Ban urban vehicles

[Ethel mermania]

You need to talk to uber and Lyft about driverless taxis being cheap. They are investing billions in the service, they intend on making fortunes, not giving it away.

Yeah, they're still paying off their investment. And probably some serious insurance for the cars which aren't as safe as future cars will be.

Every automated taxi trip will be paid for by credit card, which requires one, many of the poor are unbanked.

Or a prepaid card. Why would several competing companies ALL ignore that sector of the market (no credit card, or refuse to use a credit card). If those customers have cash, a company will find a way to serve them and get their money.

You have ZERO privacy in an automated car service, every trip you make has a recorded start and stop location and time stamp, and video of you in the car, all tied back to the credit card that not everyone has.

Here in NSW we have a card system for public transport. If you want discounts for age, disability or unemployment (and they're good discounts) you do have to register you card under your real name (eg by using a credit card to pay into the card). But you can also buy an anonymous card from a variety of outlets.

That's government. If even government caters to anonymity on public transport, why wouldn't one of the private operators?
For that matter, why wouldn't government? I never said the driverless electric taxis would be exclusively private sector.

In one sense my system offers MORE anonymity than private cars. Remember that there's a license plate front and back of your car, which if you're driving your own car uniquely identifies you. Not just to corporations or government ... to anybody.

As to video (and presumably audio) in the cars, yes that is a worry. I'll think about that, but at first blush it seems something that a trusted customer should be able to turn off. It's to prevent vandalism, right?

And to make sure nothing untoward happens in the cab, mugging, rape, vomiting, etc. If you try and turn the cameras off for a select group, you will hear cries of racism from all over this land.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Taxis are quite hygienic, also provide privacy (minus the driver) which is a virtue of cars which you forgot to mention.

Cars, unlike taxis, require a place to park at both ends of the journey. Taxis are better that way.

Taxis provide slightly less freedom in that they take time to arrive. Your car is ready when you are. BUT this wait time between booking and using the vehicle is insignificant for most people, who know to the nearest minute when they're going to leave, and could moreover bear a slight fee for booking early. AND the wait time would be minimal in cities if there were enough taxis.

Taxis give you a freedom cars cannot: you can call a taxi to wherever you are, and be driven home or somewhere else. You don't need to have your car parked nearby.

Taxis are on the whole slightly superior to privately owned cars, in the things that cars currently do. Better in some ways, worse in others, but on balance taxis are better.

But taxis also provide transport to poor people who can't afford to own a car. Taxis provide transport to disabled people who can't drive a car. Taxis can deliver goods, in fact almost any goods besides building components and factory machinery, without you the owner needing to drive the whole way.



Am I completely mad though? Taxis are so expensive!

Nope. Driverless electric taxis are going to be cheap. When they work properly, there will be enormous demand for them and the streets will be full of them. A big market means low prices (economies of scale yo). We may even have to limit their use with taxes!

Where that leaves you fossil-fuel-burning drive-it-yourself clunker is in the ditch. Sorry about that. But we're going to tax you right off the road. You pollute, you drive badly, and you leave the vehicle wherever you can for hours. Those things should be taxed!

Why would “self driving” electric cars have to be used as taxis?

Because travelling in your own self-driving car, you have to (a) park it somewhere, or (b) send it home.
Overhead. Unnecessary cost TO YOU, compared to releasing the car/taxi the moment you get where you're going.
You could order the taxi to park nearby or loiter, but of course that would cost you money
Why not just order another one when you're ready to leave?

You are mixing a bunch of ideas here. And currently taxis pollute just as much and drive just as “badly”.

And in case you have not realized urban parking is already expensive.

And how would these “self driving” taxis, even if we ever get them working be owned? By whom?

Stream of consciousness blah. I think I'll just pass that over as you taking time to get to the point.

Maybe private car owners leasing them out when not in use!

Yes! I have no problem with that. I didn't bother mentioning it, because I think in a market dominated by corporations I doubt a single-car operator would get much of a look in. Your car would basically be managed by a corporation while you're not using it, but you would get some return. And if you booked it correctly you'd get to use your own car when you wanted to. No problem with it.

This is not a Hobson’s choice.

And again one size fits all fits no one.

There are other issues with taxis as well. Taxis are still les hygienic because even if only one passenger owes them at a time, they are not cleaned in between passengers.

Yes that's an overhead. Not good for your single owner model though is it? A big company with a central depot could employ low cost labor to clean the cars. You don't want to do that.

Another big issue is storage. Many people store things they need in their cars, that would be extremely difficult to move from taxi to to taxi or store when not using a taxi. Things from extra clothes to medicine and medical supplies, to tools of trade. Not everyone is going to have a large enough locker at every location they frequent.

