You Can't Ride in Your Own Self-Driving Car as Good as Uber or Lyft

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,673
While this is a very local story home to Silicon Valley, it does paint an ugly picture as to how Uber and Lyft are lobbying local governments in order to keep citizens from using their own self-driving cars in urban areas. Bottom line we all know it is a cash grab to turn us all into drones, much like a lot of the cars we will own soon, but Uber and Lyft want the local drone money in their pockets.


Here’s why you, dear reader, ought not to be allowed to toodle around downtown San Francisco or central San Jose (or probably anywhere in between if the ride-hailing giants had their druthers) in your own self-driving car, 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.”
 
They're taking their cue from the Cable/Telecom industry ... prevent others from doing it themselves and then only serve limited areas where you can maximize profits. Every time someone in a rural area tries to get the same service block them and sue them so they can only use shit service. That would be the end result of Uber and Lyft getting their way. Big cities would have lots of access to self-driving vehicles but rural areas would be limited and by the time the lawmaking makes it to state legislatures the politicians would be sufficiently paid off to ensure that rural areas only get token coverage.
 
How could this honestly succeed beyond a local level? I get Net Neutrality, most Americans don't understand the nuances and it's easy to muddy the waters for Cable companies. But Americans and their cars? Good luck with that, try convincing an American they can't own a car because...you said so???
 
If there was no corruption in government this wouldn't pass ever. Not so sure with the current levels of legalized corruption we have. Also i am sure the argument can and will turn into one of liability, somehow that is going to be turned into individual liability is somehow an issue if individuals have automated cars. Also it is shocking to me that a current limitations of the system is that has to ignore stationary vehicles or objects. That is a limitation that had to be overcome. Vehicles i think would be easy and cheap, by retrofitting lightbulbs with some kind of IR light emitter, or something along those lines, it would be cheap, and easily implemented if mandated to go on the new bulbs something like that. Stationary objects, i don't know i giess it will have to keep ignoring those.
 
This is too much FUD.

Basically many will choose not to own a vehicle as it'll be cheaper to pay per-mile to be taken to their destination.

Owning a car is not cheap - the initial cost, insurance, taxes, maint, etc. If uber, lyft, whoever can drop the price it isn't hard to imagine it'll be cheaper not to own a car.
 
This is too much FUD.

Basically many will choose not to own a vehicle as it'll be cheaper to pay per-mile to be taken to their destination.

Owning a car is not cheap - the initial cost, insurance, taxes, maint, etc. If uber, lyft, whoever can drop the price it isn't hard to imagine it'll be cheaper not to own a car.


And that's exactly how they will do it. It's not that they will make their service so cheap, it's that they will push through laws that will make it too expensive to own a car.
(Think insurance with $5,000,000 liability coverage, mandatory yearly safety inspections, high registration and license costs, etc.)
 
And that's exactly how they will do it. It's not that they will make their service so cheap, it's that they will push through laws that will make it too expensive to own a car.
(Think insurance with $5,000,000 liability coverage, mandatory yearly safety inspections, high registration and license costs, etc.)

Won't they have to compete with the already deeply entrenched auto industry? They have been using lobbyists for over half a century to setup the protectionist car dealership business model. If they think they can sell American's self driving cars, they will, and cute little Uber/Lyft isn't going to stop them.
 
FTFA self-driving cars are quickly moving toward widespread deployment

widespread deployment? maybe next year or 2020. there is still a ton of testing that needs to be done
 
And that's exactly how they will do it. It's not that they will make their service so cheap, it's that they will push through laws that will make it too expensive to own a car.
(Think insurance with $5,000,000 liability coverage, mandatory yearly safety inspections, high registration and license costs, etc.)

LOL

Keep that tin-foil hat on. Reality is scary without it! :rolleyes:
 
How could this honestly succeed beyond a local level? I get Net Neutrality, most Americans don't understand the nuances and it's easy to muddy the waters for Cable companies. But Americans and their cars? Good luck with that, try convincing an American they can't own a car because...you said so???
well I guess the way they see it is like trying to own a bus or monorail. The idea is that it all becomes part of the public transportation ecosystem. People dont like riding with strangers, so if everyone could just hop into their own private yet public driving pod (think Minority Report) then this would finally bridge the gap between pollution/reckless driving. You get your privacy, but it's also safe and ecofriendly.
 
well I guess the way they see it is like trying to own a bus or monorail. The idea is that it all becomes part of the public transportation ecosystem. People dont like riding with strangers, so if everyone could just hop into their own private yet public driving pod (think Minority Report) then this would finally bridge the gap between pollution/reckless driving. You get your privacy, but it's also safe and ecofriendly.

I have no issue with this...until they try to make privately owned vehicles illegal to use in public spaces on public roads! WE pay for the infrastructure, we should use it how WE see fit.
 
Self driving cars don't try to rob, murder or rape you.

Neither does the average taxi driver...but you believe what you want to believe based upon data you will choose to read that supports your viewpont. But lets ignore the data that the taxi driver is one of the most dangerous occupations in many countires. Shit you are twice as likely to be killed as a taxi driver than as a cop.
 
