can still make a human-like overreaction which overrides the autopilot and leads to a crash.

I get pretty annoyed when I see news articles with the headlines "Tesla crashed while auto pilot activated", but then there has yet to be an investigation and we actually don't know whether autopilot was in fact active or not yet. It's a clickbait style headline that I think makes people more hesitant about the progress of Waymo and Robotaxi vehicles.

by Fogest

8/4/2026 at 9:53:33 PM

> Edgewood Georgia,

I love when HN mentions my state or city, but that's the road and neighborhood one block down from me. I feel seen.

To add something more substantive to this thread, apparently Google's deal with Uber for distribution has become incredibly adversarial in our state. Uber won't explicitly let you book a Waymo or let you know if you're in the Waymo range.

by echelon

8/4/2026 at 10:17:05 PM

Thank you so much for revealing your location. This data point has been added to your shadow profile. Kind regards, Palantir.

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 9:49:29 PM

There was a story here about it hitting a child (I think) but it was determined to be much less serious than if a human driver was involved

by alex1138

8/4/2026 at 9:51:47 PM

https://medium.com/the-generator/a-waymo-vehicle-hit-a-kid-b...

"As the Waymo approached the double-parked SUV, a child ran out from behind the SUV and into the roadway, directly in front of the Waymo."

Waymo cannae change the laws of physics. Braking distances exist for AI-driven vehicles just as much as human-driven ones.

by heaney-555

8/4/2026 at 10:06:14 PM

And if anything, I'd expect machines to have faster reflexes than humans. The Medium article is walled off, but I found another source[1]:

"The child reported minor injuries and did not require transportation to a hospital. ... Waymo said at the time that the child ran into the street from behind a double-parked SUV and that the vehicle braked hard before contact, reducing speed significantly before impact."

Edit: Waymo's blog[2] says it "reduc[ed] speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made", and that "our peer-reviewed model[3] shows that a fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph".

[1] https://ktla.com/news/local-news/new-details-released-in-way...

[2] https://waymo.com/blog/2026/01/a-commitment-to-transparency-...

[3] https://waymo.com/blog/2022/09/benchmarking-av-safety/

by waterhouse

8/4/2026 at 9:40:54 PM

In SF, there's a crosswalk on a street near me where cars regularly go 35 mph, so they rarely stop for pedestrians. A few days ago, I was waiting on the sidewalk to cross, and a Waymo stopped. I was so surprised, at first I thought it was letting someone out. It took a few seconds to realize that no, it was stopping for me to cross the street.

by austinl

8/4/2026 at 9:08:01 PM

I took one to a show at the Hollywood Bowl. Chaotic traffic environment: lots of cars, cones, people directing traffic, pedestrians everywhere. It did great.

by lokar

8/4/2026 at 9:59:51 PM

YMMV. I tried to order one from a bar. It got confused when it got there, did a 3 point turn in front of me then left without me.

by asdff

8/4/2026 at 10:16:40 PM

>You can control the temperature and music from your phone

That's really cool but makes sense. Can't wait for them to be available in London. I'd use them instead of Uber even if they cost much more.

by sebzim4500

8/4/2026 at 10:39:52 PM

I used one last time I was in Silicon Valley and I was super impressed with its driving. Very confident and felt super safe.

I can’t wait for broader adoption of self driving cars.

by vjvjvjvjghv

8/4/2026 at 10:05:34 PM

Whenever I visit San Francisco I get the sense that these robo-taxis are nothing but public transit for those who are willing and able to spend extra money.

I would not compare the user experience to drivers, or the safety record to private cars. I would compare the user experience and the safety record to human driven taxis, buses, light rail, and metro. I am curious if the rider experience is actually any better then taking the M train from the Castro to SF state or the 49 bus between the Mission and Geary. The latter is certainly cheaper, and orders of magnitude more efficient.

by runarberg

8/4/2026 at 10:22:28 PM

If the train goes exactly where you want to go, I would always say take the train. It's spacious and clean.

But if where you're going is only served by bus or requires some walking... it really depends on how you feel. Waymo is pretty expensive, but I have had some truly miserable bus rides in SF.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 10:40:13 PM

There is a reason I picked the 49 as my example. When I lived there 15 years ago, the busses were lacking to say the least. Extremely slow, got stuck in traffic, crowded, etc.

Since the BRT lane on Van Ness, taking the 49 is more like taking a more shaky Muni train honestly. Frequent enough that it doesn’t get crowded, and it doesn’t get stuck in traffic, meaning much faster ride. As San Francisco builds more of these bus lanes, the case for the robo-taxis is only going to get weaker.

by runarberg

8/4/2026 at 8:33:29 PM

It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans.

On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.

Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans.

And even though a self-driving car will never road rage or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets, we'll still tolerate humans driving more than one odd 1-in-a-billion ai-error caused incident.

by epolanski

8/4/2026 at 8:43:39 PM

I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to novel situations" is probably the biggest blocker for people to trust them enough for widespread deployment. I'd love to see one of these things drive on a poorly mapped dirt road up in the mountains, for instance (I'm not saying it can't -- I just mean I would personally love to see how it can adapt to that kind of situation)

by overgard

8/4/2026 at 8:53:17 PM

> I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make

Would you rather have a X% chance of a loved one dying from a human-category mistake? Or a 0.5X% chance of a loved one dying from a ML-category mistake? I would take the latter in a heartbeat. Why waste time optimizing for "categories" when you can optimize for your loved ones not dying

by whack

8/4/2026 at 9:20:51 PM

While I agree with you, not everyone does.

You and I are thinking with a purely logical thought process, but most people don’t reason that way.

A lot of people want to be able to hold someone accountable, and that is more important than the pure probabilities.

They want to be able to blame a person for making a mistake.

by cortesoft

8/4/2026 at 9:50:44 PM

That is not the way human beings typically evaluate risks. 'Acceptable risks' are more about psychology and not a statistical calculation. A self driving car that is twice as safe as the human average would be considered an unacceptable risk.

Add something that is new/unknown + lack of control, and you will have to clear a very high threshold to be considered 'acceptably safe'. My guess is a minimum of a 0.1x.

by johngalt

8/4/2026 at 10:25:22 PM

I don't think that human beings factor the rate of injury or death in at all, because human beings are notoriously bad with expected values from extreme conditions.