Well I hadn't thought of that. I store a spare pair of shoes and some shopping bags in the back of mine.

I guess it's a choice. Pay the extra for parking your own car, so you can keep whatever in the back. Or forgo that luxury so you can use a cheaper taxi.

Understand this. Driverless electric taxis will compete directly with privately-owned electric cars (driven or driverless) and my whole thesis is that the driverless electric taxis will win in the market. I never said my vision of the future would be enforced by law or encouraged by taxes.

I did imply that petrol-burning cars would be taxed to be noncompetitive. They're not so good now, electricity is pretty cheap.
And it's only in cities. When there's an alternative, city people will surely try to exclude the petrol-burners.

Again it is pretty simple, taxis work for some people in some cases, but not all people in all cases.

Also your seeming complete lack of concern for wiping out a considerable amount of net worth of the working class is disturbing.

Your concern is unfounded. When I talked about the potential for driverless electric cars to serve the poor in cities (who currently have no car at all) did you think I was "completely lacking in concern" for those slightly better off who own a car? They'd get cash for their clunker, in that distant future when driverless cars are so common that gas-guzzling swervers are literally banned from cities.

I estimate it's 2035 or so. All driverless won't happen quickly, but it will happen steadily. And when the day comes, banning the self-driving sort will be no more controversial than banning horses from the road. They'll be so rare that the objections of horse owners will be over-ridden.

YOUR concern for the people so poor they don't even own a car, is notably absent.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Taxis are the future of urban transport.

Taxis unlike private cars don't need places to park in the city.

Wtf NH? Are you completely mad? No. I just forgot to mention they're driverless, electric taxis.

I think I've seen this kind of thing in the RoboCop

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yeah, they're still paying off their investment. And probably some serious insurance for the cars which aren't as safe as future cars will be.



Or a prepaid card. Why would several competing companies ALL ignore that sector of the market (no credit card, or refuse to use a credit card). If those customers have cash, a company will find a way to serve them and get their money.




Here in NSW we have a card system for public transport. If you want discounts for age, disability or unemployment (and they're good discounts) you do have to register you card under your real name (eg by using a credit card to pay into the card). But you can also buy an anonymous card from a variety of outlets.

That's government. If even government caters to anonymity on public transport, why wouldn't one of the private operators?
For that matter, why wouldn't government? I never said the driverless electric taxis would be exclusively private sector.

In one sense my system offers MORE anonymity than private cars. Remember that there's a license plate front and back of your car, which if you're driving your own car uniquely identifies you. Not just to corporations or government ... to anybody.

As to video (and presumably audio) in the cars, yes that is a worry. I'll think about that, but at first blush it seems something that a trusted customer should be able to turn off. It's to prevent vandalism, right?

And to make sure nothing untoward happens in the cab, mugging, rape, vomiting, etc. If you try and turn the cameras off for a select group, you will hear cries of racism from all over this land.

Vomiting is a problem for (ordinary) taxis. Drivers try to extract an extra charge if that happens, but if none of the passengers will pay there's not much they can do. Threaten physical violence perhaps. Usually they just cuss out the passengers and drive away.

Except that a lot of passengers pay with a card (not you I guess). Some taxi companies here only accept card (so their drivers are never carrying money and aren't a target for robbery). Well if the passenger pays with a card they can receive a bill for cleaning up the vomit.

Getting to the point. How does a driverless taxi company recover money from a vomiter? I guess it could only be done with video and audio surveillance.

And yet, I imagine a customer rating system. The very first time you take a ride with that company (or an affiliate) the video would be on. But after a few trips with the same company (just a few days later if the taxis are the main means of transport) your rating would go up and you'd be trusted to ride the whole way with no surveillance. But you could also behave badly (eg obviously drunk) and the company would downrate you. Perhaps even to the extent of refusing to pick you up.

When I say no surveillance I mean a physical block you could pull down over the camera. When you're allowed to. Because of course you can't trust a camera to be off just because the little light is off. Audio is a bit more troubling. It always is!

Oh, about crimes committed in the taxi. This might be a matter of US law: is the inside of a car actually private property like a residence or business? It seems wrong to me that the owners of the car would be legally obliged to collect evidence of crimes happening in it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Taxis are the future of urban transport.

Taxis unlike private cars don't need places to park in the city.

Wtf NH? Are you completely mad? No. I just forgot to mention they're driverless, electric taxis.

I think I've seen this kind of thing in the RoboCop

You mean The Matrix.

"Stay off the Freeway. That's where it all started."

