# uBeR t0 Recapture 100% of Fare using Driverless vEhiCleS



## Allegro Acura

Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
*A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day. 

*That means 100 Uber drivers would only perform at most 2,400 rides a day compared with a self-driving network that could turn 10,000 rides a day. *That's without accounting for the fact that Uber can't tell its drivers how long they have to drive. In fact, Uber takes pride in how flexible driving is. As of 2015, 52 percent of Uber drivers were part-timers, according to a study the company commissioned
*
http://www.recode.net/2016/9/29/12946994/why-uber-has-to-be-first-to-market-with-self-driving-cars








*


----------



## RamzFanz

The efficiency of an electric SDC TNC is through the roof, but it's overstated here. A lot of their cars would only be used/needed during peak times. That leaves a lot of cars sitting empty a lot of the time. This is why I think they will have to still hire in privately owned SDCs during heavy demand.


----------



## byrdman

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
> *A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day.
> 
> *That means 100 Uber drivers would only perform at most 2,400 rides a day compared with a self-driving network that could turn 10,000 rides a day. *That's without accounting for the fact that Uber can't tell its drivers how long they have to drive. In fact, Uber takes pride in how flexible driving is. As of 2015, 52 percent of Uber drivers were part-timers, according to a study the company commissioned
> *
> http://www.recode.net/2016/9/29/12946994/why-uber-has-to-be-first-to-market-with-self-driving-cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Conclusion: robots & machines are more efficient resulting in higher corporate profits, more reinvestment in country & hardier R&D budget , increased tax revenues to local, state and federal entities, huge campaign PAC contribution to every level of politician from sea 2 shining sea, state capital to capital hill greasing the treads of regulation, 
Unwavering love from stockholders and less congestion on highways and byways with driverless cars on driverless roads.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

I was once again attracted here by the ransom note title.


----------



## Dontmakemepullauonyou

Yeah their cars are gonna each do 4 rides per hour 24 hours a day. Hahahaha ok


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

In all seriousness, I ran some numbers on a fully autonomous cab.
In light traffic with high volume work, SDC should be able to do 40 jobs in 24 hours.
Let's adjust for downtime, 35 jobs.
It becomes an impressive waybill.


----------



## TravisNJ

Twofiddy, how about that these cars will need to recharge? You think an Electric car today can run 24hrs straight? A Tesla, which has great battery tech for the current state of the industry, gets what? 250 miles?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

TravisNJ said:


> Twofiddy, how about that these cars will need to recharge? You think an Electric car today can run 24hrs straight? A Tesla, which has great battery tech for the current state of the industry, gets what? 250 miles?


Remember, I'm a Truther. Real SDCs are 10 years away or longer.
I expect battery life and charging time to become far more efficient.


----------



## hewlett2packard

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I was once again attracted here by the ransom note title.











From Columbo, Ransom for a Deadman 1971
https://columboundertheraincoat.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/ransom-for-a-dead-man-1971/


----------



## hewlett2packard

TravisNJ said:


> Twofiddy, how about that these cars will need to recharge? You think an Electric car today can run 24hrs straight? A Tesla, which has great battery tech for the current state of the industry, gets what? 250 miles?


s0lAr pAnEl AUt0 Or eLsE !


----------



## Gung-Ho

If Santa Claus switches from reindeer to a driverless sleigh will he be more efficient getting toys to all the girls and boys?


----------



## hewlett2packard

Gung-Ho said:


> If Santa Claus switches from reindeer to a driverless sleigh will he be more efficient getting toys to all the girls and boys?


Boston Dynamics (owned by google) check them out on youtube. impressive stuff
Robot Reindeer, Robot Dogs (human kicks the dog and the dog righted itself), they got an android that when knocked flat on it's back stood up without assistance or tether


----------



## BaitNSwitch

They don't even have to be electric cars. Uber could have gas hubs around the city the cars could go to after they hit quarter tank or whatever based on their location. and obviously some sort of automated gas pump that the cars could attach to themselves. Like the Roomba vaccuum that connect itself to a wall outlet after its done sweeping the floors


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Gung-Ho said:


> If Santa Claus switches from reindeer to a driverless sleigh will he be more efficient getting toys to all the girls and boys?


