4 ms·

> No way at all to do so with an autonomous car. How can you say that when they aren't even a thing yet? They could easily have a hotline to call in case of a

by reustle 11y ago

> No way at all to do so with an autonomous car. How can you say that when they aren't even a thing yet? They could easily have a hotline to call in case of a situation like this, where they can manually pull it out of the queue and send it back to your location. It wouldn't be complicated or costly.

mschuster91 11y ago
What if another passenger has already taken the vehicle? Then you'd totally depend on the honesty of a stranger. Thanks but no thanks.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Meta: What's with the bizarre downvoting of non-anti-car comments in this thread? It's like anything that isn't 100% in favor of a shared-everything-screw-the-rurals-and-introverts economy is anathema or something. Maybe instead of downvoting, why don't you (whoever "you" may be) try to figure out why people have a different opinion than you? Maybe you'll find that the world is a heck of a lot bigger than you imagined and people exist who really do have different experiences and needs.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    Because HN is full of urban hipsters whose viewport is limited to their city.
  - csydas 11y ago
    I cannot speak for the people down voting, but I can understand frustration with raising objections based on wants and desires which are not incompatible with cities focusing more on mass transit and self-driving fleets. Folk who do live in rural areas won't be impacted much by cities transitioning to fewer cars. If their work requires commute into the city, I'm not sure why or how the commute would be any worse once self-driving cars are introduced. The idea is to reduce car dependence and the control cars have within cities. Assume for a moment that self-driving cars can participate nigh-perfectly in traffic with human drivers, and that they become the majority within cities. Would this not mean that as car ownership in cities goes down, available parking may decrease, but the demand for parking will also decrease? As an introvert myself, I don't really have an issue with mass transit, since most everyone just wants to mind their own business. Once there are self-driving cars or once city culture shifts from car ownership to fleets of available cars, nothing is stopping you from having complete privacy as you travel if you desire it. What I'm saying is that these concerns aren't incompatible with the share ideas. Your normal routine might be slightly different, but your wants and needs are not incompatible with the ideas at all. I dislike downvote/upvote systems for discussion for the very reason you're expressing; it creates echo chambers, but it also expresses their position. I disagree with you, but I will tell you that it's because I think your wants and needs can be met perfectly if cities shift to less cars. Others apparently would rather just down vote to express their disagreement.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      > Folk who do live in rural areas won't be impacted much by cities transitioning to fewer cars. Oh they will because non-automated cars will have their insurance rates rising (once again, a tax on the poor, because rich people tend to concentrate in urban areas while poorer people will be outpriced to rural), they will be banned from driving in urban areas, and there will be no parking in the cities for them.

by reustle 11y ago

mschuster91 11y ago

What if another passenger has already taken the vehicle? Then you'd totally depend on the honesty of a stranger. Thanks but no thanks.

nitrogen 11y ago
Meta: What's with the bizarre downvoting of non-anti-car comments in this thread? It's like anything that isn't 100% in favor of a shared-everything-screw-the-rurals-and-introverts economy is anathema or something. Maybe instead of downvoting, why don't you (whoever "you" may be) try to figure out why people have a different opinion than you? Maybe you'll find that the world is a heck of a lot bigger than you imagined and people exist who really do have different experiences and needs.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  Because HN is full of urban hipsters whose viewport is limited to their city.
- csydas 11y ago
  I cannot speak for the people down voting, but I can understand frustration with raising objections based on wants and desires which are not incompatible with cities focusing more on mass transit and self-driving fleets. Folk who do live in rural areas won't be impacted much by cities transitioning to fewer cars. If their work requires commute into the city, I'm not sure why or how the commute would be any worse once self-driving cars are introduced. The idea is to reduce car dependence and the control cars have within cities. Assume for a moment that self-driving cars can participate nigh-perfectly in traffic with human drivers, and that they become the majority within cities. Would this not mean that as car ownership in cities goes down, available parking may decrease, but the demand for parking will also decrease? As an introvert myself, I don't really have an issue with mass transit, since most everyone just wants to mind their own business. Once there are self-driving cars or once city culture shifts from car ownership to fleets of available cars, nothing is stopping you from having complete privacy as you travel if you desire it. What I'm saying is that these concerns aren't incompatible with the share ideas. Your normal routine might be slightly different, but your wants and needs are not incompatible with the ideas at all. I dislike downvote/upvote systems for discussion for the very reason you're expressing; it creates echo chambers, but it also expresses their position. I disagree with you, but I will tell you that it's because I think your wants and needs can be met perfectly if cities shift to less cars. Others apparently would rather just down vote to express their disagreement.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > Folk who do live in rural areas won't be impacted much by cities transitioning to fewer cars. Oh they will because non-automated cars will have their insurance rates rising (once again, a tax on the poor, because rich people tend to concentrate in urban areas while poorer people will be outpriced to rural), they will be banned from driving in urban areas, and there will be no parking in the cities for them.