Given India's infrastructure and assuming it will be not a 100% driverless cars , this is not an issue indian legislators need to worry about. At least until India can achieve a 100% literacy rate and assure driving licenses given out are genuine.
India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
41–50 of 124 posts
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#42human costs are so cheap there.. the ROI threshold is much more challenging to achieve
In a darker aspect, it seems the gov’t values the lives of their citizens so little that they can’t be afforded modern technological gains. The rich of India will sure experience it, as they travel abroad.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#43"We won't allow any technology that takes away jobs. In a country where you have unemployment, you can't have a technology that ends up taking people's jobs" I guess we should spin up the weaving looms when the next recession hits?
Oh, so letting an economy go into free-fall recession is good for people? Once self-driving cars hit, the switch will be immediate and massive . I would predict 10% to 90% penetration in probably less than 12 months--the limitation will simply be building the cars fast enough. That's a lot of people suddenly with no income. Protecting people against that disruption for 50 years? Probably a bad idea. Protecting people…
12 months? Perhaps for taxis and private hire vehicles, but not for the population as a whole. In the first year, perhaps 10% penetration, but more likely 2-5%, as for most it will be a premium feature. I'd say 5-10 years for normal models to get full self driving capability.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question -- why not? What makes this a bad idea?
Because automated weaving makes clothes a lot cheaper. Put another way, when workers become more efficient -- one factory worker able to control many weaving machines, or a relatively small group of programmers able to control many cars -- people's standard of living increases. Maybe you're willing to pay more for clothes, or transportation, or any one thing. But paying more for all of the things that have gotten che…
Even more radically, you might as well just give everybody a universal basic income instead of heading back for a pre-industrialized way of life (though the Amish people seem to like it?!).
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#45I find this discussion pointless as driverless cars that can drive on Indian roads are a long way from becoming a reality.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#46I find this discussion pointless as driverless cars that can drive on Indian roads are a long way from becoming a reality.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, so letting an economy go into free-fall recession is good for people? Once self-driving cars hit, the switch will be immediate and massive . I would predict 10% to 90% penetration in probably less than 12 months--the limitation will simply be building the cars fast enough. That's a lot of people suddenly with no income. Protecting people against that disruption for 50 years? Probably a bad idea. Protecting people…
"Once self-driving cars hit, the switch will be immediate and massive. I would predict 10% to 90% penetration in probably less than 12 months--the limitation will simply be building the cars fast enough. That's a lot of people suddenly with no income." It will probably take 12 months just to form the exploratory committee that will form the actual committee that will even begin to consider legalizing fully driverless…
If we had less rules, we could make it happen. More industry standard regulation, then things could evolve much more naturally and not have to be lobbied for all the time.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question -- why not? What makes this a bad idea?
Because it's busywork, and it's wasting all those peoples' time. It's strictly inferior to letting a few workers use machinery to do the job, while paying the rest of the workers to sit around idle, because when using machinery you can rapidly increase output if required and the idle workers have the option to find something more useful to do.
Where do I sign up to be one of the idle workers?
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#49"We won't allow any technology that takes away jobs. In a country where you have unemployment, you can't have a technology that ends up taking people's jobs" I guess we should spin up the weaving looms when the next recession hits?
Serious question -- why not? What makes this a bad idea?
If you do this, you'd also logically have to ban imports or tax them at an extremely high rate.
By banning any sort of technology, you're indirectly increasing the costs of domestically placed goods, by increasing the costs of production.
Re: India will ban driverless cars in order to protect jobs
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, so letting an economy go into free-fall recession is good for people? Once self-driving cars hit, the switch will be immediate and massive . I would predict 10% to 90% penetration in probably less than 12 months--the limitation will simply be building the cars fast enough. That's a lot of people suddenly with no income. Protecting people against that disruption for 50 years? Probably a bad idea. Protecting people…
People are also it's beneficiaries
Problem is, the beneficiaries and the victims are often different people.