Belief in Santa Claus is a pre-requisite to signing up for Uber - you get to play Santa.
Travis has asked me to remind you that, at his house, his "Santa - please stop here" sign is out front 24/7, 365 (or 6).


----------



## Lowestformofwit

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I was once again attracted here by the ransom note title.


Very apt - Uber is a ransom note on your time and car.


----------



## observer

byrdman said:


> Conclusion: robots & machines are more efficient resulting in higher corporate profits, more reinvestment in country & hardier R&D budget , increased tax revenues to local, state and federal entities, huge campaign PAC contribution to every level of politician from sea 2 shining sea, state capital to capital hill greasing the treads of regulation,
> Unwavering love from stockholders and less congestion on highways and byways with driverless cars on driverless roads.


*De*creased tax revenues to local, state and federal entities, *profits sent to overseas tax havens.* huge campaign PAC contribution to every level of politician.

There, fixed it for you...


----------



## Lowestformofwit

observer said:


> *De*creased tax revenues to local, state and federal entities, *profits sent to overseas tax havens.* huge campaign PAC contribution to every level of politician.


......."means more rides."


----------



## ubershiza

Lowestformofwit said:


> Belief in Santa Claus is a pre-requisite to signing up for Uber - you get to play Santa.
> Travis has asked me to remind you that, at his house, his "Santa - please stop here" sign is out front 24/7, 365 (or 6).


You almost had me beleiving that being a partner implied something other than being a slave.


----------



## u-Boat

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​


​uBer will also capture 100% of maintenance and insurance costs on their autonomous fleet. I bet rates will finally go up then...


----------



## Flarpy

OP look up "fleet downtime." Estimates are that fleet downtime costs companies $450 to $750 per day, per vehicle. ( http://www.vehicleservicepros.com/article/12062632/the-true-cost-of-vehicle-downtime ) ( http://fleetanswers.com/content/understanding-true-cost-fleet-vehicle-downtime ) Of course something that high would wipe out the entirety of Uber's revenue, so if they want to make any money off this venture at all they'd better drop that cost.

If each car does, say, 3 rides per hour, 20 hours a day (I'm not going to say they're going to be working 24 hours a day because that's ridiculous -- no refueling, cleaning, maintenance, etc?) That's 60 rides. Average ride is, say, $10 (and that's generous). That's revenue of $600 per day which doesn't even cover all of the above estimate's maintenance figures.

That's not to say that each car would cost more than $600/day to run, but (in my opinion) the operations of an entire commercial fleet would be much different than running one car. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts due to the vast systems needed to keep the entire system moving with as little downtime as possible.

For example, these numbers account for a certain percentage of Uber's fleet being out of commission and off the road. Possibly 5% of his fleet will be unable to service customers at any one time due to repairs, theft, comprehensive maintenance, whatever. If your car is taken off the road for whatever reason, you simply don't generate any income and you better find money elsewhere. If an SDC Uber is, the other cars have to make up for it.

And, the numbers don't account for recoupment of the R&D costs to make the SDCs in the first place! Investors are going to want to get paid (with interest) for that. Those weren't donations.

No matter how I run the numbers... maintenance, cleaning, fueling, repair, insurance, debt service, etc costs exceed the possible revenue that these vehicles will be able to generate unless Travis jacks up the rates substantially (and ridership doesn't drop because of it). Especially if Travis wants these things to be a "cheap as running water." At bus-fare rates these vehicles will not be able to pay for themselves.