If Uber is for it, most likely it is EVIL (all capitals)
Uber seems to be on a mission to corner the market on corporate evil.
 
Self driving cars don't try to rob, murder or rape you.

But AI can fix that ...

Watch "The Cross of Iron" and catch the combat scene at the Insane Asylum ....... "I'm like you .... I'm sane ......."
 
If you are allowed to use your own car, how can Lyft and Uber collect data about where you go so they can sell to all bidders?
 
If there was no corruption in government this wouldn't pass ever. Not so sure with the current levels of legalized corruption we have. Also i am sure the argument can and will turn into one of liability, somehow that is going to be turned into individual liability is somehow an issue if individuals have automated cars. Also it is shocking to me that a current limitations of the system is that has to ignore stationary vehicles or objects. That is a limitation that had to be overcome. Vehicles i think would be easy and cheap, by retrofitting lightbulbs with some kind of IR light emitter, or something along those lines, it would be cheap, and easily implemented if mandated to go on the new bulbs something like that. Stationary objects, i don't know i giess it will have to keep ignoring those.

I'm not arguing against you here so much as taking a queue from your post. You gave me an idea, set me on a mark, etc....

Well I have seen some people who get this idea in their head that if they buy a self driving car that they will magically be freed from liability,, yea that won't happen, your car, you in the car, you will be liable for the car. The insurance companies are not giving anyone a buy on this and the car manufacturers sure as hell aren't going to accept a risk when they can leave it right where it is, on us.

Now I can see some people seeing this as the future of mass transit for the masses, and that keeping individuals off the road means less crowded roads, less wear and tear on the roads, less drain on resources, wins all the way around. These kinds of people might be willing to sacrifice the rest of us to their utopian future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GT98
like this
And that's exactly how they will do it. It's not that they will make their service so cheap, it's that they will push through laws that will make it too expensive to own a car.
(Think insurance with $5,000,000 liability coverage, mandatory yearly safety inspections, high registration and license costs, etc.)


Good tin foil hat thinking here......until you realize that the same thing could have happened with the advent of taxis, so why didn't it?

Yes, because it's not really so easy to do that's why.
 
well, they're just waiting for their numbers to grow large enough to overtake the world... obviously...


The first Matrix was a complete failure .... we gave man a perfect world with no disease, struggles or strife...... your primitive brains couldn't handle it........
 
Won't they have to compete with the already deeply entrenched auto industry? They have been using lobbyists for over half a century to setup the protectionist car dealership business model. If they think they can sell American's self driving cars, they will, and cute little Uber/Lyft isn't going to stop them.


As well as the Insurance market
 
Won't they have to compete with the already deeply entrenched auto industry? They have been using lobbyists for over half a century to setup the protectionist car dealership business model. If they think they can sell American's self driving cars, they will, and cute little Uber/Lyft isn't going to stop them.

All depends of who can bribe, I mean donate, the most $ to the politicians.
 
LOL

Keep that tin-foil hat on. Reality is scary without it! :rolleyes:

I live in California, so this is already happening. (higher gas taxes, higher registration fees, etc.)
Every year the insurance goes up, even though the car is a year older and worth less.

They are pushing to build expensive high rise apartments near mass transit points instead of building more single family homes, pushing up home prices even more. This is all part of the state mandated plan to save the planet. :rolleyes:

I'm just lucky I bought over 20 years ago. No way could I afford my current home at 3-4 times what I originally paid.
 
Good tin foil hat thinking here......until you realize that the same thing could have happened with the advent of taxis, so why didn't it?

Yes, because it's not really so easy to do that's why.

Because taxis are too expensive and most people had a home or even a condo with plenty of parking.

Now most people can't afford to buy a home in California, and the state is mandating high rise apartments built near mass transit points with limited parking, under the belief that people won't need cars. Most apartments and condos don't have a place to charge an electric car, or an easy way to add a charger, yet the state is also talking about eliminating sales of gas powered cars by 2040.

Just wait until you go to rent an apartment and the "optional" parking space is an extra $1,000 per month.
 
Because taxis are too expensive and most people had a home or even a condo with plenty of parking.

Now most people can't afford to buy a home in California, and the state is mandating high rise apartments built near mass transit points with limited parking, under the belief that people won't need cars. Most apartments and condos don't have a place to charge an electric car, or an easy way to add a charger, yet the state is also talking about eliminating sales of gas powered cars by 2040.

Just wait until you go to rent an apartment and the "optional" parking space is an extra $1,000 per month.

Sounds like other people's problems to me ....... right next door in Arizona (y)
 
Well I suppose a self driving car could look for cliffs to drive off, or refuse to unlock the doors unless you lay your wallet on the dash, and if it has a center console shifter...
 
Self driving cars don't try to rob, murder or rape you.

Oh yeah?

fa18339d9b9e752fd0c2af13156f3f3d.jpg
 
I live in California, so this is already happening. (higher gas taxes, higher registration fees, etc.)
Every year the insurance goes up, even though the car is a year older and worth less.

