The claim that they can undercut human driven taxis I guess, but then as all enshittified services it won’t stay true. They would only do that until people have become used to them then jack up the rates far beyond what cabbies ever were

You only say that because that is what they have done for every other sector they weaseled their way into!

Jobs are always going to be replaced by new technology and falling back to omg the jobs, as a means to prevent technology from advancing isnt the right way to think about things.

Maybe you should move to NJ so someone can pump your gas for you, or only buy from farms that hand pick everything.

Ive been in so many taxis driven by humans and feared for my saftey. People have been assaulted by drivers. The AVs can see all around them and will ultimately be definitively safer than a human can ever be. People are terrible drivers as seen by the immense death (1.16 million people in 2025) and destruction we cause behind the wheel.

Does anyone actually have the perfect AV right now? No. But they will figure it out.

Edit: clarity, but also dont forget taxi drivers who scam people by taking longer routes, ive also had my share of having to call them out at times when they think im a tourist.

So-called “ride-share” companies scam people on a bigger scale than individual cabbies ever could. Uber had a whole team devoted to avoiding legal scrutiny.

Robotaxi companies will most likely be just as shady, since they’re backed by the same investors.

As for NJ gas, that’s a false equivalence. A better analogy would be that NJ gas stations are like having a chauffeur, everywhere else is like doing your own driving.

Definitely no part about protecting jobs, definitely none.

State Sen. Joe Vitale, D-Middlesex, said he’s against this bill because the industry would “eliminate jobs for no other reason than to save a few bucks” and full-service gas would become more expensive.

web.archive.org/…/njs-new-pump-your-own-gas-bill-…

As a coalition of organized labor, immigrant rights, and disability community advocates, we are coming together to oppose these proposed changes to New Jersey’s unique fueling rules because it will eliminate gas station attendant jobs that working families of diverse backgrounds depend on. While few to none of these workers are unionized, the New Jersey State AFL-CIO seeks to protect all jobs throughout New Jersey. Additionally, eliminating these jobs would be painful for vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities, the elderly and people with children, who rely on attendants to help them gas up. This bill would hurt consumers and provide little in return.

njaflcio.org/corporate-greed-comes-to-your-local-…

Companies will always try to get the most money out of you sure, but if I hop in a Uber and it says it’s $20.00, it’s going to be $20.00. Is that $20 a rip off, quite possibly, but I know that upfront, unlike a random driver trying to scam me and I don’t know until the end.

As a Keynesian, I’m in favour of gas pump attendants, while gas stations exist.

As an environmentalist, I’m in favour of phasing out fossil fuel.

As a human, I’m opposed to companies that engage in union-busting, labour casualisation, and surge pricing. AFAICT, all the robotaxi companies engage in those practices.

We shouldn’t have people do the same monotonous jobs all day. I want more people taking care of the elderly, being artists, musicians, etc. I don’t want to defend jobs like gas station attendant, grocery bag boy until the end of time. We need to grow the economy and support meaningful jobs. Automate the boring stuff away.

Uber had a whole team devoted to avoiding legal scrutiny.

Pretty sure every company has that…

I wasn’t referring to their legal department, I was thinking of Greyball.

And things like this.

I can see the value of data networks. If every car on the road is self driving and interconnected, they know where every other car is and can cooperatively adjust their speed and routes to basically eliminate traffic. Even if it’s just every car in a taxi fleet, they can still share their sensor data to build a better operating map from multiple angles. The privacy side of that is rough, but it could drastically reduce accidents compared to individual human drivers.

Regular taxis kill a lot more people

I’d be curious to see this quantified, and whether “more” takes into consideration that regular taxis far outnumber Robotaxis

Its been done a couple dozen times, always compared on a per-mile basis.

Robotaxis have three times the accident rate of human drivers.

electrek.co/…/teslas-own-robotaxi-data-confirms-c…

For comparison, human drivers in the United States average approximately one police-reported crash every 500,000 miles, according to NHTSA data.

Police reported

In training data, way higher. Also, notice I said they kill fewer people. So far that’s true

Waymos got 220 million miles and 0 deaths so far. They’d be close to 3 by now going by human averages. I dont know far they’ll make it, but you know whenever it does happen, there will be a huge uproar.

Remove Teslas from that and now what are the stats?

As usual, anything Musk touches turns to shit, including self-driving cars.

Decreased costs and increased safety.

The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.

“Decreased cost” will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers. Once they manage to drive (hah) those out of the market, they’ll start enshittifying and surcharging wherever they can.

“You’re absolutely right to be upset. I should have notified you ahead of time that this section of the highway is closed and I cannot complete the trip you paid for.” “Then exit the highway, dammit!” “Very well. The upgrade has been charged to your card.” “The fuck you mean, upgrade?” “I’m sorry, I should have been clearer on this. You just purchased the Road Map modules for municipalities within 30 miles of our current location in order for me to consider alternate routes not involving the highway. Now please enjoy this entertainment while I select the optimal route.” 90 seconds of ads pass “New route selected. Estimated arrival: three hours and fifty-three minutes. Overtime extensions have been charged preemptively.”

The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.

Not really?

Are we really so blinded by (understandable) Tesla hate that we’re reducing ourselves to anecdotes to counter data and studies, the thing we’ve been complaining about from conservatives for decades now?

That wasn’t a serious comment on that general topic. I had a paragraph typed up on that, then realised I’m not versed enough in the state of that field to speak on it. It’s to be understood as a tongue-in-cheek allusion to the fact that “they’re safer” is a funny juxtaposition against a post about a safety failure.

If you do want me to contribute my poorly qualified opinion, I do believe that a thoroughly interconnected network of automated mobility can be safer than human control. I suspect that the technical bar for that would be fairly high, but humans are notoriously prone to error, road rage, distraction etc.

The question I’m more concerned about isn’t whether we could, but whether we should. Individual transport being so thoroughly surveilled is even worse than the surveillance of public transport, and in our current world, I don’t think I can safely condone that trend.

The claim “increased safety” is rather ironic in light of the post you’re commenting on.

The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt. These things collectively have millions of miles on them. If you want counter evidence I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.

“Decreased cost” will only be true as long as they still have to compete with human drivers.

I meant to the provider, not the end user.

The post I commented on is a single anecdote where no one was even remotely hurt.

And that line was just a comment on a juxtaposition I found funny. Don’t take it too seriously.

I can show you one of a billion anecdotes of terrible drivers.

I just replied to another comment to the same effect; I’m aware of terrible drivers being an issue. My concern is less whether it increases the road safety and more whether it helps societal safety.

I meant to the provider, not the end user.

Yeah, I don’t think that should ever be an endorsement criterion for anything at all. Any savings that don’t also save money for the user are just straight up greed, funelling money into the providers’ pockets (and if we’re honest, mostly their executives and shareholders, not their workers).

I don’t think that should ever be an endorsement

It wasn’t. It was an answer to the question that was asked.

I interpreted the original question “what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?” as referring to the value for society at large. I concede the potential safety improvement as a counterpoint to “solves no problem at all”, I just don’t really believe that the money savings will manifest for society at large (unless, of course, we manage to get rid of the whole “disrupt, monopolise, exploit, enshittify” mechanism).

The theory is that you can own a fleet of robotaxis while you have a job without the hassle of maintaining vehicles or employing drivers.

The fact that all self drive taxis are company owned and no plate owners will touch them tells the real story.

You don’t have a creepy driver transport you/know your address.

Question: what value do self driving taxis add to regular taxis?

Additional profit for the owners.

Paying drivers cuts into the profits.