Once people get used to taking robotaxis, they won't care. The bar is "safe enough for very few people to have a bad experience." If you take 10 robotaxi rides in a row and they all go flawlessly your subjective interpretation of the risk will be that there isn't any.

I feel confident saying this because if you die in the US to anything other than old age, it was almost certainly a car crash. Despite this, most people don't think twice before getting in a car.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 8:49:22 PM

> humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations

Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 9:41:59 PM

That's an odd claim. Human failures are uncorrelated, but the Waymos all running the same software must be expected to fail in the same way, in the situations in which they fail. Which is why they often make the news; one Waymo stuck soon sees many of its brethren join it.

by stefan_

8/4/2026 at 9:56:04 PM

Don't humans fail in the same way too, broadly speaking? Wouldn't it depend on how you categorize failure?

If a Waymo failed because it missed a stop sign, and then another Waymo failed because it was confused about some strange markings on the road, is that not failing "the same way" in the same sense that a person failing to yield or driving drunk?

by ericmay

8/4/2026 at 10:19:00 PM

I think they're saying if one waymo misses a stop sign every waymo will miss the same stop sign

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 10:20:18 PM

[dead]

by 4fr2

8/4/2026 at 8:57:41 PM

Statistics is still the most reliable indicator, because you can’t really tell if a situation is “novel”. How novel is novel? I doubt even Waymo knows for sure.

People will trust them by familiarity, not by any objective measures. Their trust grow as they see them more often, without bad accidents.

by signatoremo

8/4/2026 at 8:54:15 PM

My understanding is that they only operate in areas they’ve had approved and pre-mapped out for them though. Practically I don’t think the scenario you’ve described would ever happen, but I too would like to see it (I suspect they wouldn’t handle it well).

I live East of DTLA and twice I’ve seen people driving them around, presumably to map those areas out. It’s pretty annoying that I can’t use them for my late night commutes yet, but I’m eagerly looking forward to when I can!

by JLO64

8/4/2026 at 8:49:00 PM

IDK, I've been in the car with someone when they just up and up drove off the road because they failed to notice that there was a corner - and that's a sober human. Another time, someone else, they rounded a corner, saw a tractor in the other lane, and were so surprised that they hit a tree. My mother has totalled six cars - she insists it was someone else's fault every time, but the statistics are somewhat damning. My wife's driving has given me haemmorhoids, I clench so fucking hard. Blind corners at twice the speed limit, looks over her shoulder to talk to passengers, and I constantly find myself buying wing mirrors, fenders, headlights, body panels, hubcaps, and anything else she can break off on traffic, rocks, or street furniture. Well, I did until someone finally took her license away from her for a year.

So... not so sure. Every AV I've ever been in has driven incredibly cautiously compared to a human driver.

by madaxe_again

8/4/2026 at 8:52:58 PM

> a self-driving car will never … use the car as a weapon

You are lacking in creativity and vision. With networked autonomous vehicles, all cars can be used as a weapon simultaneously.

by jazzyjackson

8/4/2026 at 9:05:54 PM

> meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.

Any company that builds self driving cars or operates them should show how reliable they think they are. Not by showing pr material or stats, that's all 'free'.

Make yourself, as the company, legally liable. If you think it's good, put your name on it and own the risk.

When that happens, I'll trust whoever says it's safe.

by hvb2

8/4/2026 at 9:57:41 PM

> or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets

On the contrary, autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside. Instead you just place an explosive in the device and send it to the intended destination - as an organization the primary concern then becomes whether the ride is traceable back to you which might be do-able given how "frictionless" rideapps are as long as you get a burner phone, prepaid credit card and are very careful about making sure the device is clean and can't be tied to your person.

Right now the tech is limited to places where carbombings aren't commonplace, but I think driverless cars open a huge potential issue in other markets. I absolutely agree they're safer than drivers are, but let's not be hyperbolic.

by munk-a

8/4/2026 at 9:58:52 PM

> autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside

Every city has courier services, including Uber.

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 10:19:51 PM

An Uber driver was recently incarcerated for driving a package of drugs 7 hours.

by inigyou

8/4/2026 at 9:01:38 PM

When a human driver messes up, there's a person to hold responsible. When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible? If the human messes up to the point they are no longer allowed to drive, that person is no longer on the streets to cause more mistakes. When a robot car messes up, are all of the other cars pulled off the streets as well until the glitch is fixed? Every robot car is essentially the same driver.

by dylan604

8/4/2026 at 9:23:33 PM

While we hold humans financially responsible for all accidents, we don’t hold them personally responsible in every case. Most accidents end with no arrests or even tickets. If your hand slips on the steering wheel, you don’t go to jail.

Robot cars would be the same. Insurance is financially responsible, and if the accident is deemed caused by a flaw, it would be the company that made them that is held responsible for fixing it.

by cortesoft

8/4/2026 at 10:27:48 PM

Don't we have automated systems all around the world with the same element at play? Elevators? Trains/Subways that are autonomous, robotic lawn mowers, self-driving little delivery vehicles on sidewalks, all kinds of automated machines in factories that kill people, etc...

I feel like you could come up with long lists of cases where there is no direct human to blame. Someone may be at fault down the chain, but nobody who was directly controlling the machine. Just like if a mechanic screws up my brakes and I end up crashing, it wasn't directly me who caused the crash, even though I was sitting in the seat.

by Fogest

8/4/2026 at 9:41:57 PM

Why would it work any differently than any other category of product or service? If you’re rich you can sue them, if not you’re fucked.

Unless there’s a very bad and widespread issue. Then you join a class action and get $24 on a visa giftcard you can’t figure out how to redeem and then forget about.

by phoghed

8/4/2026 at 9:21:10 PM

Mistakes aren’t glitches when the environment is so dynamic. I imagine they are making errors constantly, and constantly learning from them.

When a robot car makes a mistake, all robot cars learn from the experience. When a human messes up, only that human learns from it.

by elliottkember

8/4/2026 at 9:05:49 PM

> When a robot car messes up, who is held responsible?

