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."
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."
New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence that airlines are trying to shut down general aviation, because it's something I have never, ever heard of.
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: New direction for Uber (Score:5, Insightful)
"currently, there are no self-driving cars"
You need to have vision laddie. If you come to the rent-seeking party only when self driving cars become available, there may be naught but crumbs available because all the profitable franchises have been locked down by forward thinking innovators.
BTW, What do you want to bet that the "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities" includes getting rid of slow, dangerous, dirty, public transportation services and banning inefficient government run taxis and ride sharing?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice euphemism for breaks the law.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a euphemism. They're the same thing.
And that's what some people support about Uber: that they have broken laws that should never have existed in the first place. But lobbying for new bad laws makes them just as bad as everyone else.
Cut your own legs (Score:2)
I must be a person you are alluding to. I am against regulations — but not pro Uber.
I argue in favor of liberty — such as the freedom of offering a ride to a willing customer in exchange for his money. Any "regulation" or law standing in the way of that, is evil and to be abolished.
I fail to see, how Uber being assholes "cuts my legs" at all — because I do not tie the liberty to any particular ent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"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.
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if anyone can do it, no one makes money. They'll never make a buck unless they can successfully perform regulatory capture.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:New direction for Uber (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really trust their motivations here, but they're probably right that people would cheap out on repairs and a faulty sensor could be quite deadly on such a car.
If it's designed correctly the software on a self driving car won't let you "drive" it or at least limit the driving modes if a sensor if faulty.
New Boss (Score:3)
Same as the Old Boss (Taxi Companies)
Re: (Score:3)
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 faceing (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
An Anthem for Future Transformation (Score:2)
To the tune of "Horst Wessel"
Uber and Lyft uber alles!
No Parking Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: No Parking Forever (Score:5, Funny)
As long as they teach me how to use the seashells
Re: (Score:3)
Ha! He doesn't know how to use the three seashells. I could see how that could be confusing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:No Parking Forever (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:No Parking Forever (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, I don't see why someone living in Fremont should be allowed to own a car if I can't.
Re: (Score:2)
Self-driving fleets can offer you a better choice of automotive options than any single car you have to buy and maintain. Every day you can summon commuter podcar rides to take you to and from work. But for that one Wednesday a month when you have to bring home a load of supermarket shopping, you check the 'midsize car' option to bring you home. If you just came out of Home Depot with three sheets of plywood and six sacks of fertilizer, you check the 'pickup truck' option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Parking Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
why didn't that happen decades ago with taxis? what's the difference?
Re:No Parking Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Self-driving taxis just aren't going to solve the congestion problem. At best it's at the same level as carpooling. The real solutions are to replace the cars with buses, trains, telecommuting or better zoni
Re: (Score:3)
The savings for commuters will come when fleet cars and mass transit are treated as one system. Whenever you rent a fleet car ride, the app you use will let you know if there is a cost savings for Ubering to a transit station, riding with others and then getting another fleet ride to your destination. For a one-off shopping trip to the big city you're not going to bother with such complexity, but for your daily commute you will think differently. And in the log run, the metadata flowing from such a system w
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's some reason to think that even if you replaced every vehicle on the road today with a self-driving one that you would actually have less congestion. I doubt it would be 'problem solved', but you could expect less time sat stationary than you do now.
One example is things like the school drop off - I do it, and I have to leave my car parked somewhere for about 15 minutes while I walk the kids over the road to the school. If my car was self-driving, it could just drop us off, and keep moving
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but if it's cheaper to have your car drive two full commutes every day [or it's the only legal option], people are going to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument that "it will be so popular that customers will overload the system" can apply to ANY technology. It is not an argument against autonomous fleet cars.
Probably not in the States (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're forgetting a critical point: AV cars can be self-owned too. There are plenty of companies with interest in selling privately owned AV cars - indeed, that's at the moment the majority of AV cars.
Economics: If drivers can afford the current cars, they are likely to be able to afford the cheaper AV cars.
Parking: If the self-owned AV car parks by itself, how much will people care? And quite a lot of existing parking spots aren't likely to be removed.
So the real question is whether people will still buy A
It won't go over well. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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.
Re:It won't go over well. (Score:4, Funny)
Shhhhh... He's being internet tough. It's how he rights the wrongs he perceives in the world.
Re:It won't go over well. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's fine if you want to write me off as an "internet tough guy" but you are incorrect because I actually mean what I say. I do not endorse violence toward those who have opposing ideologies but I do endorse sabotaging entities (people/corps/govs) that have moved to purely malevolent behavior and when the legal avenues for change have been exhausted. Fighting for the common good is something all people should do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there's a vast array of ongoing injustice and tyranny that you'd already be out burning down.
Do tell me of the tyranny that lacks legal recourse and isn't being sabotaged already. Life is full of ongoing injustice but that's very different than tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
If all that isn't tyranny to you but banning private vehicles from cities is, you've got a really warped view of tyranny and shouldn't be talking like
Freedoms (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, driving on public roads is considered a privilege. States/cities can do as they like. Private roads is another matter.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Hmm ... (Score:2)
... 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.
It's a risk to their business model (Score:2)
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.
Color me shocked, I say! (Score:2)
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
What about the jaywalking problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
First they replaced the taxi cartels (Score:5, Insightful)
Now they are the taxi cartels. Brilliant.
It's Uber and Lyft pimping New Urbanist ideas ... (Score:5, Informative)
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 ...
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I Have an Idea - Medallions (Score:2)
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 this (Score:2)
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.
And so it begins... (Score:5, Funny)
Monopoly (Score:2)
Car Ownership (Score:5, Interesting)
ok, i get it now (Score:3)
"international non-governmental organizations" (Score:2)
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
Bullshit justification (Score:2)
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
uhmm... (Score:2)
I'd post the comment I just made out loud... (Score:2)
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".
I'm in favor of something similar. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like Michael Moore talking about himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the truth is, I agree with your point of view entirely. I like driving as much as anybody. If I listed the cars I've owned it would sound like a pointless exercise in online douchebraggery.
But our "hobby" -- and make no mistake, that's what it is -- gets about 30,000 people killed every year in the US alone. There will be immense social and political pressure to fix this as soon as technology allows. And as usual, we Americans will do the right thing only after trying everything else first.
Re: (Score:2)
*This is more a case of big brother saying centralized approach is the only way, more like single payer health care than anything.*
I'm very confused. Are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing?
Re: (Score:3)
Up Yours?
Uber alles?
Re: (Score:2)
Then Uber, Lyft and the other signatories can pay for the streets and their upkeep (paving, plowing, etc.). If tax payers are expected to continue to pay for streets then we damn well will use our driverless cars on them.
I'm with you but that's a fight that won't be easy to win. Buses & trucks do most of the damage to paved roads but don't pay anywhere near their fair share for upkeep. Some political pretext will be found to keep you paying for roads while not being able to drive on them except in a JohnnyCab.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably just disable self-driving capability if maintenance is not regularly performed by a dealer. Service departments have massive profit margins.
If dirt on a lens can cripple the system and it can't be detected, I doubt it would pass whatever industry standards get adopted by regulations.