306
Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse
(www.sfchronicle.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
306 points (91.1% liked)
Technology
59424 readers
3379 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And yet I still wouldn't be able to get to where I need to be without numerous changes and all the other downsides you are conveniently ignoring.
My solar panels.
When my solar panels won't be enough, the electricity from my supplier is 100% green energy sources (mostly solar and wind is my understanding)
Yes it does. Of course it fucking does. If it didn't you wouldn't have asked how I charge my car and we'd all be using steam still.
You are rapidly losing credibility with this nonsense and off topic gibberish.
The aforementioned crackheads. I've literally seen violent crime whilst taking the train before. I've had idiots approaching me (and others on the carriageway, I wasn't singled out) begging me for money, or food or asking if I want to buy or sell drugs. I even saw one moron hit the emergency stop on a train because he wanted a cigarette and the train wasn't stopping soon enough for him.
Except it can't. It won't ever match the comfort of my car and the fact I can go directly from where I am to where I want to be in the vast majority of cases. Unless you are literally going to build a rail track or a bus route from my house to everywhere I want to go (which is absolutely the case for roads in the vast majority of cases) then it will not compete. It just won't.
Lucky you. I'm very happy for you.
And you're completely ignoring the core points I'm making and going off on irrelevant tangents. Feel free to actually start reading what I wrote at any time.
I'll make the point one last time: It's not a question of investment as investment won't fix the inherent downsides of public transport which private cars do not suffer from
My car is clean, safe, comfortable, I get to choose the company I keep, and I can get directly to where I want to be in one go. Public transport, whilst I concede it has some advantages (something which you cannot do for the car for some reason) simply cannot compete. It's not "lobbying" or "propaganda", it's the simple fact that the private car has significant advantages over the alternative, which is the real reason that people are choosing it.
If you reply with irrelevant off topic nonsense again, I shall ignore you. I don't mind debating this but when you reply with the mindless drivel that you have been and basically ignoring the points made, I won't waste my time any further.
It's so easy to make things sound dumb when you remove context. Energy is energy. If you spend more to do the same amount of work, that means it's less efficient. If the measure of productivity is people moved, trains are more efficient. It doesn't matter what form the energy is generated from, it can all be measured as energy.
I'm done. You're purposefully engaging in bad faith argument tactics.
I'm doing nothing of the sort.
You're the one that tried to reframe the argument around energy usage when it was originally "public transport would be universally better if we just invested more". An argument which is fundamentally flawed, which I have proved is fundamentally flawed and you have no response to.
You simply cannot acknowledge that there are tangible benefits and advantages to private transport. You have not conceded or even acknowledged a single point which I made where cars clearly have an advantage.
All of you've done is repeatedly ignore all the points I've made, shifted your argument from investment to energy use for some reason, pulled out one paragraph to which I was calling out your irrelevant argument shift, and then somehow cried about it and said you don't want to play anymore because you simply have no response to facts presented.
THAT is bad faith argument. I hope the irony of this isn't lost on you.
Reframe it? Efficiency was one of the first things I mentioned. Most modern trains are electric, just like your car. Their usually still diesel in the US because we haven't invested anything in the infrastructure in decades.
The benefit is point-to-point travel, but good public transport can do that too, especially with things like bike rental and stuff. Cars make it worse, if not impossible though because we have to spend at least as much space for every business on parking. Most places literally have minimum parking laws, where some estimate of maximum occupancy is used for requiring parking spaces. Get rid of cars and we can have places a lot closer so public transport stops will be closer to where you want to go.
I guess there's also the benefit of never interacting with anyone, though I'd personally say that's a negative. I think a lack of interaction with people who live in the same area as you with similar problems to you has been a major detriment to the US. It's part of why things are so polarized. People sit alone at home, alone traveling to work, mostly alone at work, and then back. Additionally, denser spaces and public transport allow for third places to succeed. They can't exist in a suburb hell scape.
Lol