Yes, it saves parking, but why would we choose this over busses?! That’s the argument. Busses do essentially everything self-driving taxis do, with none of the negatives, and the positives are even better.
Self-driving taxis are car companies trying to make you stop advocating for better solutions that lose them money. That’s it. Stop doing their work for them. Push for public trains and busses, and not for corporate owned shitty self-driving taxis that don’t benefit anyone except shoveling money into a few rich people’s pockets.
Yes, it saves parking, but why would we choose this over busses?!
Because you have to walk to a bus stop, which in some areas can be a 15 minute walk. Then you have to wait for a bus, which in some areas can be a 30-60 minute wait.
Busses do essentially everything self-driving taxis do
Except come to your exact location and come on demand.
Self-driving taxis are car companies trying to make you stop advocating for better solutions that lose them money
The biggest self-driving taxi company isn’t a car company, it’s Google.
That’s it
It’s not it.
Stop doing their work for them.
I’m not. You’re as unaware of the self-driving car space as you are about spelling your favourite alternative: it’s “buses” not “busses”.
Push for public trains and busses
Yes, those are great too, but there will always be a demand for vehicles that go directly to your doorstop and come on demand. In less dense areas a bus will never be able to compete with that. So, you can push for both.
that don’t benefit anyone except shoveling money into a few rich people’s pockets.
Who do you think is getting rich off self-driving cars?
Because you have to walk to a bus stop, which in some areas can be a 15 minute walk. Then you have to wait for a bus, which in some areas can be a 30-60 minute wait.
Sure, and autonomous taxis don’t exist at all almost anywhere. We’re talking about fixing problems. Those problems you listed are fixable. There’s no need to introduce something so obtuse to avoid fixing them with a worse solution.
Except come to your exact location and come on demand.
When done well, it should be pretty close every five minutes or so. You can handle that I think. The driverless taxi doesn’t literally put you in the car, so I guess we need a better solution. (/s)
The biggest self-driving taxi company isn’t a car company, it’s Google.
I never said they were. First, where do they get the cars? Another company is making money from the sales (and ongoing maintenance and parts). Also, promoting a reliance on car infrastructure, which these do, benefits car companies.
I’m not. You’re as unaware of the self-driving car space as you are about spelling your favourite alternative: it’s “buses” not “busses”.
First, I’m not unaware of it. I’ve been paying attention to it for as long as people have been working on it. Second, https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/plural-of-bus. I guess you’re the one unaware. If you’re going to be a pedantic ass, at least have the courtesy of being correct.
Yes, those are great too, but there will always be a demand for vehicles that go directly to your doorstop and come on demand. In less dense areas a bus will never be able to compete with that. So, you can push for both.
We have those. They’re called bikes. They cost a lot less, cause less traffic, pollute less, don’t take up much parking space, cost almost nothing to use, can get to more places, and they make you healthier as a bonus.
Who do you think is getting rich off self-driving cars?
Why would these huge companies be doing it if they don’t expect to make incredible profits off of it? Do you see Google just doing things out of good will? Hell no. They expect to make stupid amounts of money with it, and likely fuck over public option while they’re at it. If they can sell cities on letting them operate, kick back some cash, and trash public infrastructure, they’re going to do it.
When done well, it should be pretty close every five minutes or so.
That only makes sense in a dense, built-up area where there are enough passengers arriving and departing every 5 minutes that it’s worthwhile for a bus to stop. That may be true in downtown NYC, but it isn’t going to be true of the more distant parts of Long Island.
That only makes sense in a dense, built-up area where there are enough passengers arriving and departing every 5 minutes that it’s worthwhile for a bus to stop. That may be true in downtown NYC, but it isn’t going to be true of the more distant parts of Long Island.
Three things:
first, buses (I’ll switch for you, even though my phones really likes the two s version) don’t have to stop at every stop. They can drive past stops that don’t have passengers. As long as passengers are on the route every five minutes then it’s got something to do.
Second, our society building so spread out is part of the problem and should also be part of the solution. Mixed use and denser living spaces should be being built. Suburban hell is a massive issue, and part of the reason buses won’t be as useful in some places.