The company owning and operating the robot?

by epolanski

8/4/2026 at 9:39:34 PM

Ah yes, can’t wait to sue Google on equal monetary and political footing. It will be very easy, and very fair. /s

by sudokatsu

8/4/2026 at 10:32:19 PM

Also how does one arrest a company? Put the c suite behind bars?

by Synthetic7346

8/4/2026 at 9:15:52 PM

If a human makes a mistake, we give them the liability to own up to their mistakes, and carry the costs.

Most self-driving enterprises are trying very hard to ensure their non-driver continues to carry this liability instead of their company.

This helps a them v. us attitude. The company needs to be trusted widescale by the public, and do seem to undercut their own PR efforts on that, repeatedly.

by shakna

8/4/2026 at 8:44:33 PM

> we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans

This was the hypothesis. But based on e.g. FSD, it doesn’t seem borne out in reality.

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 8:51:02 PM

We have a much higher level of tolerance for things that benefit us while posing a risk to others ("should my own car have FSD") than we do for things that benefit others while posing a risk to us ("should Waymos be allowed in my neighborhood").

by decimalenough

8/4/2026 at 9:43:41 PM

> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.

I completely disagree with this. I don't "give a pass" to humans killing other humans with a car.

Every year that skeptics delay adoption of autonomous driving is another year where tens of thousands of deaths could be prevented.

by andrewmutz

8/4/2026 at 10:05:17 PM

Tesla, in particular, has given those skeptics so much ammunition to be mad at. The delay isn't purely due to luddites but also somewhat driven by prior obvious bad actions by self-driving car companies.

It's also likely that if a switchover is aggressively pursued it'll cause a massive social backlash and likely evolve into a culture war issue.

by munk-a

8/4/2026 at 8:52:22 PM

> On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones.

It comes down to accountability, IMO. We tend to be forgiven to humans because we are humans too and we know we, humans, make mistakes, and these can have serious consequences.

When a human makes a mistake, they are immediately accountable, and therefore judged and forgiven (or not). When technology makes a mistake, who's to blame? The CEO? The software developer who wrote the code? The tester? The architect?

Yes, we want technology to be an order of magnitude safer than humans for this reason, because we know that, given the current way our judicial system works, when technology makes a mistake, no one is held accountable.

by brunoborges

8/4/2026 at 8:43:10 PM

We don’t tolerate machine incidents because who is liable if an accident occurs? A company with a $4.6 trillion market cap? They’re not a legal opponent any of us really want to take on.

by sudokatsu

8/4/2026 at 9:35:11 PM

Lawyers are salivating at the possibility of suing Waymo if they ever make a mistake. Much better to be hit by a Waymo (or a Tesla Robotaxi) than the typical uninsured, "judgement proof", human driver.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 9:55:06 PM

Exactly, imagine the huge sums of liability insurance Google is carrying to make payouts when the worst-case scenario happens. That financial burden is a prime driver of their operational safety record.

by sgustard

8/4/2026 at 10:17:57 PM

Good point because massive insurance companies can't afford lawyers and no one ever sues large companies.

by sebzim4500

8/4/2026 at 9:28:56 PM

> a magnitude of order

unless I'm missing something, you meant "order of magnitude"

by phinnaeus

8/4/2026 at 8:32:22 PM

Been in a Waymo in SF — impressive tech. But I keep wondering: does the math actually work? Car + all the sensors + maintenance + mapping. Can a single vehicle ever turn a profit?

by YKutsev

8/4/2026 at 9:16:23 PM

Uber rides are around $1.5 per mile on average. Assume Waymo car drives 200K miles over it's lifetime, 3mi/kWh EV efficiently and $0.20/kWh electricity cost. It will generate $300K over it's lifetime and use $13K worth of electricity. Right now it costs $150K to manufacture Waymo car because they are custom built and Lidars are still expensive. Even at $150K unit economics should be OK. But the cost of self driving cars will go down as they are manufactured at larger scale and will eventually approach cost of regular mid-range car. In a few years they will be under $50K per car. Mapping is a one-time cost and the need for mapping will eventually disappear. This will be a massively profitable business for self-driving fleet operators.

by dmitriy_ko

8/4/2026 at 9:38:53 PM

Good calculation approach. Waymos will drive a lot more than 200K miles in their lifetime. Taxis often do a million miles. There are already photos out there of Waymo odometers over 100K.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 8:56:39 PM

> Can a single vehicle ever turn a profit?

That depends on how low they can get the costs. Waymo took delivery of the last Jaguar i-Pace, and are scaling up production of the Zeekr-based EVs, which I assume are significantly cheaper.

I think the math works, using car rental companies as an anchor point: they are (mostly) profitable*; they have relatively lower Cost of Revenue, but Waymo will have much fatter margins.

* There was a blip when Hertz had to write-down its bold bet on EVs didn't quite work out.

by overfeed

8/4/2026 at 8:49:33 PM

Are you running your replies through a LLM, or is the LLM producing them entirely?

by Philpax

8/4/2026 at 9:11:30 PM

[dead]

by YKutsev

8/4/2026 at 8:45:57 PM

These companies are taking a very long view (and are funded accordingly). The future vision is one in which cars with drivers just aren't a thing in cities anymore. Nobody owns a car to use in day-to-day intra-city journeys; instead, you just take a drive in an autonomous vehicle on demand.

by otterley

8/4/2026 at 9:00:08 PM

Back of the envelope, three car costs $200k, charge $20/ride, say that ride costs $5 to operate, $200k/$15 gets you 14,000 rides (rounded). Say 10 rides a day... shy of 4 years to break even.

Substitute in whatever numbers you think are reasonable.

by fragmede

8/4/2026 at 8:42:53 PM

I thought about this as well. The dsytopian world I think will exist in the future where the Waymo is priced higher and people will want to take it more, over a cheaper Uber. Precisely because the human driver is removed from the equation.

So yes, I think they will be able to turn a profit by charging more for the experience. Which is a humanless car.

by twosdai

8/4/2026 at 8:55:45 PM

At least in my area, Waymos are always more expensive than Ubers.

by jerlam

8/4/2026 at 9:55:37 PM

So, uh, you don't really tip your Uber drivers much then do you?

