Math checks out, 600 is up to 82 000
Here is how you can tell when it’s for real... when the focus is on long haul fixed A to B routes. Trucks becoming trains. When you can learn over and over on a fixed set for all the scenarios of road and weather and light and obstacle on one path you can then expand it.
All this focus on “everywhere” development is the exact opposite of minimum viable product and it’s only for headlines and grants imo. Obviously we’ll eventually get there, but, I’m personally betting that human occupant drones “take off” faster.
Welcome to my brain every single time I read this.
It makes no sense. Trucks and busses specifically have a ton more room for sensor packages, different height options, no one cares if that extends to or interrupts visible surfaces, and it makes sense to still have local past mile human drivers. It’s all there now.
The issues are that certain things available in a city aren’t there on a highway. Paint lines may be faded, over shot, missing, things are moving faster, there less reference points (think farm country), etc. But these are FAR better IMO than trying to drive in urban areas and running over people.
https://www.cadillac.com/world-of-cadillac/innovation/super-...
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/cadillac/escalade/2021/cadil...
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/cadillac-super-cr...
Doing highway routes as a taxi service will need more cars and/or pre-booking, otherwise you end up with a situation where no cars are in the stating city. Within a city you can redistribute relatively quickly.
This leaves an assistant mode in a car owned by an individual. There you see more and more advanced assisting systems, like distance checkers and lane keeping things and those are improving ...
For a truck it's only valuable in some situations. Generally the driver isn't only there to drive the truck, but also to load/unload and protect the goods. Also one could wonder how well people would load the truck (especially one going to different locations) if there is no driver risking his life and therefore doing at least basic safety ...
So this would be a feature in a car you own. And many manufacturers are heading there incrementally with assistive driving features. Key questions are at which point you can say "Doze off if you like" (And is there a point before that where drivers will doze off anyway because the system is good enough that they stop paying attention.)
Therefore the pool of people who drive for themselves would be getting less risky and their insurance premiums would go down.
Also, consider that right now, we have a minority of people who drive classic cars, which haven't got safety equipment, and their insurance is cheaper, not more expensive. Same with motorcycles, which have much higher accident rates than modern cars. So clearly a vehicle being more dangerous doesn't mean it's uninsurable or more expensive.
I'd really like to know if you or anyone can articulate what specific logic leads to your assumption, because people have been saying it for years. Obviously it's something people like to say. I feel like it might have something to do with a misguided analogy to health insurance.
0. https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-q1-2021-vehicle-pro...