Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Businesses

Uber and Lyft Want You Banned From Using Your Own Self-Driving Car in Urban Areas (siliconbeat.com) 247

An anonymous reader quotes the Mercury News: The rabble can't be trusted with self-driving cars, and only companies operating fleets of them should be able to use them in dense urban areas. So say Uber and Lyft, as signatories to a new list of transportation goals developed by a group of international non-governmental organizations and titled "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities"... According to Principle No. 10, "Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals..."
It's stated reason is to "actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas." But others remain suspicious.

Gizmodo complains that the proposal "doesn't exactly sound like the freedom-filled future sci-fi writers have been promising, now does it?" and concludes that Uber and Lyft "have a hot new idea for screwing over city-dwellers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uber and Lyft Want You Banned From Using Your Own Self-Driving Car in Urban Areas

Comments Filter:
  • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:37PM (#56067521)

    So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money "sharing" rides).

    Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isn't just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.

    • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:45PM (#56067551) Homepage

      Also, the complete opposite of their normal attitude about regulations.

      It is disgusting, and this is going to really cut the legs out from under a lot of their supporters, because this is a lot of double-speak to ask of people!

      • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:50PM (#56067575)
        Can you say "rent seeking"? Sure, I thought you could.
        • by WarJolt ( 990309 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:07PM (#56067657)

          It reminds me of Airliners. Commercial Airliners always want to push out General Aviation, as if they aren't paying their "fair share". Really they just want to own more of the sky. The airspace is for all Americans to use and so is the road as long as you can use it responsibly. We need to prevent profit-seeking corporations from co-opting the public welfare. It almost never works out the way they claim.

          • Do you have any evidence that airlines are trying to shut down general aviation, because it's something I have never, ever heard of.

      • by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:54PM (#56067601)

        this is going to really cut the legs out from under a lot of their supporters

        Right, because lots of people "support" Uber because of their reputation for ethical behavior. Sure. Whatever.

        Seriously, get some perspective. If you made a list of all the unethical and illegal crap that Uber has done, this wouldn't even make the top one hundred.

        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @09:20PM (#56068569)

          A lot of Slashdotters defend Uber (or used to anyway) based on them upsetting the admittedly corrupt taxi industry. Now they not only want to replace the taxi industry, but they want to make it so not only can't you run a taxi to compete with them, you can't even own the vehicle to do it.

          There was also a lot of "oh, Uber is just matching people who want to share rides!" which was always BS. Uber was never about ridesharing.

        • by gl4ss ( 559668 )

          Seriously, get some perspective. If you made a list of all the unethical and illegal crap that Uber has done, this wouldn't even make the top one hundred.

          maybe so, but it was still better than rent-seeking taxi monopolies. like come on, to have it be illegal to take a guy to a place and take money from him for doing so.. unless you have a permit.

      • I don't think Uber have EVER been about deregulation, they have only been about removing regulations that make them less profitable. I have never heard them protest a regulation where it wasn't specifically in their best interest to have the regulation removed.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "You making money" has nothing to do with what Uber stands for. Uber could care less about you making money. If they could figure out a way for you to make nothing while still driving for them, they'd pursue that in a New York minute.

      Uber stands for Uber.

      Only.

      Ever.

    • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:31PM (#56067759)

      That's not really what they say, though - if everyone is driving themselves, then there's nobody to pay for a ride.

      The obvious self interest doesn't escape me, but for the goals they are stating "to 'actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.'," they aren't wrong, either.

      I'm not saying I agree with these companies, but a lot of good ideas get shot down with knee jerk reactions simply because somebody stands to make a profit on them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Yeah, I skip any sentence that starts with words like "actualize."

        Seriously, reducing cars in dense urban areas is great. However, there seem to be two reasonable ways to do it: provide alternatives that compete with personal vehicles or provide public transportation and regulations against personal vehicles.

        The Uber way, legislating a for-profit exclusive private service that doesn't even have to compete with personal vehicles, is just ripe for abuse.

      • And if anyone can do it, no one makes money. They'll never make a buck unless they can successfully perform regulatory capture.

    • A recent story [slashdot.org] talked about how Uber claims driverless trucks will increase (not decrease) employment of human truck-drivers to support short local routes, i.e., in urban areas.

      I suppose banning all driverless vehicles except those of Uber and Lyft would be one way to do that... /sarcasm

      • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        I'm sure if you plug the right assumptions into a simulation you could get that to work out, sure. The summary for that story said that they were assuming driverless trucks would replace long haul drivers and not local ones, which seems like a pretty iffy proposition, particularly since uber themselves are talking about autonomous cab fleets. Also, what local delivery modes are going to suddenly switch to trucks if long haul trucking gets cheaper? Most long haul transportation in north america is already

    • by viperidaenz ( 2515578 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @06:00PM (#56067917)

      They only want regular people owning the cars because car maintenance is a cost they don't want to bare and so is commercial vehicle insurance.

