SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://gizmodo.com/uber-and-lyft-have-a-hot-new-idea-for-screwing-over-cit-1822661060
The arrival of autonomous vehicles is an inevitability, so it makes sense that before mass adoption hits, companies like Lyft and Uber would want to band together to determine what our self-driving future will look like. Sounds pretty harmless, right?
Well, not so fast, because a new pledge by 15 big-name transportation companies seems designed to screw over city-dwellers who want to ride in their own self-driving cars. Item #10 of the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities, co-signed yesterday by Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, and Didi Chuxing (China's largest ride-sharing service), reads as follows:
10. WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS.
Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.
Translation: These companies want to make it illegal for individuals to use privately owned self-driving cars in big cities, effectively giving the signatories control of our autonomous streets.
See the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities site for details on their principles, which are enumerated here:
- We plan our cities and their mobility together.
- We prioritize people over vehicles.
- We support the shared and efficient use of vehicles, lanes, curbs, and land.
- We engage with stakeholders.
- We promote equity.
- We lead the transition towards a zero-emission future and renewable energy.
- We support fair user fees across all modes.
- We aim for public benefits via open data.
- We work towards integration and seamless connectivity.
- We support that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in dense urban areas should be operated only in shared fleets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @09:48PM
That's not a completely horrible idea.
Get people into fewer vehicles--or make them pay for the "convenience" of a private car.
On the freeways in SoCal, we have HOV lanes (High-occupancy vehicle).
You need to have X number of people in the car to use it.
(Over time, that number has gone up.)
Some folks gather near an on ramp and get a free ride to/from work.
This seems even more egalitarian than the charge-them-money thing that London and Paris are doing.
Public transport is a horrible experience
Your experience and mine are different.
(I'm not working any more.)
the threats of terrorism on the system, which the government like to remind us is now "very high"
You have a greater chance of getting hit by lightning than being zapped by a "terrorist".
If they put the money they piss away on "terrorism" into dealing with coronary artery disease, they'd get a lot more bang for the buck.
public transport [...] is unreliable
Your experience and mine are different.
trains are better in this sense, because they have specific arrival and departure times
My bus system prints a schedule and keeps pretty close to it.
Sometimes a bus has to wait at a stop a minute or so in order to not get to the next stop too soon.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]