Third, we don’t need to have a 100% solution. A 90+% solution is still great, and it’d be better than these taxis. Whenever someone say "oh, it won’t work in this situation* it isn’t really an argument. Yeah, any solution will have outliers. They need to be considered, but they need not obstruct good solutions being implemented.
They can drive past stops that don’t have passengers.
Yes, and they often do. But, it’s a massive waste of money if they drive an entire route and nobody gets on or off. They only make sense if the population density is enough.
Yes, it saves parking, but why would we choose this over busses?! That’s the argument. Busses do essentially everything self-driving taxis do, with none of the negatives, and the positives are even better.
Self-driving taxis are car companies trying to make you stop advocating for better solutions that lose them money. That’s it. Stop doing their work for them. Push for public trains and busses, and not for corporate owned shitty self-driving taxis that don’t benefit anyone except shoveling money into a few rich people’s pockets.
Because you have to walk to a bus stop, which in some areas can be a 15 minute walk. Then you have to wait for a bus, which in some areas can be a 30-60 minute wait.
Except come to your exact location and come on demand.
The biggest self-driving taxi company isn’t a car company, it’s Google.
It’s not it.
I’m not. You’re as unaware of the self-driving car space as you are about spelling your favourite alternative: it’s “buses” not “busses”.
Yes, those are great too, but there will always be a demand for vehicles that go directly to your doorstop and come on demand. In less dense areas a bus will never be able to compete with that. So, you can push for both.
Who do you think is getting rich off self-driving cars?
Sure, and autonomous taxis don’t exist at all almost anywhere. We’re talking about fixing problems. Those problems you listed are fixable. There’s no need to introduce something so obtuse to avoid fixing them with a worse solution.
When done well, it should be pretty close every five minutes or so. You can handle that I think. The driverless taxi doesn’t literally put you in the car, so I guess we need a better solution. (/s)
I never said they were. First, where do they get the cars? Another company is making money from the sales (and ongoing maintenance and parts). Also, promoting a reliance on car infrastructure, which these do, benefits car companies.
First, I’m not unaware of it. I’ve been paying attention to it for as long as people have been working on it. Second, https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/plural-of-bus. I guess you’re the one unaware. If you’re going to be a pedantic ass, at least have the courtesy of being correct.
We have those. They’re called bikes. They cost a lot less, cause less traffic, pollute less, don’t take up much parking space, cost almost nothing to use, can get to more places, and they make you healthier as a bonus.
Why would these huge companies be doing it if they don’t expect to make incredible profits off of it? Do you see Google just doing things out of good will? Hell no. They expect to make stupid amounts of money with it, and likely fuck over public option while they’re at it. If they can sell cities on letting them operate, kick back some cash, and trash public infrastructure, they’re going to do it.
That only makes sense in a dense, built-up area where there are enough passengers arriving and departing every 5 minutes that it’s worthwhile for a bus to stop. That may be true in downtown NYC, but it isn’t going to be true of the more distant parts of Long Island.
Thanks for proving my point:
Ok, I know I don’t have to take you seriously now.
You’re pretty lazy if you stopped there.
Three things:
first, buses (I’ll switch for you, even though my phones really likes the two s version) don’t have to stop at every stop. They can drive past stops that don’t have passengers. As long as passengers are on the route every five minutes then it’s got something to do.
Second, our society building so spread out is part of the problem and should also be part of the solution. Mixed use and denser living spaces should be being built. Suburban hell is a massive issue, and part of the reason buses won’t be as useful in some places.
Third, we don’t need to have a 100% solution. A 90+% solution is still great, and it’d be better than these taxis. Whenever someone say "oh, it won’t work in this situation* it isn’t really an argument. Yeah, any solution will have outliers. They need to be considered, but they need not obstruct good solutions being implemented.
That’s all that was needed.
Yes, and they often do. But, it’s a massive waste of money if they drive an entire route and nobody gets on or off. They only make sense if the population density is enough.