> What about people in wheelchairs who live in the countryside and prefer to be dropped off at their doorstep?
The important thing is to build a system that works for wide masses - even replacing half of individual car transit by rail and bus works wonders for space consumption [1]. The more complex cases - rural people, mostly - can be dealt with later on, e.g. by providing something like a "phone bus" service. Here in Germany, we're experimenting with on-demand buses [3]: they serve the existing station network, but unlike the usual village buses that run every two hours or worse, you can order them like a taxi and use your existing public transport ticket.
Saying "no" by default because a system is not entirely perfect at the beginning is a destructive discussion tactic that only serves those in power.
> Or someone who can’t drive themself but could use an autonomous car or taxi to go to the hospital in an emergency situation (without waiting a while for the next open train)?
Someone in an emergency situation should just be able to call an ambulance. That's what they exist for. Ideally, someone in an emergency situation should also not have to fear going bankrupt (to the tune that this scenario has become a meme in itself [2]).
> Saying "no" by default because a system is not entirely perfect at the beginning is a destructive discussion tactic that only serves those in power.
Who are these people in power, and what are their goals? I don’t see what this has to do with my comment—I’m not arguing against trains, merely in support of autonomous vehicles, in areas where they might be useful, like far away from cities.
Mining, auto, and energy stocks go vroom vroom. Put tax money in roads and stocks go up. Also when you have a multi trillion dollar military to steal oil for chevron it's a handy way of knowing when the stocks are going to change.
Then there's good old fashioned malice. Look at who used to live or run businesses where highways are now.
Times are a changing a bit these days. Weirdly a bunch of companies on that list are the ones that would love having a 24/7 video and lidar feed of everyone anywhere near a public space.
The important thing is to build a system that works for wide masses - even replacing half of individual car transit by rail and bus works wonders for space consumption [1]. The more complex cases - rural people, mostly - can be dealt with later on, e.g. by providing something like a "phone bus" service. Here in Germany, we're experimenting with on-demand buses [3]: they serve the existing station network, but unlike the usual village buses that run every two hours or worse, you can order them like a taxi and use your existing public transport ticket.
Saying "no" by default because a system is not entirely perfect at the beginning is a destructive discussion tactic that only serves those in power.
> Or someone who can’t drive themself but could use an autonomous car or taxi to go to the hospital in an emergency situation (without waiting a while for the next open train)?
Someone in an emergency situation should just be able to call an ambulance. That's what they exist for. Ideally, someone in an emergency situation should also not have to fear going bankrupt (to the tune that this scenario has become a meme in itself [2]).
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparative-efficiency-o...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/utbn5z/a_man_k...
[3] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/landkreismuenchen/landk...