They are pushing to build expensive high rise apartments near mass transit points instead of building more single family homes, pushing up home prices even more. This is all part of the state mandated plan to save the planet. :rolleyes:

I'm just lucky I bought over 20 years ago. No way could I afford my current home at 3-4 times what I originally paid.

CA needs way more huge apartment buildings vs single family homes. Theres not enough space in most cities to build enough single family homes to meet demands.
 
Sounds like other people's problems to me ....... right next door in Arizona (y)

I need at least 8 more years until I can retire, but at the current rate California is being destroyed, I'm not sure I'll have that much time.
Both me and the wife are natives, and it's sad to see far this state is headed in the wrong direction.

I hope to sell my California track home for a million+, then move to another state and buy a nice place for 250k :eek:.
Would leave me with plenty for a nice retirement :D

(Where I live, a 2500 sqft home on a 6,000 sqft lot goes for around $850,000, and even 1,600 sqft single story home goes for over $700,000)
 
Last edited:
CA needs way more huge apartment buildings vs single family homes. Theres not enough space in most cities to build enough single family homes to meet demands.

Except most people, once they get a little older and have kids, don't want to live in an apartment, they want a home & a yard.

Besides, these high rise apartments are not cheap. With their elevators, pools, weight room, etc., rent is almost as much as a house payment.
 
The irony of this argument is that people would just drive regular cars creating more problems.

On top of that the existing car industry is not going to have any of this. Lets say in some insane world a bunch of politicians actually make such a law in the USA and while they are at it they take away the right to bare arms. These new mega companies that own taxis will completely disrupt the auto industry. They won't care what cars look like, they wont care to update them every 2 years like many Americans, they will have their own giant repair shops. All of this would not make most auto makers happy. So those automakers would go lobby to change this.


Also on the subject of taxis
A lot of people forget that public taxis really only works where parking is very limited and there is some other form of public transportation and its only something the middle and low class actually do(like they ride a train to get close then taxi in or around during the day). The reality is you still need a ton of cars to take people home. And that amount of cars would be only a little less than we actually already own. People own cars because its freedom. the freedom to go where they want when they want. As long as they can afford to do so they will. If taxis were so efficient most people wouldn't use cars. The reality is they just aren't that efficient like some proponents try to make them out to be. There are certain realities that still need to be obeyed. The only way I see most people getting rid of cars is if something huge happens that has nothing to do with cars. Something that makes most people not even need to travel. And the only thing of this magnitude I see doing that is if there is a massive movement to working at home.

Let me clarify if it isn't clear already, every morning a couple million people get up and drive to work in SF, then in the evening they drive home. Can anyone explain to me how a taxi system is going to magically use less cars that is not already available to us now? Since the vast majority of those people are leaving at similar times there is no way to have less cars. And then during the dead times, all those cars still have to park somewhere. The only people that actually gain are going to be people who work at odd off times.

The real advantage to self driving cars is the ability for someone to do work on the way to work or sleep or something else. They do not do anything to solve the current problems with the taxi system, at least not anything that couldn't already be worked out with normal taxis and current technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLee
like this
This is too much FUD.

Basically many will choose not to own a vehicle as it'll be cheaper to pay per-mile to be taken to their destination.

Owning a car is not cheap - the initial cost, insurance, taxes, maint, etc. If uber, lyft, whoever can drop the price it isn't hard to imagine it'll be cheaper not to own a car.


Not if the car owners can have their cars ferry people for them while they are not using it and keep 80% of the revenue while the company that runs the software keeps ~20%. Even if these numbers are dropped down a bit, you could get the best of both worlds... provided you do not mind having other people in your car. I do not think I would want to do this in a future tesla model 3 I want to get, but some second car for a household? Why not?
 
I'm guessing this would probably pass in some major cities, as the government in major cities are stupid. I'm sure if that happens, the Fed will come in and change it back.
 
Except most people, once they get a little older and have kids, don't want to live in an apartment, they want a home & a yard.

Besides, these high rise apartments are not cheap. With their elevators, pools, weight room, etc., rent is almost as much as a house payment.

But you don't have room for all those single house in major CA cities. Its physically impossible to do what you want, unless you want everyone to drive 2+ hours each way to the city. And the problem of cost in cities simply because there is too much demand, for too little housing. To help that, you need to approve more housing not less.

Life is about choices, if you want to live in popular cities, you must be willing to give things like yards. You want big yards, and cheap houses? Move to Detroit.
 
Not if the car owners can have their cars ferry people for them while they are not using it and keep 80% of the revenue while the company that runs the software keeps ~20%. Even if these numbers are dropped down a bit, you could get the best of both worlds... provided you do not mind having other people in your car. I do not think I would want to do this in a future tesla model 3 I want to get, but some second car for a household? Why not?

Individuals will more than likely not own the vehicles. Fleet operators will, think uber, lyft, tesla, gm, etc.

Think of it this way: The cost of pay-per-mile will become so cheap, only the rich will own cars.

Tesla's idea of model 3 ferrying is simply an intermediate step to the end result
 
Back
Top