      If they can operate a fleet without paying a driver, they'll save money. They can run the cars 24x7 and I'm sure they'll get good insurance rates for their fancy autonomous vehicles.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @06:02PM (#56067931) Homepage

      So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money "sharing" rides). Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isn't just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.

      My guess is they're not even being serious, they're just trolling for PR and VC money like when Ryanair suggests standing passengers on airplanes. Outrage causes buzz and somehow it's more important that people are talking about you than what they're saying.

      • like when Ryanair suggests standing passengers on airplanes.

        They're sending a clear propaganda message there that they are the cheapest. Someone will think, "Ryan Air? And I can sit down still? They're probably the cheapest."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd be fine with it so long as they'd be required to pay for all road maintenance. I get a funny feeling though they'd still expect roads to be tax payer funded.

    • So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money sharing rides).

      Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isnt just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.

      Itâ(TM)s almost as if they are a giant, rich corporation, acting anti-competitively, and against the general interest, instead in favor of themselves.

      THIS is what happens when you engineer a system that is designed to reward money-making at any and all costs, to the exclusion (and often, to the detriment) of ANY and ALL other considerations. The system is SICK, and it is slowly but surely and inexorably destroying what is left of our so-called civilization. If we fail to fix this somehow, it is going

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Uber started out as a ride sharing company. A way for people who were already on the road to give another person a lift. But the Uber drivers preferred to be cab company employees. With guaranteed hours, benefits, collective bargaining, etc.

      So Uber just says, "Screw it. We're a cab company now. And we are out to maximize our revenue and eliminate competition. Just be thankful that this doesn't involve the competition floating in the East River."

    • I have to say they are particularly evil and they're actually offering an argument that might convince some people - don't trust the average citizen with an autonomous car. You can only trust big businesses like Uber,.

      (Uber can drive an SDC better than us average citizens can...so they say).

      It's absurd of course, but they are bold enough to try it.

    • Or maybe it does.

      Does everyone really need their own vehicle?

      You ever considered how much waste there is in a system where everyone owns a car and how much less waste there would be in which every vehicle on the roads is shared?

      As the world population grows owning your own car will be considered a luxury. Many things are going to have to change as the world's population expands. It seems like a harsh reality but that's the sort of future where heading into if we keep increasing the population from 7 to 8

  • by Templer421 ( 4988421 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:38PM (#56067523)

    Same as the Old Boss (Taxi Companies)

    • Nope, the old bosses were threatenable. Because any given taxi/driver can be replaced. Local governments could regulate them. Lyft and Uber are large enough to fight city hall. They can afford to lose all the revenue from a major US city for an indeterminate period to display credible threats to the others.

      In other words, you think the competition for Amazon's second headquarters is a large company throwing its weight around./p.

  • good for liability & saves owners from facing criminal changes when the owner is just one guy and the he does have the funds to go court to get the source code so he can say the software messed up.

    • What I see being the future of transportation would be to have shared vehicle fleets that act similar to public transit in that they will pick up other people along the way instead of a bunch of single occupancy self driving vehicles. How this might work is you hail one with an app, and get in. Somewhere down the road a message pops up on the console asking if you would like to pick up other passengers, or pay a fee to continue by yourself. Perhaps a rating system for other passengers so you could make a de

  • To the tune of "Horst Wessel"

    Uber and Lyft uber alles!

  • No Parking Forever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:46PM (#56067559)

    There will be no need to legislate against provately-owned cars, autonomous or otherwise.

    As self-driving fleets proliferate, there will be irresistible temptation on the part of urban developers to cut back on parking spaces at businesses, which will be needed only for individually owned cars; instead of a sea of parking spaces for all customers at a movie theater, the business will expand into its parking area, leaving only one row of "VIP spaces" that the diminishing number of car owners will have to pay for. As mass car culture fades, owning your own autonomous car will be like owning your own plane, a niche market for the well off. As hoi polloi buzz around in autonomous fleet cars that park only in industrial-zone warehouses when out of service, the remaining individual owners will pay for parking spaces as though they were airport tiedowns or marina slips.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04, 2018 @04:53PM (#56067591)

      As long as they teach me how to use the seashells

    • If owners of self driving fleets want to pass laws that stop people from operating their own vehicles then people will not support self driving fleets.
      • by haruchai ( 17472 )

        If owners of self driving fleets want to pass laws that stop people from operating their own vehicles then people will not support self driving fleets.

