Uber and Lyft Want You Banned From Using Your Own Self-Driving Car in Urban Areas (siliconbeat.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Mercury News: The rabble can't be trusted with self-driving cars, and only companies operating fleets of them should be able to use them in dense urban areas. So say Uber and Lyft, as signatories to a new list of transportation goals developed by a group of international non-governmental organizations and titled "Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities"... According to Principle No. 10, "Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals..."
It's stated reason is to "actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas." But others remain suspicious.

Gizmodo complains that the proposal "doesn't exactly sound like the freedom-filled future sci-fi writers have been promising, now does it?" and concludes that Uber and Lyft "have a hot new idea for screwing over city-dwellers."

Comments

Re:New direction for Uber

[Anonymous Coward]

"You making money" has nothing to do with what Uber stands for. Uber could care less about you making money. If they could figure out a way for you to make nothing while still driving for them, they'd pursue that in a New York minute.

Uber stands for Uber.

Only.

Ever.

Re:No Parking Forever

[fluffernutter]

If the person inside needs a drivers license, then the car isn't self driving.

Re:New direction for Uber

[viperidaenz]

They only want regular people owning the cars because car maintenance is a cost they don't want to bare and so is commercial vehicle insurance.

If they can operate a fleet without paying a driver, they'll save money. They can run the cars 24x7 and I'm sure they'll get good insurance rates for their fancy autonomous vehicles.

Re:New direction for Uber

[Kjella]

So, basically the complete opposite of what Uber currently says they stand for (people owning their own vehicles and using them to make some extra money "sharing" rides). Uber clearly has the best interests of the people at heart and isn't just in it to make a buck by whatever means are more convenient.

My guess is they're not even being serious, they're just trolling for PR and VC money like when Ryanair suggests standing passengers on airplanes. Outrage causes buzz and somehow it's more important that people are talking about you than what they're saying.

Car Ownership

[Luthair]

There is an oft repeated statement that silicon valley press use when talking about the future of cars (probably repeating something they've heard from the automated driving / internet taxi services) - car ownership is inefficient as cars spend most of their time parked. While true on the surface, it overlooks a key factor - the majority of car usage happens at approximately the same time when people go to and return from work. This means any alternative to ownership needs to satisfy peak usage which returns back to most cars spending the majority of their time parked . The only solution to this is having peak users share the vehicles, in which case congratulations - you just invented the bus.

Re:It won't go over well.

[Gravis Zero]

It's fine if you want to write me off as an "internet tough guy" but you are incorrect because I actually mean what I say. I do not endorse violence toward those who have opposing ideologies but I do endorse sabotaging entities (people/corps/govs) that have moved to purely malevolent behavior and when the legal avenues for change have been exhausted. Fighting for the common good is something all people should do.