5 ms·

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public

by quink 4y ago

> Trains are also not owned by individuals. Planes aren't either, what's your point? That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out of using _public_ infrastructure and require a personal investment currently in the tens of thousands for the cheapest autonomous cars? > Most people do not have a train station outside of their house. People have feet or a wheelchair, bicycles are a thing, trams and buses exist have you ever even been outside of suburbia?

TylerE 4y ago
Plenty of privately owned planes, even privately owned airports. Not many privately owned railways beyond a few garden toys that are more like giant rideable models).
- quink 4y ago
  JR East has 12,500 bits of rolling stock and 50,000 employees. BNSF has 8,000 locomotives and 41,000 employees. They're listed on the stock exchange and clearly have more than a few garden toys. Also, who implied that railways need to be privately owned?
shepherdjerred 4y ago
My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. > Planes aren't either, what's your point? My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars. > That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out This is quite the leap. My comment did not argue the merits of either, merely that trains would not be a very good replacement for autonomous vehicle lanes. > have you ever even been outside of suburbia? This isn't useful to your argument. Why are you resorting to a personal attack?
- quink 4y ago
  Autonomous Driving Lanes world-wide: 0 kilometres. > so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. Railways world-wide: 1,400,000 kilometres. > Why are you resorting to a personal attack? Are you seriously considering my putting out there that your personal experiences might influence your arguments to the point of not being credible a personal attack?
redox99 4y ago
> Planes aren't either, what's your point? If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private. Flying commercial is pretty much as awful as it gets.
- quink 4y ago
  > If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private. Oh, OK, the only reason we shouldn't move the 10,000 daily passengers between LAX and SFO in 10,000 planes a day is because of the price. /s

by quink 4y ago

TylerE 4y ago

Plenty of privately owned planes, even privately owned airports. Not many privately owned railways beyond a few garden toys that are more like giant rideable models).

quink 4y ago
JR East has 12,500 bits of rolling stock and 50,000 employees. BNSF has 8,000 locomotives and 41,000 employees. They're listed on the stock exchange and clearly have more than a few garden toys. Also, who implied that railways need to be privately owned?

shepherdjerred 4y ago

My overall point is that trains will not replace cars in the United States any time soon, so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. > Planes aren't either, what's your point? My point is that the comment I replied to implied that trains can replace cars. Trains cannot replace cars because they are a form of public transportation, which cannot easily replace cars. > That people who need to go somewhere should be priced out This is quite the leap. My comment did not argue the merits of either, merely that trains would not be a very good replacement for autonomous vehicle lanes. > have you ever even been outside of suburbia? This isn't useful to your argument. Why are you resorting to a personal attack?

quink 4y ago
Autonomous Driving Lanes world-wide: 0 kilometres. > so they would not be a very good replacement for autonomous driving lanes. Railways world-wide: 1,400,000 kilometres. > Why are you resorting to a personal attack? Are you seriously considering my putting out there that your personal experiences might influence your arguments to the point of not being credible a personal attack?

redox99 4y ago

> Planes aren't either, what's your point? If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private. Flying commercial is pretty much as awful as it gets.

quink 4y ago
> If it weren't because of price, I'm sure everybody would prefer flying private. Oh, OK, the only reason we shouldn't move the 10,000 daily passengers between LAX and SFO in 10,000 planes a day is because of the price. /s