Right now, Tuesday 3pm, Waymo will cost me 13.76 cross town. UberX 10.95, Lyft 11.95. If I don't tip Lyft/Uber they'll be cheaper but I definitely don't tip the Waymo.

by fragmede

8/4/2026 at 11:07:31 PM

The pricing was 30% more the last few times I used them.

by jerlam

8/4/2026 at 10:08:05 PM

DFW is amongst the top 5 metroplexes in the US and is extremely low density, high sprawl with few public transit options and a car heavy culture. This is a a welcome change.

by pm90

8/4/2026 at 7:28:55 PM

Service area: https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9059119?hl=en#DAL

by daemonologist

8/4/2026 at 7:35:46 PM

One admirable part of Waymo's service area in Dallas is it serves areas previously devalued by racist redlining. This is in contrast to Uber's Avride and Tesla's Robotaxi offerings, which stick only to the richer, whiter areas of Dallas https://techcrunch.com/2025/12/03/uber-and-avride-launch-rob... https://dallasinnovates.com/tesla-launches-robotaxis-in-dall...

by matthavener

8/4/2026 at 9:01:32 PM

This is somewhat similar to the situation here in LA where they service and very often drive through Westlake/MacArthur-Park which undoubtedly low income. I think it’s for practical reasons though, as they’re not allowed to use the freeways here yet. So for people going from rich areas (Bel-Air/Beverly Hills) to DTLA they need to cross/drive through there anyways.

Even so, I’ve encountered plenty of people who live in those areas and have been able to take Waymos which is great given how sketchy that area can be…

by JLO64

8/4/2026 at 10:08:30 PM

Ish. The problem with Waymos is there's no human driver, so they'll adjust pick up and drop off in a way that could be dangerous for the passenger. A human driver isn't going let a passenger off into a dangerous situation. They'll block traffic to drop the passenger off at their destination instead of a few blocks away in a dangerous neighborhood.

Waymo's got the legal go ahead to use freeways, but they're working on some of the subtleties of self-driving on the freeway vs city streets before enabling it for everybody. (Specifically, California car culture is you merge left early instead of staying in the right lane until you have to. Apparently the Waymo driver was staying in the right lane.)

by fragmede

8/4/2026 at 10:47:02 PM

> The problem with Waymos is there's no human driver, so they'll adjust pick up and drop off in a way that could be dangerous for the passenger. A human driver isn't going let a passenger off into a dangerous situation.

In this situation, you absolutely can (and are encouraged to) press the support button in the car to talk to a human agent. They have the ability to tell the car to go somewhere it normally wouldn't go for any situation that humans can reason about.

by holycrapwhodat

8/4/2026 at 7:45:51 PM

I doubt the geofence exclusion is because of the demographics of those areas and not the demand for autonomous vehicles in those areas, although I don't doubt the latter is a result of the former.

by judge2020

8/4/2026 at 7:57:53 PM

I doubt this is correct. “It’s expensive to be poor” — a lot of people who can’t afford cars (or have bad credit) end up Ubering to/from work every day

by smt88

8/4/2026 at 8:34:52 PM

How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.

by epolanski

8/4/2026 at 9:04:47 PM

If you are curious about this, I recommend There’s No Place for Us: Working and Homeless in America. It covers how some folks, with no credit, are forced to live in extended stay hotels (where they take cash up front and don’t run credit) which can cost multiple times what rent can cost.

If you put the author, Brian Goldstone, into YouTube, you can find some recent news coverage of some of the folks from the book and iirc one of them is Ubering in a lemon, working 60-80 hours a week just to break even.

In America, unfortunately, we’ve perfected the debt trap and turned poverty into a profit center. The same equity companies own rental properties, extended stay hotels, and storage locations so they can vertically integrate homelessness.

by powersurge360

8/4/2026 at 10:12:11 PM

The most evil thing I heard was companies like Doordash and Uber buying up data on who has credit card debt, so they know which driver is more desperate for cash, so they can low-ball them and give them a worse offer because they're more likely to take it because they're desperate for it.

by fragmede

8/4/2026 at 8:58:28 PM

>How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.

It's not and it's indeed a very sad statement on public transport. My father has spent some time in his retirement Uber-ing and said it was shocking to him how many repeat customers he got that were having to spend so much just to get to a minimum wage job.

by djeastm

8/4/2026 at 8:48:40 PM

It's not. It's expensive to be poor.

by Cider9986

8/4/2026 at 8:50:37 PM

How can that be anywhere near financially sustainable.

All you have to do is basic math.

Monthly car payment (which is higher if you're poor) + monthly gas spent (which is higher if you buy it in a poor neighborhood) + monthly insurance (which is likely to be higher if you're poor, and/or live in a poor neighborhood) + maintenance is very often far less than what it costs to take a rideshare ride 14 times a week.

When I drove for Uber, about 20% of my rides were people commuting to and from work who could not afford a car.

by reaperducer

8/4/2026 at 9:04:32 PM

Aren't you going 20 times per month, twice, that's 40 rides.

At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.

by epolanski

8/4/2026 at 9:36:37 PM

Aren't you going 20 times per week, twice, that's 40 rides.

Work 5 days a week = 10 rides. Plus four rides on the weekend, or not. That's why I used 14.

Where do you get 40 rides per week?

At an average 25$ you're spending 1'000$/month on Uber.

Even if someone did 40 rides per week at your posited average of $25/ride, that's $4,000, not $1,000. Are you letting an LLM do math for you?

by reaperducer

8/4/2026 at 8:36:48 PM

Tesla has fewer miles than I have driven in my lifetime. It’s currently still a half baked product. This might be a story in a few years but today you’re comparing an F150 to a Delorean.

by elictronic

8/4/2026 at 9:16:50 PM

I'm just curious how it works on the legal side: if a human run the red light he gets a fine, who gets fined with a waymo car?

If the car I'm in cause a big damage or kill someone? I guess the damage will be paid by the insurance but whom insurance? Mine or waymos? And what about criminal implications? Insurance doesn't cover thoose for sure.

by vb-8448

8/4/2026 at 10:30:45 PM

I used to give out speed camera tickets. How do you think this worked? We didn't know who was the driver. It didn't matter. We ticketed the vehicle owner. Not sure how this is different? There are workplace injuries all the time in places like factories due to automated machines. Elevators/Escalators have caused fatalities or injuries and don't have a direct operator. I mean there are tons of things in life with no direct human to blame immediately on scene.

by Fogest

8/4/2026 at 9:40:47 PM

It should be the same as for any public transport: it's the service operator's responsibility to run the system. The rider doesn't need insurance.

