Jump to content
  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
silvrsvt

Uber and Lyft want you banned from using your own self-driving car in urban areas

Recommended Posts

So what's the point of having one.

 

Uber and Lyft want you to use their cars, not have your own. Same reason the theaters don't want you bringing your own snacks. More money for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uber and Lyft want you to use their cars, not have your own. Same reason the theaters don't want you bringing your own snacks. More money for them.

 

I know, it was a rhetorical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing Uber and Lyft do is make already crowded streets more crowded! I swear 90% of the Nissan (yes I am picking on Nissan) cars and hatchbacks in Chicago have a Uber or Lyft sign. They are aimlessly driving around all the time hunting for fares, on top of all the cabs. They have also somehow inherited the terrible driving of the taxi drivers.

 

I am not worried about the autonomous driving situation. They will probably be released in 5-10 years but the first death will spark fierce litigation and a debate on who is culpable. Just think a dog runs into the street, AI in car avoids and goes on sidewalk running over innocent children. WHO'S TO BLAME!!!! I predict by the time I become a senior (hopefully) they will have all the kinks worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something scary that people haven't thought of-being denied the right to operate your own vehicle where you want to.

 

 

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2018/02/02/uber-and-lyft-want-you-banned-from-using-your-own-self-driving-car-in-a-big-city/

 

Oh, I've thought about it. If you read the stuff coming out of the think tanks that are pushing autonomous battery electric vehicles as the be all, end all solution, it becomes clear that their vision is really to eliminate personally owned and operated transportation. They're willing to allow for corporate ownership of ABEV vehicles but they expect that heavy regulation will turn that into defacto public transportation.

 

The intent is to push an entire array of social engineering objectives by claiming that they are inevitable outcomes and therefore the government should begin passing laws and regulations to ensure that it comes to pass in the way that they desire.

 

Here's an example from "rethinkX" which predicts the collapse of the ICE and personally owned transportation industry by 2030.

http://www.rethinkx.com/press-release/2017/5/3/new-report-due-to-major-transportation-disruption-95-of-us-car-miles-will-be-traveled-in-self-driving-electric-shared-vehicles-by-2030

 

 

By 2030, within 10 years of regulatory approval of fully autonomous vehicles, 95% of all U.S. passenger miles will be served by transport-asa-service (TaaS) providers who will own and operate fleets of autonomous electric vehicles providing passengers with higher levels of service, faster rides and vastly increased safety at a cost up to 10 times cheaper than today’s individually owned (IO) vehicles.

Edited by Roland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The intent is to push an entire array of social engineering objectives by claiming that they are inevitable outcomes and therefore the government should begin passing laws and regulations to ensure that it comes to pass in the way that they desire.

 

Here's an example from "rethinkX" which predicts the collapse of the ICE and personally owned transportation industry by 2030.

http://www.rethinkx.com/press-release/2017/5/3/new-report-due-to-major-transportation-disruption-95-of-us-car-miles-will-be-traveled-in-self-driving-electric-shared-vehicles-by-2030

 

 

If the transportation as a service model can provide people with better service, faster rides, improved safety, and lower cost as mentioned by rethnikx, no social engineering is needed. People will choose it because it's superior to either public transit or individual car ownership.

 

Uber and Lyft need to reduce their costs before they can make their services 10 times cheaper than individually owned cars. That's why autonomous vehicles are so important to them. Paying human drivers costs those companies a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same Uber that screamed and cried because government regulations and sleezy unions we're preventing them from joining the market?

 

And they're now using their weight and government connections to give themselves a monopoly over this new market?

 

 

REALLY??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the same Uber that screamed and cried because government regulations and sleezy unions we're preventing them from joining the market?

 

And they're now using their weight and government connections to give themselves a monopoly over this new market?

 

 

REALLY??

Welcome to America

 

https://youtu.be/0wIm_41OIOM

Edited by fuzzymoomoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If the transportation as a service model can provide people with better service, faster rides, improved safety, and lower cost as mentioned by rethnikx, no social engineering is needed. People will choose it because it's superior to either public transit or individual car ownership.

 

 

This makes no sense-how is waiting on an on demand service going to be better then owning your own car? There is so much wrong with this that its going to make zero improvement in overall transportation. Your going to need even more vehicles on the road to meet the needs of people who now don't have them, further increasing traffic.

