Back when Elon Musk was running Tesla, he was known for saying that LiDAR technology (basically laser beams that measure distances) was not needed to create full self-driving cars. And that's why their cars instead use a bunch of cameras to monitor the outside world.
Now, I'm not an engineer, but this never made much sense to me. Cameras can only see so far and they certainly can't see at night. So wouldn't laser sensing technology that can see 250-500 meters out — including at night — be greatly preferable when it comes to human safety, even if it costs more?
I'm reminded of what I said to my eye doctor before getting laser eye surgery many years ago: "This is not a transaction where I'm looking to be price sensitive. Get me the absolute best." And that's exactly how I feel when it comes to self-driving cars. I don't care if cameras are pretty good most of the time; I would prefer to have the best.
So which is the best? Damned if I know, but here's an interesting and also hilarious video by YouTuber and engineer Mark Rober where he compares the two technologies: cameras (i.e. Tesla) vs. LiDAR. I won't spoil it for all of you, but his last test is the "Wile E. Coyote test" and it's awesome.
At the time of writing this post, the video already has more than 11 million views and it seems to have been incredibly helpful to Luminar's stock price:
But now the internet is filled with speculation that he deliberately used the video to mislead people regarding Tesla's Full Self Driving capabilities and maybe even to pump's Luminar stock. (Full disclosure: I own a few shares, but this post is in no way any sort of investment advice.) I don't know if this is true or not. But I do think that the cars of the future will all come equipped with LiDAR.
Cover photo by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash
In August 2023, when Waymo first launched its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, the market shares of Uber and Lyft were 66% and 34%, respectively.
By the end of last year, these market shares had dropped to 55% and 22%, respectively, with Waymo on equal footing with Lyft. (These numbers specifically refer to rides that start and end within the boundaries of where Waymo operates and do not, for example, include rides to the airport.)
So the result was low double-digit losses in market share for both companies. This is not all that surprising given that autonomous vehicles are a novel thing and that Waymo's cars seem to be nicer than most Ubers and Lyfts. But it also shows that there maybe isn't a great deal of customer loyalty between the various platforms, that is, as long as the wait times are reasonable.
I think the more difficult questions remain: What does the ride-hailing space look like as AVs become more ubiquitous across our cities? Who is going to own what? And will individual car ownership fall?
We've spoken before about the peak load problem that Waymo faces as a result of owning its own cars. It's expensive to manage a fleet like this, especially relative to Uber's variable supply model. So one scenario remains a close partnership between Waymo and Uber, where Uber handles any above-base spikes in demand with actual humans.
But another scenario might be a hybrid approach where some of the AVs are owned by a ride-hailing company and some are owned by individuals who just contribute them to the network when they don't need them. This is what Tesla has been promising and, who knows, maybe it'll actually happen someday. Reilly Brennan recently wrote about this over here.
Personally, I would love to not own a car. It's also hard to imagine being able to make much money off a car that only goes to work during peak times, when the other robots are too busy. So I'm not convinced of this model. But I can see why Waymo is gaining market share. Privacy and a nicer cleaner vehicle are desirable features.
Cover photo by gibblesmash asdf on Unsplash
Bloomberg recently interviewed the outgoing head of San Francisco's transportation agency -- Jeffrey Tumlin -- about the impact that self-driving cars have had on the city. Along with maybe Phoenix, San Francisco has the most direct experience. Robotaxis have already been operating in the city for four years.
It's an interesting interview. On the one hand, robotaxis have, according to Tumlin, gotten better than most humans at "seeing" and predicting the behaviours of pedestrians. They offer slow and steady law-abiding rides, which is arguably not how must humans drive. This is a safety improvement.
But on the other hand, robotaxis still represent a fundamentally inefficient use of roadway space. They take up just as much space as human-operated cars, but importantly, they offer a less frustrating driving experience. Meaning they tend to induce demand, much like ride-hailing platforms.
In a 2018 study by San Francisco County, they found that roughly 50% of the increase in vehicle miles traveled in the region was due to Uber and Lyft. So not surprisingly, there are important things that will need to be figured out as robotaxis continue to spread across our cities.
I also find the comparison in the interview between San Francisco and Phoenix to be particularly interesting. The former is walkable. The latter is not. And this seems to be creating a different experience with self-driving cars because robo or not, in Phoenix, traveling by car is pretty much the only option.
For the full interview, click here.