I imagine Google has enough money that they can self-insure. Particularly since it's a very low accident rate.

by skybrian

8/4/2026 at 10:20:26 PM

What about criminal implications?

PS: i guess the insurance on self diving cars is a little bit different and the accident rate is only part of the picture. Just an example: humans don't get hacked.

by vb-8448

8/4/2026 at 10:27:07 PM

I would imagine that criminal liability for hacking a Waymo falls on the hacker, and on Waymo only if they are negligent.

by SR2Z

8/4/2026 at 7:47:51 PM

Missed opportunity to say "Open to Y'all"

by hmokiguess

8/4/2026 at 7:50:22 PM

"Open to All Y'all"

by BugsJustFindMe

8/4/2026 at 7:57:00 PM

Isn't there supposed to be a liaison in there? "Open to Alls Y'all"

by raddan

8/4/2026 at 7:59:53 PM

It's not French!

Hmm. Maybe in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris,_Texas?

by BugsJustFindMe

8/4/2026 at 8:55:31 PM

Not all liaisons are French, but all the dangerous ones are.

by bravura

8/4/2026 at 9:05:16 PM

I'd imagine a total of one Waymo car could service all of Paris, Texas and still be sitting idle for the majority of time.

by dylan604

8/4/2026 at 7:28:42 PM

Here in Austin, I'm stuck calling an uber and hoping I get a Waymo. When does that deal expire?

by quxbar

8/4/2026 at 8:00:21 PM

It ends in 2028: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/24/uber-and-waymo-to-end-exclus...

by adrianmonk

8/4/2026 at 8:40:59 PM

That's also when the partnership with Rivian really takes off. Uber clearly wants its own fleet of robotaxis; they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago. Looks like they're content letting other companies take the risk while helping fund them.

by baggachipz

8/4/2026 at 9:09:17 PM

Uber also partners with Zoox and Lucid on self-driving, missing this wave may be an existential risk, so they aren't putting eggs in one basket. Nevermind a level of duress due to the Uber/Waymo partnership being (almost certainly) part of a settlement agreement regarding alleged IP theft from Google by way of Anthony Levandowki.

> ...they already unsuccessfully burnt a lot of money on it years ago

It was for the best; the Kalanick-era company culture wasn't (/isn't?) compatible with the levels of public trust required for successful self driving.

by overfeed

8/4/2026 at 9:42:54 PM

It's hard to see how Uber is in any way relevant to the future of self-driving.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 7:47:35 PM

It is so so so so so so bad to have to risk an uber every time I want to hire a Waymo.

by hexis

8/4/2026 at 9:27:15 PM

I have still not gotten a Waymo even once. I am in the service area. I don't use the service frequently, just enough to be disappointed.

by flatline

8/4/2026 at 9:38:43 PM

This urbanist youtuber did a really in-depth video on what the future could look like (both good and ugly effects) if self-driving cars become enough of a success to affect the way we build infrastructure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=040ejWnFkj0

by culi

8/4/2026 at 9:59:19 PM

I watched a bit of it and it's mostly stating their own conjectures as facts. There's nothing objective about it, it's just pushing their own personal agenda.

by redox99

8/4/2026 at 10:42:41 PM

Urbanist youtubers inevitably come to mix in some advocacy in their videos. You'd be hard-pressed to find one that isn't critical of car-centric design. That being said, NJB is a well-respected educational youtuber and all their videos are built on a lot of research

Even if you don't agree with the advocacy part of it, I think it's still valuable to watch to get the "urban planning professional" perspective on it

by culi

8/4/2026 at 7:27:16 PM 

  > Dallasites
Is that seriously the demonym? Terrible. Try harder, Dallasites.

by semiquaver

8/4/2026 at 7:47:24 PM

It sounds too much like "parasite" for me to be comfortable using it. I'm assuming some random person made it up. It's okay to just say "people of/from <place>", guys.

by dgunay

8/4/2026 at 7:58:45 PM

But then you lose extra important information from words like "masshole."

by raddan

8/4/2026 at 7:41:20 PM

Having grown up in Dallas, I usually just say "Texan" and call it a day.

by ndm000

8/4/2026 at 7:29:39 PM

Dallasians? Dallasers? Dallaslets?

Dallards?

by gryfft

8/4/2026 at 7:31:28 PM

Dalwegians?

by CalRobert

8/4/2026 at 8:26:16 PM

Dallazens

by stronglikedan

8/4/2026 at 7:55:11 PM

Dallamites, Dallsatians

by dyauspitr

8/4/2026 at 7:33:35 PM

Dallonians

by JacobAsmuth

8/4/2026 at 8:07:22 PM

What's your better suggestion? Dallasonian? Dallaser? Dallasan?

Also, do you have the same issue with the demonyms Manhattanite or Seattleite?

by adrianmonk

8/4/2026 at 9:32:02 PM

Seattleite is fine, it is close to satellite

by phinnaeus

8/4/2026 at 8:45:30 PM

I live here and use Dallasian myself

by v64

8/4/2026 at 7:33:37 PM

Texas -> Texan Kansas - Kansan Honduras -> Honduran

It should be Dallan?

by seizethecheese

8/4/2026 at 7:56:24 PM

better than "cityofhate" which is what we're called most of the time.

by chasd00

8/4/2026 at 9:17:00 PM

In all fairness, I've noticed people here in Dallas/TX are indeed more racist than the East and West coast cities, esp. towards brown people.

by behnamoh

8/4/2026 at 8:00:33 PM

Understandable, I'd also hate to live in Dallas /s

by triceratops

8/4/2026 at 8:00:08 PM

Dallmatians

by gumby271

8/4/2026 at 7:43:49 PM

I like North Texans

by bijowo1676

8/4/2026 at 7:29:29 PM

I thought it was a typo, or strange url at first.

by mchusma

8/4/2026 at 9:15:38 PM

I'm with you on this and this is something I brought up on Dallas subreddits before moving here and got downvoted to oblivion.