        People may not have a choice.
        I've been predicting for years that once self-driving cars are good enough, it'll quickly become much harder to earn a driver's license and much easier to have one revoked

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Owners of cars that are not part of an approved fleet will be able to drive into the city.
        Once the persons car enters a city area a new city tax is calculated.
        The freedom to drive exists but very few will be able to afford that per mile luxury tax in the city.
        A congestion tax, road upkeep tax, city pollution tax, a parking tax.
    • by laird ( 2705 )

      I can see a number of factors that will tend towards autonomous, shared/fleet cars vs private ownership, once there's a "critical mass". First, economics: private cars are 5-10% utilized, while shared fleet cars are 50% utilized, so the cost of the car per ride is much lower, so many people will use shared rides instead of buying cars to save money. Second: parking. Cities allocate 40% of space to cars: parking, roads, etc. If cars don't need to be parked at homes, businesses, etc., and are much more effici

    • by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:38PM (#56067787) Homepage Journal

      Complete and utter nonsense. My car is an extension of my home, only it is portable. Same for most other drivers. I keep things in my car that I need (for work mostly). A family with kids keeps crap in their cars that are necessary for them, for various extracurricular activities, for entertainment, whatever. As cars become better at avoiding obstacles and preventing crashes there will be more people on the roads driving them, not fewer and people want to own stuff, that is why they want to buy houses rather than renting (mostly). Not everybody can afford it but that is a different matter.

      In short this is crap, Lyft and Uber will get nowhere with this fast.

      • Not really. I'd find it very inconvenient to live in the suburbs without a car. But I certainly didn't own a car when I lived in Tokyo and my daughter, who lives in New York City doesn't own a car and likes in that way. I think the big problem is parking. Parking in the high density areas of cities tends to be insanely expensive and is ongoing aggravation. Worse aggravation than lugging groceries on public transportation. Who needs ongoing aggravation? And when you do take the car out, where are you

        • I live in SF now and I don't have a car, but when self-driving cars are available I'll want one, not for driving around SF but for driving out to areas where public transit is scarce, like Napa or Yosemite (or LA). Under Uber/Lyft's proposal, I wouldn't be allowed to own such a car because I live in the city. As a Lyft customer, this pisses me off to no end.

          Frankly, I don't see why someone living in Fremont should be allowed to own a car if I can't.
      • The only reason people buy instead of rent is money. Buying a house is cheaper in the long term most of the times. With a car that might not be the case.

        I do car sharing and pay around 100Eur per month for all costs. Owning a car would easily raise that to around 300Eur. That includes devaluation of the car, repairs as well as renting for 2 weeks during summer holidays.

        The reason it is cheaper and this wiser to remt us that I pay for my own cars devaluation when I do not use it.

    • by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:41PM (#56067801)

      why didn't that happen decades ago with taxis? what's the difference?

      • by Glarimore ( 1795666 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:43PM (#56068477)
        When I request an Uber, it's usually at my door in less than five minutes and I can see it's progress. Formerly, when requesting a cab, it could take up to thirty minutes to arrive, if it bothered to show up at all -- and it cost twice as much.
      • Self-driving cars, using an app for quick/easy ride requests, decreased regulations, GPS directions instead of AAA maps, better payment system. You realize that Uber is a lot more popular than taxis ever were, right?

      • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        Insightful comment, there is no difference. Also, it has happened in some dense urban areas. Car ownership will drop when alternatives are more appealing.

        We already know converting transportation into a government-granted monopoly is a terrible idea. The trend for a long time has been to reverse awful decisions like that. Stop supporting Uber and Lyft.

    • Why would I need a parking spot at work if the car can drive back to my house and come back to pick me up on time?
    • but you could be right for Europe and I'm sure you're right for Asia. As for America, land is cheap around here. You might see this effect in the major cities (San Fransisco, New York, etc) but elsewhere there's no shortage of land.
    • Nah. Parking spaces will just be monetized like every damn thing related to air travel these days is. You pay for privilege. You'll be paying more for more convenient parking spaces.

  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:04PM (#56067639)

    I won't lie, if laws like they suggest ever got passed then I would straight up burn down the local Uber/Lyft/Assholes Inc. hub and destroy all the cars there. Then I would post a video of it burning and encourage others to do the same. Tyranny must be opposed.

    • ...I would straight up burn down the local Uber/Lyft/Assholes Inc. hub and destroy all the cars there. Then I would post a video of it burning and encourage others to do the same. Tyranny must be opposed.

