3 ms·

This is knee jerk reaction. Why the states and cities would have their role to increase public transit, other alternatives would set them up naturally in fact f

This is knee jerk reaction. Why the states and cities would have their role to increase public transit, other alternatives would set them up naturally in fact from private sector or people adopting other means of transportation. [1] which would become immediately more profitable or less unprofitable depending on the area.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Getting those people into self-driving cars would be fantastic. Pretending there's a larger issue at play that overshadows that fantasticness is just pessimism. Sometimes it's easier to spend billions and grapple ingeniously with reality to create something new than it is to change the mind of a public official.
Dylan16807 3y ago
In the areas where it's not profitable enough, it won't get set up. And we can guarantee that states and cities will leave huge gaps.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  And people would share drive or whatever it takes to make up for that.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Lots of people have no one else going near their workplace at nearly the same time. Shared drives can't get anywhere near half of people to work. So you have to fall back on paid trips, and that is too much money for a random shift making anything in the realm of minimum wage. It just doesn't work economically. Many many areas without sufficient transit will suffer badly.
    - prmoustache 3y ago
      If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody for the conveniency of the reckless ones. That whole sense of entitlement is baffling. Besides cars are more expensive than riding a bike to a place where public transit is available.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        People need cars. You can't take away half of people's cars without massively restructuring transit. In aggregate, people are correct to feel entitled to get around town without going bankrupt trying. Why would that baffle you? You're not talking about exceptionally bad drivers, you're talking about half of them. That makes a big difference.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        If half of them are bad and dangerous, I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. Th number matters for whether it's feasible to implement. In a large sense everyone is a bad driver. > People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too. People are stuck in situations that need cars. Adaptation without external help would take decades. Tens of millions would suffer badly. With enough change cars could be turned back into a luxury, but right now they aren't a luxury for most people in the US.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        People are much more adaptable than you pretend.

robertlagrant 3y ago

Getting those people into self-driving cars would be fantastic. Pretending there's a larger issue at play that overshadows that fantasticness is just pessimism. Sometimes it's easier to spend billions and grapple ingeniously with reality to create something new than it is to change the mind of a public official.

Dylan16807 3y ago

In the areas where it's not profitable enough, it won't get set up. And we can guarantee that states and cities will leave huge gaps.

prmoustache 3y ago
And people would share drive or whatever it takes to make up for that.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  Lots of people have no one else going near their workplace at nearly the same time. Shared drives can't get anywhere near half of people to work. So you have to fall back on paid trips, and that is too much money for a random shift making anything in the realm of minimum wage. It just doesn't work economically. Many many areas without sufficient transit will suffer badly.
  - prmoustache 3y ago
    If people are not willing to drive correctly without being distracted or under influence, that is their fault. We shouldn't have to trade security of everybody for the conveniency of the reckless ones. That whole sense of entitlement is baffling. Besides cars are more expensive than riding a bike to a place where public transit is available.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      People need cars. You can't take away half of people's cars without massively restructuring transit. In aggregate, people are correct to feel entitled to get around town without going bankrupt trying. Why would that baffle you? You're not talking about exceptionally bad drivers, you're talking about half of them. That makes a big difference.
      - prmoustache 3y ago
        If half of them are bad and dangerous, I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > I am talking about bad drivers, regardless of the number. Th number matters for whether it's feasible to implement. In a large sense everyone is a bad driver. > People don't need cars. This is a luxury they based their life one. They can adapt the other way too. People are stuck in situations that need cars. Adaptation without external help would take decades. Tens of millions would suffer badly. With enough change cars could be turned back into a luxury, but right now they aren't a luxury for most people in the US.
        prmoustache 3y ago
        People are much more adaptable than you pretend.