7 ms·

Unoccupied driverless vehicles need taxed. In the same way you have HOV lanes, the inverse should pay.

Reubend 11mo ago
What on Earth will you use as a justification for that? We pay taxes for roads, for fuel, and for the cars themselves. The last thing we need is more.
- pastage 11mo ago
  One argument would be that a driver in a cab will pay tax, a robot taxi will pay a lot less. That is quite a lot of money that is funneled to private companies instead of being used to improve our infrastructure.
  - xnx 11mo ago
    Should we put 2 drivers in each cab so that more taxes will be paid?
- throawayonthe 11mo ago
  roads are functionally subsidized by non-motorists
  - Reubend 11mo ago
    But non-motorists still benefit from roads.
denysvitali 11mo ago
Quite the opposite IMHO. This helps reduce people who would hypothetically drunk drive on a Saturday evening, which in turn decreases the possibility that someone dies because of that (either the driver or a victim that was just passing / driving by). Tbh, the sooner we remove the human from the equation, the better. It's scary to think that we allow so many careless people to drive vehicles that can kill people. I'm not talking just about drunk driving, but all the sort of distractions (smartphone, looking somewhere else, ...). London specifically, AFAIK after midnight has no tube service. This means that Waymo (or whoever takes a similar initiative) actually helps towards creating a public transportation service that is cheaper and even safer than the current one. I'm personally all up for it - don't tax innovation!
- lm28469 11mo ago
  > This helps reduce people who would hypothetically drunk drive on a Saturday evening This was solved by taxis, and now uber, decades ago. If you're dumb enough to drive under influence in 2025 the cure isn't a driverless taxi it's 10 years in jail.
  - denysvitali 11mo ago
    Sadly jail time doesn't often come to those who do it (at least, from experience / hearing stories of intoxicated drivers) and the consequences are paid by those who aren't intoxicated (e.g: getting killed by a drunk driver). It's definitely not a cure, but removing the human factor (aside from the intoxication part) is anyways a very good goal IMHO. Oh and btw, I've seen also taxi / uber drivers that were under the influence of alcohol / cocaine. Humans are the problem.
- lowdownbutter 11mo ago
  > London specifically, AFAIK after midnight has no tube service If only such things were googleable.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - denysvitali 11mo ago
    Just based on my experience from a few visits here and there. Sorry for not fact-checking this. As another comment pointed out, there are a few lines open during the night on weekends, and there are buses.
- badgersnake 11mo ago
  London has public transport all night, including the tube at weekends: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/night-tube https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/night-tube
tim333 11mo ago
I'd wait till there is actually a problem with them cluttering things before going there.

What on Earth will you use as a justification for that? We pay taxes for roads, for fuel, and for the cars themselves. The last thing we need is more.

pastage 11mo ago
One argument would be that a driver in a cab will pay tax, a robot taxi will pay a lot less. That is quite a lot of money that is funneled to private companies instead of being used to improve our infrastructure.
- xnx 11mo ago
  Should we put 2 drivers in each cab so that more taxes will be paid?
throawayonthe 11mo ago
roads are functionally subsidized by non-motorists
- Reubend 11mo ago
  But non-motorists still benefit from roads.

denysvitali 11mo ago

Quite the opposite IMHO. This helps reduce people who would hypothetically drunk drive on a Saturday evening, which in turn decreases the possibility that someone dies because of that (either the driver or a victim that was just passing / driving by). Tbh, the sooner we remove the human from the equation, the better. It's scary to think that we allow so many careless people to drive vehicles that can kill people. I'm not talking just about drunk driving, but all the sort of distractions (smartphone, looking somewhere else, ...). London specifically, AFAIK after midnight has no tube service. This means that Waymo (or whoever takes a similar initiative) actually helps towards creating a public transportation service that is cheaper and even safer than the current one. I'm personally all up for it - don't tax innovation!

lm28469 11mo ago
> This helps reduce people who would hypothetically drunk drive on a Saturday evening This was solved by taxis, and now uber, decades ago. If you're dumb enough to drive under influence in 2025 the cure isn't a driverless taxi it's 10 years in jail.
- denysvitali 11mo ago
  Sadly jail time doesn't often come to those who do it (at least, from experience / hearing stories of intoxicated drivers) and the consequences are paid by those who aren't intoxicated (e.g: getting killed by a drunk driver). It's definitely not a cure, but removing the human factor (aside from the intoxication part) is anyways a very good goal IMHO. Oh and btw, I've seen also taxi / uber drivers that were under the influence of alcohol / cocaine. Humans are the problem.
lowdownbutter 11mo ago
> London specifically, AFAIK after midnight has no tube service If only such things were googleable.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- denysvitali 11mo ago
  Just based on my experience from a few visits here and there. Sorry for not fact-checking this. As another comment pointed out, there are a few lines open during the night on weekends, and there are buses.
badgersnake 11mo ago
London has public transport all night, including the tube at weekends: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/night-tube https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/tube/night-tube

tim333 11mo ago

I'd wait till there is actually a problem with them cluttering things before going there.