      Spotted the antifa, otherwise known as an assistant professor with tats.

  • So only approved people can get to request approved "transport" pod in the city at set times?
    A mil, government or big brand does not like you and no city car for you.
    No car to or from that protest.
    The internet politics of the car brand and the user's web history requesting the car is too far apart? No car app in the city for that person.
    A few brands will make a nation wide list of who they will drive into a city for shopping, medical, work, fun.
    The self driving car looks over every profile and finds
    • by geek ( 5680 )

      Technically, driving on public roads is considered a privilege. States/cities can do as they like. Private roads is another matter.

      • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        A "privilege" that anyone who could afford a car, pass a test could enjoy.
        No having an app consider if a person was going to be allowed by app policy to request a car to drive them into a city.
        That a city would only allow a few set self driving brands with their own user ToS to enter the city limits.
  • Neo-feudalism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nickmalthus ( 972450 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @05:41PM (#56067803)

    This is a clear glimpse into the machinations of the corporatocracy wishing to impose their totalitarian vision of the future.

    In this "gig economy" foisted on us with all of it's service jobs, private toll roads, apartments, cloud services, and soon to be automated car fleets the every day person will legally own very little. Instead immortal corporations will try to take ownership of most property and the rest of us will live as serfs subjugated to the shifting legal terms of service by said corporations.

    Our whole legal systems is built around property rights and only the affairs of property holders seems to matter. Any consideration of the ordinary person is considered to be "cumbersome regulations" that should be eliminated.

    • This is a clear glimpse into the machinations of the corporatocracy wishing to impose their totalitarian vision of the future.

      Give me a break. It isn't the "corporatocracy" that came up with idea of packing everybody into apartment blocks and getting rid of private cars, all in the name of enviro-benefits, planning, fairness, etc. It's just that previously they were envisioning buses.

      This is the urban planner's wet dream. That Uber supports it because it benefits them is a minor detail.

  • ... in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars ...

    Said the two companies that hire people to use their personal cars.

    ... and only companies operating fleets of them [self-driving cars] should be able to use them in dense urban areas.

    Ya, fleets, like taxi-cab companies - oops.

  • If you have a self-driving car, you don't need Uber or Lyft.
    You have your own car drive itself and come and pick you up. It can dive off to a cheap parking garage too, so you don't have to pay inner city parking rates.

    A family wouldn't need as many cars either, so more expensive self-driving cars become more affordable.

  • As if a business would do anything to lock out its potential customers from their own rights so as increase their own profits.

    Eventually Lyft/Uber vehicles are going to be used in the commission of crimes (burglaries, robberies, terrorism, etc.). The powers that be should say, "Sure, since you're claiming to be responsible let's see you acting responsibility as well and allow us to put your CEO and board members on trial with these criminals as accomplices and co-conspirators!"

    Of course it won't happen, but

  • by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @06:42PM (#56068069) Journal

    Cities that go 100% autonomous will have to solve the jaywalking problem.

    If all the vehicles on the road are self-driving, then, from a safety perspective, there is nothing to stop a pedestrian crossing when and where they want, in the knowledge that the autonomous vehicles will stop for them. This will cause chaos with the flow of traffic.

    Net result: somehow jaywalking must be eliminated.

    • by Duds ( 100634 )

      More disturbingly....

      I live near London, with one of the bigger underground railway systems in the world. I'd say once a week someone kills themselves by throwing themselves in front of an underground train.

      They don't seem to deliberately do it with cars so much, I wonder if that would change.

  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @06:45PM (#56068091) Homepage

    Now they are the taxi cartels. Brilliant.

  • by thomst ( 1640045 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @06:56PM (#56068131) Homepage

    For the past 30 or more years, there's been a "progressivist" initiative in urban planning to significantly reduce the number of private motor vehicles on the road in densified urban areas (for which read "downtown" - to distinguish it from "inner urban" areas, for which read "slums"). It - along with housing densification itself - is one of the core goals of New Urbanism [wikipedia.org].

    New Urbanism, in turn, is dedicated to reducing urban sprawl (for which read "suburbs"), in part by mandating high-density, multi-family housing, mixed-use planning (for which read "medium- and high-rises with residential units on top and retail at street level"). It regards with disdain that portion of the population that does not care for apartment living and mass transit as a lifestyle, and seeks to enforce its vision by changing planning law and packing planning commissions, not just in big cities, but in small and medium ones, as well.

    A prime example of a city whose planning process is now wholly based on New Urbanist principles is San Francisco, which has systematically constrained parking by consistently approving major new construction only on condition that it be designed with new parking that's deliberately inadequate for the expected demand. (The idea being to make finding a parking place so difficult that it will basically force commuters to take public transit, rather than drive.) Ask any San Francisco resident or commuter (other than a fanatic bike geek) how that has worked out.

