XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: sna6345@gmail.com   
      
   "J. Clarke"  wrote in message   
   news:MPG.2d3eca10856734eb98a38c@news.newsguy.com...   
   > In article ,   
   > ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...   
   >>   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  "J. Clarke"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > In article ,   
   >> > ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...   
   >> > >   
   >> > > In article ,   
   >> > >  "Rod Speed"  wrote:   
   >> > >   
   >> > > > >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot   
   >> > > > >> drivers instead of human drivers, which makes them   
   >> > > > >> cheaper, so people will be better able to afford them.   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > That isnt clear compared with driving the car yourself.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > One thing that makes them cheaper is that one car can suffice for   
   >> > > several households more readily than with ordinary cars. As with a   
   >> > > taxi.   
   >> >   
   >> > Why does a self-driving car "suffice for several households more   
   >> > readily   
   >> > than with ordinary cars"?   
   >>   
   >> Because the self-driving car can go to where it is currently wanted   
   >> without requiring a human to go with it.   
   >   
   > Where it is currently wanted is where I am.   
   >   
   >> Cars, other than taxis, are   
   >> used for much less than 24 hours a day. A self-driving car can come   
   >> closer.   
   >   
   > So?  I need it now, not after it drives itself from the other end of   
   > nowhere.   
   >   
   >> > A taxi does _not_ "suffice for several   
   >> > households" except in areas where there is high enough population   
   >> > density to support mass-transit or the distances are short enough and   
   >> > the climate mild enough that walking or cycling is a viable way of   
   >> > getting to work.   
   >>   
   >> I don't follow that.   
   >   
   > Why am I not surprised?   
   >   
   >> Taxis are expensive because they need drivers (and   
   >> because cities restrict the number).   
   >   
   > The cost is irrelevant.  Taxis are only useful as a supplement to mass-   
   > transit and as a backup.   
      
   That is not correct.   
      
   If the population density is too low to   
   > support mass transit then taxis are simply not used.   
      
   And neither is that. There are plenty of places which have   
   no mass transit at all that do have taxis.   
      
   I have never seen   
   > a taxi in my neighborhood.  Nobody in suburban or rural America uses   
   > taxis as a substitute for private vehicles.   
      
   Bullshit.   
      
   >> But if you use taxis instead of   
   >> owner occupied cars, the number of vehicles required is substantially   
   >> less, since you only need as many taxis as the largest number of cars   
   >> that would ever be in use at one time.   
   >   
   > You ignore transit time.  You need as many as the largest number of cars   
   > that would be in use at one time plus the number that would be in   
   > transit to the next pickup.   
   >   
   > Further, you have a different definition of "in use" from most people   
   > who own cars.  My car is "in use" sitting in the driveway--it has a   
   > bunch of stuff in it that I use on a regular basis that I would have to   
   > remove and store every time I got out if the car was shared.  Most   
   > people leave personal possessions in their cars that they do not need at   
   > a particular location, hence the car is "in use" for purposes other than   
   > moving one from one place to another.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)