[Ethel mermania]

And to make sure nothing untoward happens in the cab, mugging, rape, vomiting, etc. If you try and turn the cameras off for a select group, you will hear cries of racism from all over this land.

Vomiting is a problem for (ordinary) taxis. Drivers try to extract an extra charge if that happens, but if none of the passengers will pay there's not much they can do. Threaten physical violence perhaps. Usually they just cuss out the passengers and drive away.

Except that a lot of passengers pay with a card (not you I guess). Some taxi companies here only accept card (so their drivers are never carrying money and aren't a target for robbery). Well if the passenger pays with a card they can receive a bill for cleaning up the vomit.

Getting to the point. How does a driverless taxi company recover money from a vomiter? I guess it could only be done with video and audio surveillance.

And yet, I imagine a customer rating system. The very first time you take a ride with that company (or an affiliate) the video would be on. But after a few trips with the same company (just a few days later if the taxis are the main means of transport) your rating would go up and you'd be trusted to ride the whole way with no surveillance. But you could also behave badly (eg obviously drunk) and the company would downrate you. Perhaps even to the extent of refusing to pick you up.

When I say no surveillance I mean a physical block you could pull down over the camera. When you're allowed to. Because of course you can't trust a camera to be off just because the little light is off. Audio is a bit more troubling. It always is!

Oh, about crimes committed in the taxi. This might be a matter of US law: is the inside of a car actually private property like a residence or business? It seems wrong to me that the owners of the car would be legally obliged to collect evidence of crimes happening in it.

Lyft and uber now only take credit cards. The money could be recovered by charging the credit card the vomiter used to pay for the fare, but that might lead to a messy consumer issue.

Remeber I build subways for a living, so I have a pretty good idea of what it costs and how long it takes. And in NYC subways are faster than cars to get around unless it's off hours. So it is rare you will find me in a cab. From my office downtown Manhattan, public transport to any location during rush hour is faster. The problem comes when you are not going hub and spoke, .going from one spoke end to another, and off hours. If we ran only daytime hours, we would be profitable, but we move a few billion passenger trips a year.

I only take a cab when I fly. Airports are prohibitively expensive around here to park. It's cheaper to shell out 200 round trip for a cab to the airport and back.

In US laws In a taxi, everything is in public and is not shielded from any kind of scrutiny. In a private car, its messy and tangled, as to what is "public" or private, and what rights a cop has to look in your car, or just sees in a glance. I would ask 10 defense attorneys, and I would expect 6 different answers.

[Novus America]

Why would “self driving” electric cars have to be used as taxis?

Because travelling in your own self-driving car, you have to (a) park it somewhere, or (b) send it home.
Overhead. Unnecessary cost TO YOU, compared to releasing the car/taxi the moment you get where you're going.
You could order the taxi to park nearby or loiter, but of course that would cost you money
Why not just order another one when you're ready to leave?

You are mixing a bunch of ideas here. And currently taxis pollute just as much and drive just as “badly”.

And in case you have not realized urban parking is already expensive.

And how would these “self driving” taxis, even if we ever get them working be owned? By whom?

Stream of consciousness blah. I think I'll just pass that over as you taking time to get to the point.

Maybe private car owners leasing them out when not in use!

Yes! I have no problem with that. I didn't bother mentioning it, because I think in a market dominated by corporations I doubt a single-car operator would get much of a look in. Your car would basically be managed by a corporation while you're not using it, but you would get some return. And if you booked it correctly you'd get to use your own car when you wanted to. No problem with it.

This is not a Hobson’s choice.

And again one size fits all fits no one.

There are other issues with taxis as well. Taxis are still les hygienic because even if only one passenger owes them at a time, they are not cleaned in between passengers.

Yes that's an overhead. Not good for your single owner model though is it? A big company with a central depot could employ low cost labor to clean the cars. You don't want to do that.

Another big issue is storage. Many people store things they need in their cars, that would be extremely difficult to move from taxi to to taxi or store when not using a taxi. Things from extra clothes to medicine and medical supplies, to tools of trade. Not everyone is going to have a large enough locker at every location they frequent.

Well I hadn't thought of that. I store a spare pair of shoes and some shopping bags in the back of mine.

I guess it's a choice. Pay the extra for parking your own car, so you can keep whatever in the back. Or forgo that luxury so you can use a cheaper taxi.

Understand this. Driverless electric taxis will compete directly with privately-owned electric cars (driven or driverless) and my whole thesis is that the driverless electric taxis will win in the market. I never said my vision of the future would be enforced by law or encouraged by taxes.

