3 ms·

There's a neverending stream of way-too-drunk people who need a taxi (or at least there were, in the beforetimes). I don't see that happening. Also, I don't pa

There's a neverending stream of way-too-drunk people who need a taxi (or at least there were, in the beforetimes). I don't see that happening. Also, I don't particularly want to ride in a car with a bunch of sensors and cameras monitoring my every move.

XorNot 5y ago
A self-drive / remote piloted vehicle doesn't need a functional interior. Which means the interior can be basically be made fluid tight, and rapidly replaceable. The current situation with taxis is that you enter before confirming your identity via payment, and the problem is put onto the taxi driver (an individual) when something happens. This is distinctly not the self-drive corporation issue: you trash the car, the issue is forwarded to corporate debt recovery, who then work a 9 to 5 slowly pushing the issue though the relevant channels. Meanwhile, the car is returned to base, maintenance rips out the absorbent materials and power washes the interior. Trashing it becomes a line-item cost to a very large organization, not a problem which "isn't worth it" for an individual operator.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dont__panic 5y ago
Agreed on both points. However... while I don't want to ride in a car full of sensors, I think the popularity of CCTV and Facebook demonstrates that a lot of other people are much more OK with that. Just look at busses, trains, and even gas stations -- I'd never want to have ads thrown in my face the way all of those systems push them on you, but a lot of people just seem to be... OK with it.
- fragmede 5y ago
  Aside from vandalizing the gas pump TV, what do you suggest doing to say that I'm not okay with that? Whining about it on Twitter seems equally ineffective.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
> Also, I don't particularly want to ride in a car with a bunch of sensors and cameras monitoring my every move. Many (most?) taxis already have both dashcams and cabin cams. This has already been normalized.

XorNot 5y ago

A self-drive / remote piloted vehicle doesn't need a functional interior. Which means the interior can be basically be made fluid tight, and rapidly replaceable. The current situation with taxis is that you enter before confirming your identity via payment, and the problem is put onto the taxi driver (an individual) when something happens. This is distinctly not the self-drive corporation issue: you trash the car, the issue is forwarded to corporate debt recovery, who then work a 9 to 5 slowly pushing the issue though the relevant channels. Meanwhile, the car is returned to base, maintenance rips out the absorbent materials and power washes the interior. Trashing it becomes a line-item cost to a very large organization, not a problem which "isn't worth it" for an individual operator.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dont__panic 5y ago

Agreed on both points. However... while I don't want to ride in a car full of sensors, I think the popularity of CCTV and Facebook demonstrates that a lot of other people are much more OK with that. Just look at busses, trains, and even gas stations -- I'd never want to have ads thrown in my face the way all of those systems push them on you, but a lot of people just seem to be... OK with it.

fragmede 5y ago
Aside from vandalizing the gas pump TV, what do you suggest doing to say that I'm not okay with that? Whining about it on Twitter seems equally ineffective.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

> Also, I don't particularly want to ride in a car with a bunch of sensors and cameras monitoring my every move. Many (most?) taxis already have both dashcams and cabin cams. This has already been normalized.