    "Dallasite" sounds like "parasite". Dallasian/etc. would be better.

by behnamoh

8/4/2026 at 9:19:43 PM

Elon may have been technically correct about 'if humans can do it with vision only then theres no reason why vision-only cannot work' but turned out to be the wrong strategy for learning how to get there. lidar gives you a constant stream of data to check your vision yourself against and interatively learn. Once trained you turn it off. whereas teslas strategy ended up having to rely on human drivers for error feedback which made the learning loop way longer.

by pyaamb

8/4/2026 at 10:56:40 PM

Why would we want to have robot cars that only drive as good as humans can?

by Sivart13

8/4/2026 at 10:24:18 PM

It's far far too early to say whether it turned out to be wrong.

Tesla also has a robotaxi service in Dallas, FWIW, in testing.

by heaney-555

8/4/2026 at 9:52:01 PM

Elon annoys me. Waymo has AFAICT simply a better safety record than Tesla. And he runs SpaceX...?

by alex1138

8/4/2026 at 9:38:41 PM

How do the cars do when breaking a rule is necessary? For instance, a car is broken down in the one forward lane of a two-lane road, requiring the waymo to cross the double-yellow line to get around it. Or, a signal is red for so long that obviously its car detector isn’t working.

by massysett

8/4/2026 at 10:05:36 PM

It handles these circumstances. Definitely seen it cross to the other side with oncoming traffic to get around a truck blocking a lane. For the signal light, never experienced that, but I imagine after awhile it'd figure it out. Possibly with the assistance of a remote human telling it.

by varenc

8/4/2026 at 10:21:13 PM

I was in one stopped as the first car at a red light. The next section of road was full of cars waiting on another red light.

Our light changed to green and the Waymo waited until the next red turned green and then proceeded into the intersection in anticipation of the cars ahead moving.

by lokar

8/4/2026 at 8:28:59 PM

I am really wondering, how they tackle the long trail problem of unknown situations. Sure they are monitor them constantly but I am asking precisely, how to handle situations that occur ridiculously infrequently: do they sample them 1000x in sim? Or do they use a different model and track uncertainty in the model constantly? How to get another 0 between the dot and the percent sign in situations where the model makes the wrong choice with a significant probability?

by chrisXOXO

8/4/2026 at 8:35:13 PM

There was an article a while back that talked about their simulated world model. It has the ability to do things like floods, elephants on the road, etc.

by jdlshore

8/4/2026 at 7:15:52 PM

No freeways. But Waymo now is available to all of Dallas?

Does that include the suburbs?

by rawgabbit

8/4/2026 at 7:24:49 PM

It's open to _everyone in Dallas_, not available _in all of Dallas_.

by nolastan

8/4/2026 at 7:56:04 PM

everyone != everywhere

by ooopsss

8/4/2026 at 7:29:23 PM

I believe they paused freeways everywhere because they drove through some construction (or didn't handle construction zones well).

by cco

8/4/2026 at 7:24:55 PM

Open to all people, not open to all roads.

by advisedwang

8/4/2026 at 7:27:54 PM

looks like Bishop Arts -> Fair Park -> White Rock -> NW Hwy -> Hampton/Inwood, with a weird section jutting out toward Irving along 114

so, no suburbs, only enclaves

by dminvs

8/4/2026 at 8:18:45 PM

our group sees them all the time while skating the katy trail and through downtown dallas

by PcChip

8/4/2026 at 8:16:24 PM

Thanks

by rawgabbit

8/4/2026 at 8:26:24 PM

Why isn't downtown called the superurbs?

by cyanregiment

8/4/2026 at 9:28:30 PM

Superbs?

by klaff

8/4/2026 at 9:12:00 PM

Can't wait for this in my town. I also can't wait to see people freak out over them.

by alexjray

8/4/2026 at 10:39:54 PM

Ive really been enjoying waymo, ill pay a premium over anything else for them.

by acedTrex

8/4/2026 at 9:20:39 PM

I wonder how they would handle a freak snowstorm

by InfiniteRand

8/4/2026 at 7:53:04 PM

Why are the cars so big? Wouldn't it make sense to have a bunch of much smaller, single person vehicles?

by Sheeny96

8/4/2026 at 8:23:43 PM

Tesla Cybercab has about three or four times the efficiency and like a fifth of the price by having smaller, two person vehicles. Indeed, the vast majority of trips are taken by single people and it's ridiculous to have a giant machine for them. It would also be okay to have a handful of larger, Model Y-sized vehicles for the multi-person trips.

To actually answer your question: Part of the reason why the Waymo cars are so big is because they got a deal on buying all the Jaguar I-Pace vehicles, which checked several boxes:

* Electric vehicles and hybrids are preferable for self driving cars as they have robust electrical power for the sensors and compute

* Larger minivans or SUVs are preferable for both development work and early scaling up where you can't afford to have both smaller and larger vehicles

* The I-Pace wasn't selling well so they managed to snag the whole production batch

* Though Jaguar isn't exactly known for their great reliability and electrical systems, the I-Pace, manufactured by Magna Steyr, is actually decent

The first two reasons are why the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, the only hybrid minivan sold in the US, was so popular for early self driving car efforts (including with Waymo) in the 2010s.

That said, Waymo's Ojai is somewhat more space efficient than the older I-Pace. They also have the Ioniq 5 coming.

by porphyra

8/4/2026 at 10:02:10 PM

The cybercab would be almost perfect if it weren't for it's low height. It's easier for the elder to get into and out of taller vehicles.

by redox99

8/4/2026 at 9:47:36 PM

I have one of the most inefficient EVs and it's only 2.4x hungrier than the cybercab. It can comfortably carry 6 adults. I've been in Tesla 3s as Ubers before. They only need 31% more energy than the cybercab.

If the cybercab was 1/5 the price it would be $14k. It won't be $14k.

by klaff

8/4/2026 at 9:57:38 PM

The Waymo I-Pace is much less efficient than the regular roadgoing I-Pace. One X user posted a pic of the dashboard of a Waymo with 111,000 miles on the odometer, and it averaged 1.0 kWh per mile [1][2]. This is about 2.5x worse than the EPA rating of a normal Jaguar I-Pace. Probably the difference is because the Waymo has tons of compute and the sensors have a surprisingly large impact on aerodynamic efficiency. I was being generous to the Waymo in my original comment. If we compare the actual rating of the Cybercab at 165 Wh per mile, it would be 6x as efficient.