I did imply that petrol-burning cars would be taxed to be noncompetitive. They're not so good now, electricity is pretty cheap.
And it's only in cities. When there's an alternative, city people will surely try to exclude the petrol-burners.

Again it is pretty simple, taxis work for some people in some cases, but not all people in all cases.

Also your seeming complete lack of concern for wiping out a considerable amount of net worth of the working class is disturbing.

Your concern is unfounded. When I talked about the potential for driverless electric cars to serve the poor in cities (who currently have no car at all) did you think I was "completely lacking in concern" for those slightly better off who own a car? They'd get cash for their clunker, in that distant future when driverless cars are so common that gas-guzzling swervers are literally banned from cities.

I estimate it's 2035 or so. All driverless won't happen quickly, but it will happen steadily. And when the day comes, banning the self-driving sort will be no more controversial than banning horses from the road. They'll be so rare that the objections of horse owners will be over-ridden.

YOUR concern for the people so poor they don't even own a car, is notably absent.

Some people will prefer to use a taxi for the reasons you noted. Some people will prefer private cars for the reasons I did.
But one or the other does not have to “win out” as they can coexists and are not fungible.

However if the taxis are owned by a big company rather than leased from private owners (possibly with a big company actually dispatching them but giving the owners a cut which is fine) that would be a disaster. It would greatly worsen wealth inequality.

So we should ENCOURAGE private ownership, because privately owned cars that can be sent out as taxis when the owner is not using them is the best of both worlds.

And another thing is demand varies so you are still going to have to store the cars somewhere during allow demand times. If a town has demand for 1,000 on Friday 1600 to 2100 but demand for only 10 say Monday morning 0200 to 0400 then 990 have to be parked during those hours.
Why not use existing driveways for that?

The future is or should be as many people as possible owning their own cars and deploying them as taxis when not using them. Much better than evil Silicon Valley oligarchs owning all of them which would be a nightmare.

And I do car about the poor, which is why I want car ownership distributed widely not entirely in the hands of a few tech bros.
My system is the best compromise.

The poor who do own cars make extra money deploying them as taxis and the poor who do not can rent them as taxis from those who do.

But the better solution is attrition over slamming the poor and middle class with taxes to enrich Silicon Valley.

We should ban the importation of new combustion engines, and tax new car combustion car sales while giving subsidies to the poor so they can buy electrics.

[Meremos Alloriumenion]

That would be a major inconvenience. Especially if you live in a big city and don't want to spend hours waiting for buses and trains.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That would be a major inconvenience. Especially if you live in a big city and don't want to spend hours waiting for buses and trains.

This thread is 12 days old. That's still allowed, but go much further back in history and you will be committing A Gravedig.

It's not worth it just to get your post count up. Which by the way, doesn't matter to anyone.

[The Southern Mountains]

That would be a major inconvenience. Especially if you live in a big city and don't want to spend hours waiting for buses and trains.

If you live in a major city, you won't be waiting 'hours' for buses and trains.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Im not reading the OP because I don't want to.
But banning cars would be horrible where I live. There is no public transit, there is no sidewalks, the city is massive, and most of us live many miles from our work places, stores, etc. The entire city would have to be ripped down and rebuilt.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Im not reading the OP because I don't want to.
But banning cars would be horrible where I live. There is no public transit, there is no sidewalks, the city is massive, and most of us live many miles from our work places, stores, etc. The entire city would have to be ripped down and rebuilt.

I think it's pretty much assumed that very good public transport would be built before actually banning the cars.

No sidewalks? Seriously?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Im not reading the OP because I don't want to.
But banning cars would be horrible where I live. There is no public transit, there is no sidewalks, the city is massive, and most of us live many miles from our work places, stores, etc. The entire city would have to be ripped down and rebuilt.

I think it's pretty much assumed that very good public transport would be built before actually banning the cars.

No sidewalks? Seriously?

very infrequently, primarily only downtown, specifically where the actual shops are. And even then you walk along the side of the road all other places.

[Katganistan]

The city of Shenzhen has turned all its busses electric, that can be done - fine with that. However, sure, but still effective public transport removes the need for private vehicles.

Get rid of them, though god knows the howls of protest will be immense.

Well that's your problem. Public transport isn't. Takes me ten minutes to drive to work, and forty if I take the bus.

And I can't get to my brother's house in another state via public transortation, because there isn't a train station near his home and I would then have to take a taxi god knows how far?

Nope. Keeping my car, thanks.

[Katganistan]

I think you're forgetting a rather large part of private vehicles. That is privately-owned vehicles used to transport goods, and privately-owned vehicles used by professionals to move their equipment. Do you think a plumber can transport his tools and stuff on a tram?

