4 ms·
Nah, at least not people where I live. While most people aren't enthusiasts, almost everyone does 60mph on the main arterials, and 70-80 on the actual highways.
by amyjess 11y ago
Nah, at least not people where I live. While most people aren't enthusiasts, almost everyone does 60mph on the main arterials, and 70-80 on the actual highways.
- bostonpete 11y agoI have to agree. I'm not a car enthusiast, I do spend a lot of time in my car, and I can't imagine making a purchasing decision based in any significant way on the software features. I've got everything I need on my phone.
- ethbro 11y agoAnd I just threw out 50mph as a "cheaper" number. You really think people would trade the ability to completely focus on something else during their commute (autopilot) for the ability to go faster but have to focus on the road?
- amyjess 11y agoI think those of us who would do that are already using public transit (I include myself in this group, by the way). It might get some people who say "well, I would take the bus if it ran where I live/work", but anyone who lives and works on a bus route would already be using public transit if most people felt this way, and public transit will continue to be cheaper for quite some time.
- ethbro 11y agoThe cost of public transit for me is mostly time: imo bus connections are terrible when you're doing it every day (or twice!). And I ride as often as possible. It also supposes your city has an efficient and reasonably cost effective public transit network. Which isn't always the case. Automated electric personal vehicles solve both these issues: it's as timely as you can get (unless dedicated rail is weighed in, but...), and it requires only a city electrical grid.