Also, whereas the stock Jaguar I-Pace was $70k, the Waymo one with all its sensors and compute have estimates ranging from $150k to $200k. In a comment made in late 2024, Waymo CEO Dmitri Dolgov mentions that the sensors and compute themselves cost $100k [3].

> The equipment on Waymo’s fifth-generation robot taxis — electric Jaguar I-Pace vehicles — costs as much as $100,000, Dmitri Dolgov, Waymo’s co-chief executive, said on a podcast in February.

That is the same generation as the current I-Pace fleet that makes up the majority of Waymos.

[1] https://eletric-vehicles.com/waymo/waymos-retrofitted-robota...

[2] https://x.com/niccruzpatane/status/2073967445509882286?s=20

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/04/technology/waymo-expansio...

by porphyra

8/4/2026 at 10:54:05 PM

Referring to the example from the Twitter post you cited, wouldn't the KWh per mile simply be a lot higher because these vehicles are engaging in much less efficient travel overall? City driving itself is often pretty inefficient because of all the stopping and going, and these vehicles likely are driving in a lot of the rush hour traffic and high density areas everyday. Not to mention they probably idle around a lot more than a normal persons car would in a day.

So wouldn't that be the reason the figures would look 2.5x worse than the regular Jaguar? I'm sure there are other factors of course since running the computer systems, lidar and all the other features will also consume more power, so I'm sure from a baseline it will be less efficient anyway, I just think because of the kind of driving it engages in, this will make it also look far less efficient.

by Fogest

8/4/2026 at 9:22:21 PM

> Tesla Cybercab has about three or four times the efficiency and like a fifth of the price by having smaller, two person vehicles

I read this as Tesla Cybertruck and was mightily confused for a minute.

Looking it up in Wikipedia I see it has no driver support (steering, pedals, etc). Is that even road-legal?

by senko

8/4/2026 at 7:58:25 PM

Why would it make more sense? It isn't like a car half the size would cost half as much, but it would severely limit the capacity. Now, you can get a waymo for 1-4 people, but if some (or all) were single occupant, you would be limited.

Being smaller does not help that much much in cost per mile, but has a big cost for functionality.

by cortesoft

8/4/2026 at 10:31:50 PM

It would make more sense to make them even bigger, and to have one vehicle service many people. Maybe they could even be linked together for efficiency, and put on rails so the self driving is super reliable.

by Zambyte

8/4/2026 at 7:56:25 PM

I’m thinking that since 2015. Like BMW C1 just with doors on the side and a bit more security. This would approx allow 3-4x as many travellers on a given route compared to traditional cars.

by jwpapi

8/4/2026 at 8:04:10 PM

A C1 with more security, meaning more material and air between you and a potential high-speed obstacle, is called a car and is sized like one.

by grim_io

8/4/2026 at 7:59:46 PM

SFC costs don’t scale linearly with volume or number of seats.

The cameras, LIDAR, and sensors are all fixed costs. You need them on even a single-person car. And they’re extremely costly.

by smt88

8/4/2026 at 8:12:45 PM

Americans are fat, they don't fit.

by arccy

8/4/2026 at 7:44:24 PM

Keeps on being rolled out in red states while being delayed in blue states, quite unfortunate.

by elianaive

8/4/2026 at 7:57:16 PM

Divide this differently:

- states where the major cities commonly have snow for > 3 months

- states where the major cities commonly have snow for < 1 month

Inclement weather is likely the differentiator. Blue state California gets Waymo in its biggest cities, which handily do not get much snow. The other Waymo cities are all below the Mason-Dixon Line.

by runako

8/4/2026 at 8:07:00 PM

Blocked even from testing in NYC. Blocked from DC and Boston. Unfortunately this does have more to do with bad government than bad weather.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 8:30:14 PM

Boston, according to Waymo[1], is dependent on the legislature making autonomous vehicles legal. Apparently NY state laws also require a human driver at the wheel.

The only surprising thing about this is that other states did not require changes in law. It's Good, Actually, that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us.

In any case, there are more than 2-3 "blue" states. We can note that it's also not running in cold "red" states either. The climate angle fits the data best and aligns with what Waymo says, which aligns with what we have known about the tech for at least a decade.

(That note also suggests they are still testing their cold-weather kit and are not quite ready.)

1 - https://waymo.com/blog/shorts/back-to-boston/

by runako

8/4/2026 at 10:04:14 PM

> that big companies are (sometimes) bound by the same laws that bind the rest of us

Not if they’re stupid laws!

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 10:26:16 PM

Even then. There is value in uniform rule of law.

by lokar

8/4/2026 at 10:32:54 PM

> There is value in uniform rule of law

Sure. OP's point is these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states. Sinking together isn't a great pitch.

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 10:40:38 PM

> these products and investments are accruing disproportionately to red cities and states

Is this true at the city level?

> Sinking together isn't a great pitch.

Surely it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

by runako

8/4/2026 at 10:54:13 PM

> it's a worse pitch to suggest that companies can ignore laws they don't like, and operate above the law?

It’s also worse to murder kittens. That isn’t the choice at hand.

The difference is between states adapting with a regulatory framework and those sticking with economic incumbents.

(Also, when the taxi medallion industry was at its peak, lenders did run roughshod over the law.)

by JumpCrisscross

8/4/2026 at 10:33:19 PM

Getting around Boston is very easy. Flooding the streets with more cars won't make it easier.

A government that listens to the people it governs is a good government.

by Zambyte

8/4/2026 at 8:07:54 PM

They tried to roll out in New York City, but the city did not approve.

https://www.twu.org/twu-tech-newsletter-waymo-no-mo-in-nyc-f...

by warkdarrior

8/4/2026 at 8:29:48 PM

I personally saw a Waymo in NYC on June 26th at 14th St and 8th Avenue, so they’ve done some recent testing at least.

by senkora

8/4/2026 at 9:07:03 PM

NYC's government is focused on maximizing the pain and inconvenience for its citizens. So this tracks.

by cyberax

8/4/2026 at 9:45:54 PM

State law requires a human driver to operate vehicles at all times. This is not coming from NYC.

by runako

8/4/2026 at 9:05:31 PM

NYC has Mamdani, who is a very progressive populist mayor, and a longtime (active) supporter of the taxi drivers union.