    Uber and Lyft are merely taking advantage of the New Urbanist movement to try to mandate that cities run by progressives enact traffic-reduction policies that will result in their companies making the maximum possible profit from the hapless residents of and commuters to these cities.

    I only hope that the New Urbanist masterminds stab them in the back by mandating fleets of city-owned self-driving cars to serve their residents and visitors ...

    • San Francisco actually mandates a pretty normal amount of parking. Different districts have different requirements, but generally one space to one apartment, or 1.5 spaces per house in a new housing development.

      Yes, parking is difficult in SF. It's a very small dense city with a lot of commuters from the suburbs. Land is very expensive and nobody wants to turn the land into an unprofitable parking garage instead of a highly profitable office building, so there will always be that tension of wanting to bu

      • Springs from the bottom up...oh, that's hilarious. Show me the working class who are demanding it. LOL. New Urbanists despise the working class. Why else do they make cities such a pain in the ass for them? You have to realize, people like that don't love the poor. They just hate the rich. The poor they regard as deplorable.
  • All self-driving cars in cities should be required to have an expensive medallion on them, and only a limited amount should be given out to qualified companies. To protect the consumer.

  • actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, ...

    If Alice's car and Bob's drives them to work, the cars park in their office parking lot, and waits for them to finish work.

    If an Uber car drives Alice to work, and then drives to Bob, and then drives Bob to work, then it's driving more miles per capita. One drive for Alice, one drive for Bob, and one drive between Alice's work and Bob's home.

    This might improve parking, but it will make traffic congestion worse, and increase fuel consumption.

  • by evil_aaronm ( 671521 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:03PM (#56068343)
    My uncle has a country place, no one knows about.
  • They seek duopoly on self-driving cars. The idea could look sane if it was a way to ensure all vehicles communicates with each others, and act with an determined behavior. But since there are still human-drove cars, that just looks like a duopoly on money stream.
  • Car Ownership (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @08:49PM (#56068493)
    There is an oft repeated statement that silicon valley press use when talking about the future of cars (probably repeating something they've heard from the automated driving / internet taxi services) - car ownership is inefficient as cars spend most of their time parked. While true on the surface, it overlooks a key factor - the majority of car usage happens at approximately the same time when people go to and return from work. This means any alternative to ownership needs to satisfy peak usage which returns back to most cars spending the majority of their time parked . The only solution to this is having peak users share the vehicles, in which case congratulations - you just invented the bus.
  • by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Sunday February 04, 2018 @09:11PM (#56068539) Journal
    So "self-driving cars" will be buses controlled remotely. The actual driving will not be completely autonomous. It will be subject to human intervention by a remote dispatcher. But the little bus cabins will be guided on the road by something other than a driver sitting behind a wheel. Well, I feel better about that than I do about a car driven by the same algorithms that can't get GPS navigation to be without error.
  • They lost me at "So say Uber and Lyft, as signatories to a new list of transportation goals developed by a group of international non-governmental organizations"

    Nobody voted for them and what they want is meaningless

  • ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals..."

    The average person is going to have the dealer perform all required routine maintenance, and software updates would likely be automatic and managed by the manufacturer, anyways. Of course the whole point of Self-Driving car is that the owner doesn't operate them anymore, and software can manage all the tasks required ----- it's already out of reach for the average person to do required maintenance on their vehicle.... so pe

  • Uber and Lyft should be banned........ If I can't own my own selfdriving car, then nor should they be able to own and operate those cars. Uber and Lyft both have shown not to actually be very nice and just go ahead with their services in areas even though they know it's illegal for them to operate, but hope the legislation will turn around and make it legal what they do..
  • I'd post the comment I just made out loud... ...but Siri informs me that I have just been fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute.

    8^p

    Seriously Uber and Lyft dudes (this isn' sexist: they are both "Bro" shops): as soon as you own the vehicles, you are no longer a "ride sharing company", you become a "taxi company".

  • But it would mean that the cities buy fleets of self-driving vehicles that eliminate the need for companies like Uber and Lyft.

    I've dreamed of a great day when I don't need to own or operate a car but get the benefits of Uber without Uber. So, imagine a self-driving vehicle that you can call from an app, then based on the routes involved, ride sharing would be automatic. It wouldn't be a bus. Instead, it would be a multi-pod vehicle where each passenger pickup has their own pod where they can work, sleep or

I bet the human brain is a kludge. -- Marvin Minsky

Working...