• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think you’re missing the end goal here, which is having everyone in a driverless car. The taxis are a first step in that direction. It will by no means stop there.

    There was a reason why GM was investing so heavily in Cruise (until a woman got dragged under a Cruise car in SF during a crash). They weren’t doing it in the hopes people would transition to public transit.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not missing the end goal, I just don’t think GM will pull back if we decide to ban driverless cars or boycott them.

      We both want 100% public transport but that’s beside the point, the event happened because the car was driverless, not because it wasn’t a bus.

      If someone was proposing to ban all cars in San Francisco, I’m all for it but that isn’t really what’s happening. But for now, I’ll take driverless cars even if it only gets rid of a couple privately owned ones.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re right. It isn’t what’s happening and I am proposing a ban on personal transport in San Francisco (and other major metropolitan areas with decent public transportation systems).

        I also don’t see this as a path to that happening. And that should be the goal.