5 ms·

> According to the NHTSA, 19% of motor vehicle fatalities involved drivers with invalid licenses. Furthermore, drivers with invalid licenses comprise 13% of all

> According to the NHTSA, 19% of motor vehicle fatalities involved drivers with invalid licenses. Furthermore, drivers with invalid licenses comprise 13% of all drivers in fatal crashes. https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/driving-without-license-penalties-by-state.aspx https://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/driving-without-licens... I'm all for more rigorous driving standards. However, the USA is car centric and people need jobs. To really do what you're suggesting, the USA would need to regulate car companies to validate driving licenses while the car was in use. AND THEN, the USA would need to figure out what to do with all of these upset newly unemployed and aggressive people.

cozzyd 3y ago
Yes, car-centricity is a big problem, I agree (as someone who doesn't own a car or regularly drive...). Are robo-cars going to prevent people from driving with invalid licenses?
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  > Are robo-cars going to prevent people from driving with invalid licenses Yes. Because they wouldn't be driving.
  - cozzyd 3y ago
    unless human-operated vehicles become banned or comparatively inordinately expensive, I'm not sure how that would happen? At least any time soon...
    - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
      Vehicles in general are inordinately expensive. Lyft just quoted me: $20 for 3.5 miles, in 15mins. That is a reasonable daily commute. 2 * $20 = $40 per day round trip. $40 * 5 = $200 per week. $200 * 50 = $10,000 per year. For a 45 min commute: that is $30k per year. Clearly should buy a vehicle. However, with 10x cheaper Lyfts: at 1-3k per year; that is the cost of maintenance, registration, and insurance. Then the car payments on top of that... Owning a car would be inordinately expensive. This doesn't even include the benefit of getting 45-90 mins back to learn or play while commuting.
      - cozzyd 3y ago
        I don't think Lyfts get 10x cheaper with robocars. It's not like 90% of your fare goes to driver net profit. Maybe a factor of 2, but I'm not even sure that will be true (robocars will generally be more expensive, and require additional remote monitoring). https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattle-Report_July-2020.pdf https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl... suggests that net driver pay is less than half of gross pay, which doesn't account for the portion that Lyft takes. Taking that at face value, maybe it gets 40% cheaper? Driving is expensive! There are some economies of scale in maintenance/procurement (but at the same time, you need all-new, likely more expensive vehicles than the mean Lyft driver), and for infrequent users who pay for parking then that can make a big difference, but unless the robocar operator makes no profit, it's hard to imagine robocars being significantly cheaper than owning a car if you are using it regularly.
        gruez 3y ago
        >https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl... suggests that net driver pay is less than half of gross pay, which doesn't account for the portion that Lyft takes. Taking that at face value, maybe it gets 40% cheaper? Driving is expensive! I'm not sure what expenses goes into calculating "net driver pay", but based on a quick skim there are some questionable items in there. "Exhibit 28 Total Seattle TNC driver expenses" lists stuff like "health insurance costs" and "independent contractor taxes", which obviously wouldn't be needed for robotaxis. If we drill down into "vehicle operating costs", there are also some questionable items, like $1560/year expense for "cellphone". I agree that robotaxis being 90% cheaper is unlikely, but 66%-75% cheaper (ie. a quarter to a third of the price) seems to be within the realm of possibility.
        cozzyd 3y ago
        certainly whatever telemetry system is used in robocars will be more expensive than "cell phone," but yes would save on tax and health insurance.
        yazaddaruvala 3y ago
jeffbee 3y ago
It's much worse in SF. When the SFPD runs (ran, really, because they no longer do traffic ops at all) crosswalk stings, the majority of drivers who violate the crossing pedestrian's right of way are unlicensed. Losing your license in California has virtually no influence on whether you continue to drive.

cozzyd 3y ago

Yes, car-centricity is a big problem, I agree (as someone who doesn't own a car or regularly drive...). Are robo-cars going to prevent people from driving with invalid licenses?

xboxnolifes 3y ago
> Are robo-cars going to prevent people from driving with invalid licenses Yes. Because they wouldn't be driving.
- cozzyd 3y ago
  unless human-operated vehicles become banned or comparatively inordinately expensive, I'm not sure how that would happen? At least any time soon...
  - yazaddaruvala 3y ago
    Vehicles in general are inordinately expensive. Lyft just quoted me: $20 for 3.5 miles, in 15mins. That is a reasonable daily commute. 2 * $20 = $40 per day round trip. $40 * 5 = $200 per week. $200 * 50 = $10,000 per year. For a 45 min commute: that is $30k per year. Clearly should buy a vehicle. However, with 10x cheaper Lyfts: at 1-3k per year; that is the cost of maintenance, registration, and insurance. Then the car payments on top of that... Owning a car would be inordinately expensive. This doesn't even include the benefit of getting 45-90 mins back to learn or play while commuting.
    - cozzyd 3y ago
      I don't think Lyfts get 10x cheaper with robocars. It's not like 90% of your fare goes to driver net profit. Maybe a factor of 2, but I'm not even sure that will be true (robocars will generally be more expensive, and require additional remote monitoring). https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattle-Report_July-2020.pdf https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl... suggests that net driver pay is less than half of gross pay, which doesn't account for the portion that Lyft takes. Taking that at face value, maybe it gets 40% cheaper? Driving is expensive! There are some economies of scale in maintenance/procurement (but at the same time, you need all-new, likely more expensive vehicles than the mean Lyft driver), and for infrequent users who pay for parking then that can make a big difference, but unless the robocar operator makes no profit, it's hard to imagine robocars being significantly cheaper than owning a car if you are using it regularly.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl https://irle.berkeley.edu/files/2020/07/Parrott-Reich-Seattl... suggests that net driver pay is less than half of gross pay, which doesn't account for the portion that Lyft takes. Taking that at face value, maybe it gets 40% cheaper? Driving is expensive! I'm not sure what expenses goes into calculating "net driver pay", but based on a quick skim there are some questionable items in there. "Exhibit 28 Total Seattle TNC driver expenses" lists stuff like "health insurance costs" and "independent contractor taxes", which obviously wouldn't be needed for robotaxis. If we drill down into "vehicle operating costs", there are also some questionable items, like $1560/year expense for "cellphone". I agree that robotaxis being 90% cheaper is unlikely, but 66%-75% cheaper (ie. a quarter to a third of the price) seems to be within the realm of possibility.
        cozzyd 3y ago
        certainly whatever telemetry system is used in robocars will be more expensive than "cell phone," but yes would save on tax and health insurance.
      - yazaddaruvala 3y ago

jeffbee 3y ago

It's much worse in SF. When the SFPD runs (ran, really, because they no longer do traffic ops at all) crosswalk stings, the majority of drivers who violate the crossing pedestrian's right of way are unlicensed. Losing your license in California has virtually no influence on whether you continue to drive.