• kciwsnurb@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Normal taxis benefit both the elderly and people with disabilities like you said right now. So why bother with robotaxis?

      • kciwsnurb@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        And how do you think robotaxis address all these issues (high fare, poor coverage, limited operating hours)?

          • kciwsnurb@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 years ago

            If the operating cost is as low as you said, why do you think these robotaxi companies wouldn’t eventually charge similar fare to normal taxis given that (1) the market can bear such fare now and (2) the reduced operating cost would give them higher profit margins?

            Frankly, I’m not convinced yet that the operating cost is that much lower. Covering more areas and operating almost 24 hours a day sound like more fleet and more frequent maintenance to me. Wouldn’t these increase the operating cost, and thus, fare? Not to mention paying the engineers to maintain the software/AI system. I assume engineers are much more expensive than drivers.

              • kciwsnurb@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                I agree with what you said about price fixing and competition. But why do you think multiple robotaxi companies will survive in the (long) future? We know that’s not what happened with Uber/Airbnb that killed their competitors with predatory pricing. How do you know this time it would be different?

                Thanks for the detailed cost breakdown. You seem to have thought about this deeply. But I don’t see labour cost (e.g., engineers) in the breakdown. Why did you not include it?

                I agree that the battery cost (and thus operating cost) would go down, but again I’m not convinced it would mean lower fare because that’s not what usually happens. I also agree these companies know how much money will be made on self-driving systems, which is exactly why I think they would aim for a monopoly, and the one surviving would charge passengers as high as it can.

                In you and your wife’s case, is using a normal taxi 5-6 times not cheaper than the second vehicle cost?

                Anyway, from what you wrote, it seems the biggest issue here is cost/fare. In that case, public transit, which we already have and benefits all people (including both the elderly and people with disabilities), would be a better solution than any taxi.