There is close to zero chance it gets approval in NYC before 2030. I'd be totally floored if he goes against the union, but the optics are absolutely terrible for cabs.

by WarmWash

8/4/2026 at 9:19:00 PM

Waymo can't launch anywhere in NY state due to state law, but by all means, trot out your favorite whipping boy.

by overfeed

8/4/2026 at 7:59:30 PM

They have been fully open here in Los Angeles for almost two years now.

by cortesoft

8/4/2026 at 10:06:04 PM

It is unfortunate, but we're still in the early days of AV's. I think that more cities and states will be amenable to them once they have proven themselves as indispensable.

by staplor

8/4/2026 at 8:47:05 PM

the metro areas where it gets rolled out are all blue regardless of state

by porphyra

8/4/2026 at 8:00:35 PM

It's easier to roll out in places where it seldom snows.

by Zigurd

8/4/2026 at 8:08:29 PM

Definitely true, but snow affecting driving conditions is becoming pretty rare in cities like Chicago.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 8:33:14 PM

maybe weather events that disrupt travel, but impact things like visibility, lane definition, etc? That's still super-common in Chicago and a lot of the US.

by skeeter2020

8/4/2026 at 7:46:55 PM

"Maybe it's something you've got that they haven't got." - Owen Kellogg

by dmitrygr

8/4/2026 at 7:45:00 PM

Is it unfortunate, though?

by mrtesthah

8/4/2026 at 7:47:30 PM

[flagged]

by km3r

8/4/2026 at 7:51:37 PM

What “anti-science slopulism” are you referring to? And what does corporate rollout strategy have to do with science?

by wwalexander

8/4/2026 at 8:11:18 PM

History of being anti-nuclear. Now against "AI" and self driving cars because they like trains.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 10:01:38 PM

Good case for shorting Uber longer term. The Persian taxi driver may be a good exec but he lost the race

by cft

8/4/2026 at 7:47:58 PM

Service area is still miniscule.

by breckenedge

8/4/2026 at 8:12:04 PM

Gotta start somewhere. Still bigger than any competitor.

by xnx

8/4/2026 at 8:49:13 PM

I love waymo, but it's very costly compared to Uber.

by mridulmalpani

8/4/2026 at 7:38:52 PM

Waymo sells itself

People hate human drivers more than they hate the idea of AI drivers

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/04/business/uber-sexual-assa...

by yieldcrv

8/4/2026 at 7:41:26 PM

It’s an extremely consistent experience, and you can sit in the front seat (something I like personally). With Uber and taxi services, you never know what kind of driver or ride you’re going to get.

by bicx

8/4/2026 at 7:59:29 PM

Uber is at least 1000x better than traditionally taxi, without any rating system.

by ooopsss

8/4/2026 at 8:10:12 PM

They use to be (along with Lyft). But it's been a very long time since that was clearly true.

In reality I think you can get better experiences than a taxi with a rideshare service (which they really haven't been for a very long time), but it's very hit or miss.

So less consistently bad as a taxi service... but far from consistently good.

by sbuttgereit

8/4/2026 at 8:02:39 PM

I love Waymo. The only problem I have with it is that it further siphons wages from local economies into Silicon Valley, beyond what Uber/Lyft already did.

by airstrike

8/4/2026 at 8:34:02 PM

You could argue that cheaper/safer local rideshare would boost traffic to local bars and restaurants in denser areas though. If you want to keep the $ local, just add an AV tax that goes to the city.

by boc

8/4/2026 at 7:46:28 PM

Dallas drivers are bad enough already...

by Geezus_42

8/4/2026 at 8:59:00 PM

Dear American government regulators: nationwide autonomous driving is proving to be easier than delivering fiber to every home. Why do you hate Americans?

by 0xWTF

8/4/2026 at 7:53:11 PM

Anyone with a credit card

by ape4

8/4/2026 at 8:14:44 PM

Debit card works just fine with Waymo, just like with Lyft and Uber.

by ventana

8/4/2026 at 8:11:33 PM

I'm sure you can imagine why it might be unnecessarily complicated for a Waymo to take cash.

by wilg

8/4/2026 at 8:31:18 PM

There are tons of automated systems which take cash. I do agree it would add some complexity to the equipment in the car, but its not like it would be that difficult to do it. These cars have to go back to the depot eventually, emptying the cash bins would just be one more cleaning step. I do agree though they don't bother because it probably would cost more to manage in the end than the amount of rides they're losing not accepting cash.

Just another example though, while credit card processing fees aren't always cheap its not like its free to process cash.

by vel0city

8/4/2026 at 7:57:11 PM

And presumably their app?, which requires either an Apple or Google account.

by 1over137

8/4/2026 at 8:00:10 PM

Uber app only requires an email address

by smt88

8/4/2026 at 7:58:30 PM

What reason would someone have not to have a credit or debit card? Credit cards are literally free money, as long as you pay the balance off on time

by smt88

8/4/2026 at 8:08:11 PM

Credit cards are not free money lmao

by dymk

8/4/2026 at 9:59:52 PM

They mean the rewards. You can get some % cash back with no annual fee. Effectively my credit card costs me nothing, comes from the same bank as my checking and savings, and gives me cash back.

by phoghed

8/4/2026 at 10:06:19 PM

the other end of this is that all of those rewards are paid for through merchant fees, which lead to higher prices at the register. it's not free money. it's a fraction of a percentage of the profit credit card companies receive in fees paid by the places you shop. i would not be surprised to learn that even with rewards points we spend more money now that those programs are commonplace.

by GuinansEyebrows

8/4/2026 at 7:57:23 PM

It does seem necessary to have cameras inside driverless cars but I don't want to if Google is running the show. Your biometrics will probably be stored for "enforcing Google's policies" at a minimum [1].

And then a Waymo dropped teenagers off at the police? I don't care if that was a human, I don't want no snitch car service [2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49027861

[2] https://www.404media.co/waymo-called-police-on-teens-san-mat...

by Cider9986

8/4/2026 at 8:18:48 PM

Unfortunately doing drive-bys is also a TOS violation for Uber and Lyft

by Rebelgecko