You realize that it's only free while they test and it's not going to be free forever, right? In fact, the protests are in response to a decision which allowed the companies to start charging for driver-less rides, so that is already changing.
Hard to say which way people will go overall. I personally am no longer a fan of driver-less cars. I used to be but now I see it as a doubling down of car-dependence. I could see a nasty rebound effect [1] through increased convenience and a lot of other negative consequences if cities adapt their infrastructure to cater to those vehicles. History repeating itself for "automobile progress." A possible second coming of demolishing our cities and neighborhoods to make way for cars. Yeah I know most if not all of the arguments for how the technology will just fix all the problems and make everything about cars better, I used to make those arguments myself. I don't believe them anymore.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)
You realize that the whole point of self driving taxis is that they are cheaper to run than regular taxis, and that's how they will compete right?
> I used to be but now I see it as a doubling down of car-dependence
Ok, so you just don't like taxis in general then.
That's fine, but it changes nothing about the idea that self driving taxis are strictly better than regular taxis.
> I could see a nasty rebound effect [1] through increased convenience
Oh the irony of this statement.
At the very beginning of you post, you talk about how the benefits of self driving cars are temporary, and yet now you admit that the problem is that they are too good.
I am glad that I have convinced you that self driving cars are such a benefit, such a popular consumer product that everyone will love, so much so that it will cause problems because of just how useful they are!
>> I used to be but now I see it as a doubling down of car-dependence
> Ok, so you just don't like taxis in general then.
That was not the point. One of the general arguments for AVs is that it will reduce car-dependence, that we're all going to be able to live car-free and AVs will shuttle us around in hyper efficient transport systems.
If the way we get there is by having a taxi service that is 70% cheaper, I don't see how that follows. I agree with the parent, the claim that AVs are a ticket out of car dependence seems like a bill of goods.
The person responded by using arguments that they don't like a car driven society.
That does not contradict my point that self driving taxis are better than regular taxis.
Furthermore they admitted that self driving taxis are more convenient, which further supports my point.
Time will tell, but I suspect it'll be economically unviable once the lawsuits start flowing
Longterm that will be true if there is substantial competition between driverless car providers (since it requires very significant that won’t necessarily be the case).
Otherwise these companies will just keep their margins high and charge only slightly below what a car driven by a person costs.
So you mean like, "the whole point of self-driving taxis is that they are cheaper to run, ... and that's how they will compete?"
You're trying to convince yourself too hard that you disagree with the previous comment.
There will probably be a bit of both: using the margin to seriously undercut the taxis and ubers in order to drive them out, and then raise prices.
Why would you say that? I wasn’t trying that hard at all.
It just seemed that you were implying that they will be significantly cheaper for consumers which is not at all obvious at this point.
That's the process of "Enshittification" by Cory Doctorow. And it's blatantly obvious by your comment that we're in stage 1, "good to their users".... except people LOVE free shit. But no techbro gives shit away for free. This is 'buy-in' and training data.
It ONLY gets worse from here.
And 100 cars on the road is still 100 cars on the road, even if only carrying 100 people. It's a waste of energy, waste of resources, and climate-destroying by fact of all that asphalt and resources to make said cars... all so you don't have to ride in icky 'public transit', cause that's what the "poors" take.
If AV taxis are cheap then people are going to use them for all sorts of things they previously could not afford to use a taxi for.
And if they're expensive then they will cannibalize public transport for the benefit of the upper economic classes and the significant detriment of people of lesser means.
There is no way this turns into a net good.
Self driving cars are cheaper than regular taxis to run.
The incentives are aligned.
The whole point is that self driving cars will be cheaper than regular taxis.
This isn't some crazy complicated social media business plan. Instead the business plan is simply.
Costs of running taxis go down, therefore complete with regular taxis with lower prices.
So yes, this is all good for consumers.
And not everything can be refuted by referring to a pitty viral article that doesn't apply to the right industry.
> all so you don't have to ride in icky 'public transit
Cars aren't going away. There will be lots and lots of places that still use cars, for a very long time, regardless of how much additional public transit funding a couple cities add.
And yes, this means that cars self driving are a benefit.
Consumers like good products.
And driverless cars are a good product, as evidenced by the literally free taxi service that is just being given out to many people in SF right now.