Your implicit assumption here is that both criticisms and solutions are equally easy (or difficult) to make, which is obviously not true, hence the relative quietness.

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.

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.

Oops didn’t realise you aren’t the guy I replied to!

Just to clarify, you regard both cars and houses as death machines because nearly everyone that owns them has died?

I don’t follow. Are you equating houses with cars as “death machines”? If yes, how so?

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

I can’t tell you who/what to vote. But I’m glad we agree that the city is the issue.

You know the problem already: poor coverage of public transit. Why not advocate for that? It’s much safer than any cars, and we have the tech right now. We can stop killing people right now.

Many people literally die each year because of car-centric infrastructure, and you’re basically telling us to calm down? No fucking way.

Before cars, there used to be a massive amount of infrastructure for trains and streetcars, not to mention walkable neighbourhood, but they all get demolished for cars. So yes, we do operate like that.

And did I mention that car-centricity kills people each year? So yes, eliminate all cars if we have to. But honestly, I don’t think anyone wants to eliminate all cars, just those we don’t need (which is most of them).

Sounds like your city is the problem here, not trains. Vote better.

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

How is solving a quadratic equation, whose analytical solution is known, equal to driving?

Trains now are already much less lethal than cars. If safety is truly important for you, you would advocate for trains. You ain’t fooling anyone mate.

I’ve been enjoying cycling as transportation lately, so right now my top choice is a bike. It’s just so much fun! The ability to dismount and instantly be a pedestrian, and to bring it inside trains makes bicycles very versatile.