 

How is it going to handle a natural disaster where people are going to need to evacuate an area with in a short period of time? As an example. you have a cat 3-4 hurricane threatening an high population area like NJ or NYC- how are you going to surge enough self driving vehicles with in allowed time frame, then those same vehicles leave the area at the same time, when the road system can barely support daily traffic in the area already? Its not like its a magic wand that makes everything better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love for 70 to 90% of vehicles to be autonomous. With how bad everyone drives now and getting worse it would be a big help to my sanity. But i want to be able to drive myself in my own vehicle.

A few questions:

1.) What about road trip vacations

2.) What about bikes or canoes or towing a boat or jetski

3.) Would my '69 Mercury and other classic cars for fun be banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love for 70 to 90% of vehicles to be autonomous. With how bad everyone drives now and getting worse it would be a big help to my sanity. But i want to be able to drive myself in my own vehicle.

A few questions:

1.) What about road trip vacations

Pick a destination and the vehicle takes you there...but you won't be able to "explore" which also would directly impact businesses not on the "main drag" of towns.

2.) What about bikes or canoes or towing a boat or jetski

Good question

3.) Would my '69 Mercury and other classic cars for fun be banned

Most likely-you'd have to take them to a track-which for some people would be at least 2 hour plus drive-but you still need a trailer to get them there.

 

More and more I read about this, its is answer to SoCal traffic issues and not really the rest of the country-even in highly populated areas like the North East

 

Cali doesn't have much in the way of mass transit and the road systems are a shit show traffic wise-esp in the bay area. NJ has a decent mass transit system into NYC-but we still have a ton of traffic on highways at rush hour. Autonomous cars aren't the silver bullet that everyone thinks they are. Once people start seeing that they can't jump into their CUV to take their kids to hockey/Gym/flute/whatever practice when they want, there is going to be push back against this.

 

The problem also is with level 4 cars, which allow humans to still take control-far too much legal issues can crop up with that-but I also believe that is going to be the most wanted system with drivers-hand off driving the car in traffic or if you want to take a nap on your way home-or if you want the car to drive your drunkass home from the bar-what are the legal repercussions of that? I don't think many makers are going to deal with that landmine..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These predictions of the end of personal transportation are generally coming from those who want that to be the outcome. They're putting a heavy thumb on the scale in order to sell that not only as desirable, but inevitable. Finally they can be rid of that annoying conveyance that takes people where ever they want to go whenever they want to go there, destroying our environment in the process.

 

The biggest fallacy that they use to advance their agenda is circular logic. In their arguments, the benefits of autonomous vehicles will only accrue to transportation as a service (TAAS) users because TAAS will supplant personal vehicle ownership because of those benefits. They apply circular logic in a number of areas but that's the most common.

 

Second, they misunderstand what motivates people's transportation choices. They focus largely on cost when it's value, not cost that motivates most people's transportation choices. It's utility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that people are paying for, not just transportation from point A to point B.

 

Third, they do all of this reasoning from an extremely urbanite perspective. They need density to make their TAAS models work and they dismiss the poor, unwashed masses who live outside urban centers. If you read between the lines they really want those people forced into urban areas.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have the roads cleared of all the idiots who aren't the least bit interested in operating a vehicle safely, but car people need to be careful about getting on board with this thinking. There's an agenda behind a lot of this and it has nothing to do with a future for vehicles that provide theutility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that you want.

Edited by Roland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These predictions of the end of personal transportation are generally coming from those who want that to be the outcome. They're putting a heavy thumb on the scale in order to sell that not only as desirable, but inevitable. Finally they can be rid of that annoying conveyance that takes people where ever they want to go whenever they want to go there, destroying our environment in the process.

 

The biggest fallacy that they use to advance their agenda is circular logic. In their arguments, the benefits of autonomous vehicles will only accrue to transportation as a service (TAAS) users because TAAS will supplant personal vehicle ownership because of those benefits. They apply circular logic in a number of areas but that's the most common.

 

Second, they misunderstand what motivates people's transportation choices. They focus largely on cost when it's value, not cost that motivates most people's transportation choices. It's utility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that people are paying for, not just transportation from point A to point B.

 

Third, they do all of this reasoning from an extremely urbanite perspective. They need density to make their TAAS models work and they dismiss the poor, unwashed masses who live outside urban centers. If you read between the lines they really want those people forced into urban areas.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have the roads cleared of all the idiots who aren't the least bit interested in operating a vehicle safely, but car people need to be careful about getting on board with this thinking. There's an agenda behind a lot of this and it has nothing to do with a future for vehicles that provide theutility, comfort, convenience, image, and enjoyment that you want.

