XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net
In article ,
droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article ,
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
> > I don't take taxis because they're expensive and have long delays for
> > pickup in my sprawled city. The supply of taxis is artificially held
> > low to make the driver's pay a living wage, and to allow adequate
> > maintenance on the vehicles.
>
> You're supporting my point. All the reasons a taxi is expensive now
> evaporate the day you have a technology that essentially makes *every*
> car a taxi. Stop thinking of the world you live in and start thinking
> of the "sci-fi" world of tomorrow that is full of self-driving cars.
>
> > Tracking user-caused damage (eg bar barf) might require a membership,
> > so the model might be closer to the car-share companies than to taxis.
> > Some of the limited-supply cab drivers avoid bar closing, because the
> > nuisance and clean-up doesn't pay them enough.
>
> Few of the social issues change with any new technology, which is
> something many sci-fi authors don't get.
And yet you are jumping up and down and saying that "self-driving cars
will so change the social issues that lead people to prefer individually
owned personal cars that stay where we left them".
> So, yes, there will be those
> sorts of issues to deal with in a world with self-driving cars, just as
> they exist to be dealt with today. Regardless, the technology makes
> possible *more* solutions than are available without it.
>
> > Most cities have micro-rent companies or co-ops that let you call up
> > an app that tells you where the last user left the car. But you still
> > have to walk to that car, which makes it as inconvenient as a bus, and
> > unworkable for suburbanites. It also doesn't support daily commutes
> > where the vehicles all start in the suburbs and get left downtown.
>
> And? We have dumb car share and bike share programs where I live that
> are like that, too. Smarter people have smarter solutions. My
> solutions often involve fractals because I like them to scale; I don't
> think I've ever met an urban planner who knows what fractals even are!
>
> > >To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
> > >lowering the cost. Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
> > >shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
> > >chauffeured vehicle. It makes you pause to think about what is going to
> > >be in it for the car makers.
> >
> > What was in it for the car makers to stretch lifetimes from 5 years to
> > 20? Detroit ignored that market shift and the Japanese took over.
> > There is more than one car company.
>
> People do the math, even if somewhat imperfectly. So, yes, people flock
> to the car company that gives them something that better meets their
> needs, self-driving or otherwise. But what history has shown is that
> such advances are seldom pushed by the entrenched players. How the
> self-driving car *actually* comes to market is likely going to be a
> complex and convoluted story. We'd all likely be better off just
> switching out the highway infrastructure for rails. :-)
>
> So while self-driving cars are definitely possible, my point remains
> that they'll be ushered in surrounded by a cloud of changes to the way
> the world works. Some of those changes will be easy to predict, and
> some with be complete surprises. It's just outright *wrong* if all you
> do is apply today's thinking to a world where a fanciful technology is
> commonplace.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