That's not to dismiss all solutions - public electric vans for subsidised rental or leasing. There's solutions. Also more local services, we have plumbers.

And how do plumbers, and their associated equipment get to your home?
How about people who are perfectly content to do their own gardening, or plumbing? How do they transport things home?
Grocery shopping?

[Bombadil]

The city of Shenzhen has turned all its busses electric, that can be done - fine with that. However, sure, but still effective public transport removes the need for private vehicles.

Get rid of them, though god knows the howls of protest will be immense.

Well that's your problem. Public transport isn't. Takes me ten minutes to drive to work, and forty if I take the bus.

And I can't get to my brother's house in another state via public transortation, because there isn't a train station near his home and I would then have to take a taxi god knows how far?

Nope. Keeping my car, thanks.

Why is the status quo a barrier to change? How stubbornly nonsensical.

[Galloism]

Well that's your problem. Public transport isn't. Takes me ten minutes to drive to work, and forty if I take the bus.

And I can't get to my brother's house in another state via public transortation, because there isn't a train station near his home and I would then have to take a taxi god knows how far?

Nope. Keeping my car, thanks.

Why is the status quo a barrier to change? How stubbornly nonsensical.

It’s also notable that, in the current timeframe, personal vehicles are a hell of a lot safer than public transit.

The fact that New York is digging mass graves may be in a large part influenced by it having arguably the best public transit system in the entire United States. Cities with urban sprawl and private vehicles aren’t faring near as badly.

[Czechostan]

While I would love to see a shift away from car-based transportation, that's very difficult to imagine here in the US, where so much was built with cars in mind. Sprawled out communities, low population density, suburbanization, it would take a lot to get cities to the point where they could feasibly ban cars.

[Asian Tourists]

A ban on vehicles seems like a narrow-sighted solution rather than an actual solution for the long run.

[Bombadil]

Why is the status quo a barrier to change? How stubbornly nonsensical.

It’s also notable that, in the current timeframe, personal vehicles are a hell of a lot safer than public transit.

The fact that New York is digging mass graves may be in a large part influenced by it having arguably the best public transit system in the entire United States. Cities with urban sprawl and private vehicles aren’t faring near as badly.

HK has among the best mass transits in the world.. I'm happy to have electric auto pods for more bespoke travel, still I think city centres can remain car free.

[Galloism]

It’s also notable that, in the current timeframe, personal vehicles are a hell of a lot safer than public transit.

The fact that New York is digging mass graves may be in a large part influenced by it having arguably the best public transit system in the entire United States. Cities with urban sprawl and private vehicles aren’t faring near as badly.

HK has among the best mass transits in the world.. I'm happy to have electric auto pods for more bespoke travel, still I think city centres can remain car free.

You have a culture of mask usage too, and you bullied your government into shutting things down. You might just have a better culture than us.

I would say make them Gad/diesel/petroleum car free.

[Novus America]

It’s also notable that, in the current timeframe, personal vehicles are a hell of a lot safer than public transit.

The fact that New York is digging mass graves may be in a large part influenced by it having arguably the best public transit system in the entire United States. Cities with urban sprawl and private vehicles aren’t faring near as badly.

HK has among the best mass transits in the world.. I'm happy to have electric auto pods for more bespoke travel, still I think city centres can remain car free.

Maybe some can. Again it is important to note each city is different in its culture, structure and transportation needs. Cars are a vital part of US culture. And our urban areas more built around them, (must places though we have handful of car free areas) something with both advantages and disadvantages.

[Novus America]

HK has among the best mass transits in the world.. I'm happy to have electric auto pods for more bespoke travel, still I think city centres can remain car free.

You have a culture of mask usage too, and you bullied your government into shutting things down. You might just have a better culture than us.

I would say make them Gad/diesel/petroleum car free.

I can get behind that, given time. I think the long term goal should be all cars being electric or at least plug in hybrids, and then they could be required to be in electric only mode in densely populated areas.

[Cisairse]

Im not reading the OP because I don't want to.
But banning cars would be horrible where I live. There is no public transit, there is no sidewalks, the city is massive, and most of us live many miles from our work places, stores, etc. The entire city would have to be ripped down and rebuilt.

>no public transit
>miles from your place of work
>no sidewalks

You don't live in a city.

[Bombadil]

Im not reading the OP because I don't want to.
But banning cars would be horrible where I live. There is no public transit, there is no sidewalks, the city is massive, and most of us live many miles from our work places, stores, etc. The entire city would have to be ripped down and rebuilt.

>no public transit
>miles from your place of work
>no sidewalks

You don't live in a city.

Could well be LA..