Great assessment Roland. It is about control, with only a few players with that control. Whoever thinks that is a good idea isnt thinking about the unintended consequences of that control and needs to have their head examined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This makes no sense-how is waiting on an on demand service going to be better then owning your own car? There is so much wrong with this that its going to make zero improvement in overall transportation. Your going to need even more vehicles on the road to meet the needs of people who now don't have them, further increasing traffic.

 

How is it going to handle a natural disaster where people are going to need to evacuate an area with in a short period of time? As an example. you have a cat 3-4 hurricane threatening an high population area like NJ or NYC- how are you going to surge enough self driving vehicles with in allowed time frame, then those same vehicles leave the area at the same time, when the road system can barely support daily traffic in the area already? Its not like its a magic wand that makes everything better.

 

The proponents of transportation as a service say that utilization rates should be much higher with shared autonomous cars than regular cars owned and operated by individuals. Regular personally owned cars stay parked 95% or more of the time. Shared autonomous cars should be in use and not parked at much higher rates.That means that a well run shared autonomous vehicle service should be able to provide better availability and service with the same number of cars.

 

Potential advantages of transportation as a service with autonomous cars.

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars

2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit

3.) Safer

4.) Less expensive for customers

5.) Encourage better urban design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regular personally owned cars stay parked 95% or more of the time. Shared autonomous cars should be in use and not parked at much higher rates.

 

I try to stay out of these discussions, but I have to pick a bone with this cherry picked (not by you rperez) statistic. OF COURSE PERSONAL CARS ARE PARKED 95% OF THE TIME. Because most car owners have to WORK FOR A LIVING. This "statistic" is like saying most roads are unused 95% of the time. No shyte, sherlock. On the other hand, take a look at vehicle usage % when people are driving to and from work (and likewise, road usage at the same times). It's cherry picked BS stats like this that undermine whatever genuine points might be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The proponents of transportation as a service say that utilization rates should be much higher with shared autonomous cars than regular cars owned and operated by individuals. Regular personally owned cars stay parked 95% or more of the time. Shared autonomous cars should be in use and not parked at much higher rates.That means that a well run shared autonomous vehicle service should be able to provide better availability and service with the same number of cars.

 

Potential advantages of transportation as a service with autonomous cars.

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars

2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit

3.) Safer

4.) Less expensive for customers

5.) Encourage better urban design

Are you a proponent of this scheme? Im unclear on your position. Im not sure if you are playing devils advocate or if you are in concurrence, because you seem to defend them. I cant see how someone who drives a Jag finds this appealing.

 

From my point of view, I dont give a rats ass if my vehicles sit 95% of the time. I buy the vehicles I like and I use them when I want. Im not the type of person that chooses to be dependent on anyone else. Therefore this does not appeal to me at all. Does it mean Im averse to technology that can improve safety, far from it, but something that takes away my independence, no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The proponents of transportation as a service say that utilization rates should be much higher with shared autonomous cars than regular cars owned and operated by individuals. Regular personally owned cars stay parked 95% or more of the time. Shared autonomous cars should be in use and not parked at much higher rates.That means that a well run shared autonomous vehicle service should be able to provide better availability and service with the same number of cars.

 

Potential advantages of transportation as a service with autonomous cars.

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars

2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit

3.) Safer

4.) Less expensive for customers

5.) Encourage better urban design

 

See that the problem...its assuming everyone drives in an urban environment and assumes EVERYTHING is going to be autonomous.

 

There is going to have to be at least a 5-10 year switch over period.

 

If 95% of cars just "sit" there how is improving utilization going to improve traffic problems if 95% of the cars aren't on the road? Like its been stated before, your going to have to add even more cars to road to handle passenger demands.

 

I laugh it being cheaper for customers too...unless Uber etc can drop their rates 1/2 or more, they aren't going to be able to compete with ownership models

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work and I drive my car to and from work, it's about a hour and a half round trip.

So yea my car is not being used ? percentage of the time.

 

Sorry don't know what "percentage" that is.

 

I'd still rather DRIVE my car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you a proponent of this scheme? Im unclear on your position. Im not sure if you are playing devils advocate or if you are in concurrence, because you seem to defend them. I cant see how someone who drives a Jag finds this appealing.

 

From my point of view, I dont give a rats ass if my vehicles sit 95% of the time. I buy the vehicles I like and I use them when I want. Im not the type of person that chooses to be dependent on anyone else. Therefore this does not appeal to me at all. Does it mean Im averse to technology that can improve safety, far from it, but something that takes away my independence, no way.

