> Other opponents like the San Francisco Taxi Workers Alliance and the Alliance for Independent Workers have protested the spread of robotaxis, which they say will eliminate the need for taxi and ride-hail drivers.
Ummm… that’s clearly the point. What’s the controversial bit? Stable owners decried that house and buggy drivers were being competed by cars and driving them out of business. I’d much rather have safer streets because taxis are ever vigilant rather than be in an Uber with a driver boasting about how he figured out how to drive 18 hours a day and gets almost no sleep.
Sorry. You have regulations you can think of that prevent accidents by professional drivers? Trucking is already insanely regulated and still sees all sorts of corner cutting and safety violations. And even in ostensibly safe companies, accidents happen. It’s near impossible to simultaneously compete on cost and have safety - squeezing margins is at odds with following the rules (and that’s assuming a huge leap that the rules actually are helpful - very often no analysis is done on the ROI of any particular investment).
No I'm specifically addressing OPs point about drivers pulling 14 hour shifts - that's easily regulated everywhere. Anything beyond that is your interpretation.
>>It’s near impossible to simultaneously compete on cost and have safety
....airlines exist and compete on cost with extremely stringent safety requirements?
That regulations should be strict and they should be followed strictly. If you live somewhere where they are not enforced then that's not a problem of regulation. But I also don't know why we moved onto this topic from me saying that robotaxis shouldn't be allowed. I got the impression that the argument was that they should because they are competing against overworked Uber drivers pulling 14 hour shifts - to which I'll say again that Uber drivers doing 14 hour shifts isn't some unmovable law of the universe, it can and should be prevented.
I find it interesting how on HN is verboten to even suggest that maybe some innovation pushed on us and our cities by these companies isn't actually great and isn't the same as progress of humanity. It's just shit tech used to make some techbros money at the cost of making our cities worse. But apparently that's a "luddite" view now?
What's your basis for the conclusion that it's "shit tech"? Have you tried riding in one? I've found it to be an incredible product, like using the iPhone for the first time. There's one lady who's posted a lot of YouTube videos of Waymo. She's taken over 500 rides. So there are clearly people who get a lot of value out of it.
Also, no one is making money off self driving tech any time soon, people have been working on it for more than a decade and it costs billions. It might be another decade before it is profitable.
Then there is this lady who highlights fundamental issues with the way these vehicles operate. This isn't a teething problem that will be resolved with an OTA - it shows the tech isn't ready to be used on public streets and probably shouldn't ever be.
Ummm… that’s clearly the point. What’s the controversial bit? Stable owners decried that house and buggy drivers were being competed by cars and driving them out of business. I’d much rather have safer streets because taxis are ever vigilant rather than be in an Uber with a driver boasting about how he figured out how to drive 18 hours a day and gets almost no sleep.