611–620 of 709 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe where you live. There's a 0% chance human driving will be banned in America until we are all well passed driving age.
It wont be banned, it will just cost much more to insure (since it will be directly tied to risk, computers already drive better than humans). If you drive manually, you will need to pay for the privilege.
I'll never understand why we're hell-bent on making sure people are driving around in cars. Instead of solving the problem of commuting by not having cars and by building better, we're just making commuting better and more optimized. It's so stupid. We should be making it so that you don't have to commute, not that you can do more work while you commute or w/e.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea so you just go do those things. I'm not sure what this has to do with driving or commuting to a job on the highway?
How do you do those things without driving? Are you assuming everyone has access to effective and efficient public transportation?
No.... I'm assuming we build that and design cities to be walkable and bike-able instead of just optimizing for car traffic.
We can just build effective and efficient public transportation, maintain some of our current roads (so you can still have a car) and build cities and towns to be walkable and bike-able.
> How do you do those things without driving?
Idk. How do people all over the world do it today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Driving is faster It's not, if you build correctly. It's only "faster" when you spread things out into suburbia. Is it faster for you to get in your car and drive next door or to just walk over there? Of course its faster to walk. Walking is faster. You can't just say "driving is faster" without qualifications. > your car is available virtually 24/7 So are your legs. Walk and bike. I don't see the relevance of many…
My work brings me into contact with many high net worth individuals in Manhattan. They all take cars most of the time. It is faster than the subway, usually, and even when it isn't you can get more done in the car. Even in the U.S.' most dense area driving is usually faster, and it is certainly more pleasant/productive. Edit: I'll note that many of them will take the subway during rush hour if both ends of the trip a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is faster, your car is available virtually 24/7, you own(many animals like owning things) your car, you can personalize your car - in short, cars are personal, commuting is public. Also time is money.
> Driving is faster It's not, if you build correctly. It's only "faster" when you spread things out into suburbia. Is it faster for you to get in your car and drive next door or to just walk over there? Of course its faster to walk. Walking is faster. You can't just say "driving is faster" without qualifications. > your car is available virtually 24/7 So are your legs. Walk and bike. I don't see the relevance of many…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don’t justify the massive subsidies. Sleepers have had a little resurgence over the last year or two, but motorail demand is low and costs are high. Demand at market price is even lower. With a good motorway network and reliable cars people just aren’t willing to spend 5 times the price to go on a train. Even they were, it’s not sustainable. Far better to fly or train to a remote city and hire a car on a…
Isn't the existence of a good motorway network also a massive subsidy to motorists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Driving is faster It's not, if you build correctly. It's only "faster" when you spread things out into suburbia. Is it faster for you to get in your car and drive next door or to just walk over there? Of course its faster to walk. Walking is faster. You can't just say "driving is faster" without qualifications. > your car is available virtually 24/7 So are your legs. Walk and bike. I don't see the relevance of many…
Not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Call it classism but some people can afford houses and want to be secluded from other people, so to do that they purchase a house they can afford (aka. not in the city or close to a train/subway station) and the only way for them to get to work after that is via a car.
Here's a walkable and bike-able neighborhood in Columbus. There's a mix of houses, businesses, and apartments (it's mostly single-family homes). https://api.trekaroo.com/system/photos/229733/original/11943...
Why can't we just build more of that?
Sure some people can live in the middle of nowhere and take their car everywhere, but you're crazy to think that most people can afford to do that. It's just not going to work. We see it fracturing right now.
-edit-
But anyway, we don't really have options now and the things we are doing are completely stupid. There's no way we can just keep building suburbs, strip malls, and highways and have everybody drive a car and it's dumb to even want to do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don’t justify the massive subsidies. Sleepers have had a little resurgence over the last year or two, but motorail demand is low and costs are high. Demand at market price is even lower. With a good motorway network and reliable cars people just aren’t willing to spend 5 times the price to go on a train. Even they were, it’s not sustainable. Far better to fly or train to a remote city and hire a car on a…
Isn't the existence of a good motorway network also a massive subsidy to motorists?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Customers will pay more if they think they're getting more in return. If they can increase the rental prices without extra features, then they can charge even more for extra features. Ultimately it comes down to the business's own calculus of costs, prices, and demand.
So it comes down to the customers not having the knowlege of what they are getting. Sell something without the extra costs and will people pay more? In the housing sector in the UK that's certainly not the case -- people didn't value freehold over leasehold until lots of media coverage, despite the information being right there for all to see. In a situation where there's a monopoly/cartel, the consumer that actually…
In the above comment you seemed to suggest that companies would already be charging more for rental cars if they could.
So I pointed out that consumers might be willing to pay more for a rental in return for a higher perceived value in the form of extra features being enabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don’t justify the massive subsidies. Sleepers have had a little resurgence over the last year or two, but motorail demand is low and costs are high. Demand at market price is even lower. With a good motorway network and reliable cars people just aren’t willing to spend 5 times the price to go on a train. Even they were, it’s not sustainable. Far better to fly or train to a remote city and hire a car on a…
I guess I'm surprised and dismayed that there isn't more of a market for it. Hire cars are a bland, pedestrian experience, and I'm sure quite many people would rather drive their own interesting car on interesting roads. Not everything needs to be a race to the bottom — there are still people who pay a premium for a better experience. I would think also that government subsidies for this kind of service are justified…