 

No sir tbone, I'm neutral on the transportation as a service model using autonomous cars. Neither a proponent nor a detractor myself. As you mentioned, I own a Jaguar car plus a Ford Ranger for personal use. I also use public transit, especially when I'm in Washington, D.C. for work. Plus I use Uber and Lyft too, mostly in the Washington, D.C. area as well. Each transportation method has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

If transportation as a service using autonomous cars can realize all of the potential advantages mentioned earlier, for most people it will prove superior to personal car ownership, to public transit, and to Uber & Lyft as it works currently with human drivers. But those services don't exist yet except in testing or prototype phase. Waymo's service using self driving Chrysler Pacificas is an example. It's being tested in Phoenix and San Francisco. When people can easily buy a good quality, reliable transportation as a service offering with autonomous cars, I'll become a proponent if it turns out to be better than any transportation method we have today. Time will tell.

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will have a niche market in private fleets, specific use cases (google map cars e.g.) and commercial applications. Thinking they’ll replace personal vehicles for more than small percentage or thinking they’ll bring all of the advertised benefits is nonsense. Wishful thinking by those who want the technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The proponents of transportation as a service say that utilization rates should be much higher with shared autonomous cars than regular cars owned and operated by individuals. Regular personally owned cars stay parked 95% or more of the time. Shared autonomous cars should be in use and not parked at much higher rates.That means that a well run shared autonomous vehicle service should be able to provide better availability and service with the same number of cars.

 

Potential advantages of transportation as a service with autonomous cars.

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars

2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit

3.) Safer

4.) Less expensive for customers

5.) Encourage better urban design

 

1.) Higher utilization of cars compared to regular personal cars

 

Consumers don't care about higher utilization except where it benefits them. Higher utilization might reduce the cost but I've already pointed out that cost isn't the primary driver behind most people's transportation choices. Higher utilization also carries negative impact for consumers when we're talking about shared transportation. Interiors will have to be designed for high utilization by users with no ownership interest. You will enjoy the leavings of every user of that vehicle since it was last cleaned out. How many people do you think they'll have to employ regularly cleaning out these vehicles and who is going to do that work? Welcome to your new TAAS ride complete with automated hose-out interior. Enjoy the ride.

 

Also, this is another case of what I mentioned - attributing benefits of automated vehicles to TAAS. Certainly TAAS would maximize utilization at a given time, but personal owners could also see increased utilization. Many families could combine two daily drivers into one, for example. Also, if owners want to maximize utilization, then they can simply keep a vehicle for it's entire useful life. By doing that they're utilizing 100% of the useful life of that vehicle and it makes little difference whether it spends 5% or 95% of it's time during that span parked.

 

2.) Much better service quality and frequency than public transit

 

Here you make a good point, but it's about public transportation, not personal vehicle ownership. Given a choice between shared public transportation and TAAS, many consumers will choose TAAS because it overcomes the problem with almost all public transit - lack of direct access to a destination. Personal vehicles still provide better quality and frequency than shared transportation and will continue to do so in an autonomous vehicle market.

 

3.) Safer

 

Automated vehicles may be safer, but TAAS isn't a requirement for that. In fact, with personal vehicles the consumer can decide for themselves how much they value safety and how much they want to spend on it beyond whatever is included with whatever shows up when they summon TAAS.

 

4.) Less expensive for customers

 

Again, consumers aren't buying transportation on a least cost basis. They're buying on a best value basis where value is defined by their personal wants and needs.

 

5.) Encourage better urban design

 

This is a mix of something consumers don't care about in their buying decisions and attributing autonomous vehicle benefits only to TAAS. Are you going to take away my parking space? I'll send my vehicle to park someplace else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've repeatedly heard that 5% usage statistic bandied about as though it were actually meaningful.

 

Most Americans get 6-8 hours of sleep per night, which means their beds are running somewhere between 25-33% utilization. That doesn't mean they're interested in sharing them with random people. My recliner gets maybe a couple of hours of use per day, but that doesn't mean I'm at all interested in sharing it. Hell's bells, my crapper is only used for a few minutes per day, but I'm not about to start letting anyone else use it. (Clean it, maybe, but use it? No way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to autonomous vehicles for a minute. I was driving back from Wisconsin this weekend during a snow/sleet storm and I was using by adaptive cruise control when it stopped working. A warning message came up stating the sensor was blocked. When I arrived at my destination the front of the truck was covered with ice. I have an aftermarket bumper so the sensor was relocated higher in the grill which in my opinion would actually be a safer place than the stock location, and less likely to accumulate snow/ice.

 

I imagine autonomous vehicles will use sensors similar to these, so how are these vehicles going to manage a situation like that which will surely happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×