Keep in mind if these cars are doing that many trips, they could be driving 500 miles each day easily. Even if the SDC hardware and software lasts forever with no maintenance required (0% likely), they're still cars. Volvos, Fords, whatever. They're going to need new tires every few weeks, oil changes every few_ days,_ etc. If 100% electrical then battery maintenance and replacement will be an issue. There's no way they can recoup those costs on a few dozen $5-10 rides each day. The entire concept is silly.

*EDIT*: The only way I can make this work mathematically is if _ALL rides are pool rides_, or X rides are jacked way, way up. Running an SDC with single riders on individual trips at current rates will _not _pay for the car.

_NOW _I get it. _This _is why Travis is pushing pool so hard. It's to get riders used to it, because it's the only way his company (and his vision) will be viable. If he loads cars with passengers and the cars are literally filled to capacity for each mile they drive, it could work. But that's the only way I can see Uber surviving. Self-driving cars and trucks (and planes?) filled to capacity all the time, with riders, packages, food, whatever. That's end-game for Uber.

If it's possible, it would certainly be very efficient. Would it be very pleasant? That's another question.


----------



## ubershiza

u-Boat said:


> uBer will also capture 100% of maintenance and insurance costs on their autonomous fleet. I bet rates will finally go up then...


More likely you will be out of a job and driving yellow cab : /


----------



## Lowestformofwit

u-Boat said:


> uBer will also capture 100% of maintenance and insurance costs on their autonomous fleet. I bet rates will finally go up then...


NEWS FLASH:
"All municipal residents to be levied UCT (Uber Convenience Tax) for the benefits of having at least 6 Ubers at your service, in your street, 24/7.
Taxes (+25%) passed directly to Uber.
Any shortfalls to be funded from savings from scrapped bus services".


----------



## observer

Flarpy said:


> OP look up "fleet downtime." Estimates are that fleet downtime costs companies $450 to $750 per day, per vehicle. ( http://www.vehicleservicepros.com/article/12062632/the-true-cost-of-vehicle-downtime ) ( http://fleetanswers.com/content/understanding-true-cost-fleet-vehicle-downtime ) Of course something that high would wipe out the entirety of Uber's revenue, so if they want to make any money off this venture at all they'd better drop that cost.
> 
> If each car does, say, 3 rides per hour, 20 hours a day (I'm not going to say they're going to be working 24 hours a day because that's ridiculous -- no refueling, cleaning, maintenance, etc?) That's 60 rides. Average ride is, say, $10 (and that's generous). That's revenue of $600 per day which doesn't even cover all of the above estimate's maintenance figures.
> 
> That's not to say that each car would cost more than $600/day to run, but (in my opinion) the operations of an entire commercial fleet would be much different than running one car. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts due to the vast systems needed to keep the entire system moving with as little downtime as possible.
> 
> For example, these numbers account for a certain percentage of Uber's fleet being out of commission and off the road. Possibly 5% of his fleet will be unable to service customers at any one time due to repairs, theft, comprehensive maintenance, whatever. If your car is taken off the road for whatever reason, you simply don't generate any income and you better find money elsewhere. If an SDC Uber is, the other cars have to make up for it.
> 
> And, the numbers don't account for recoupment of the R&D costs to make the SDCs in the first place! Investors are going to want to get paid (with interest) for that. Those weren't donations.
> 
> No matter how I run the numbers... maintenance, cleaning, fueling, repair, insurance, debt service, etc costs exceed the possible revenue that these vehicles will be able to generate unless Travis jacks up the rates substantially (and ridership doesn't drop because of it). Especially if Travis wants these things to be a "cheap as running water." At bus-fare rates these vehicles will not be able to pay for themselves.
> 
> Keep in mind if these cars are doing that many trips, they could be driving 500 miles each day easily. Even if the SDC hardware and software lasts forever with no maintenance required (0% likely), they're still cars. Volvos, Fords, whatever. They're going to need new tires every few weeks, oil changes every few_ days,_ etc. If 100% electrical then battery maintenance and replacement will be an issue. There's no way they can recoup those costs on a few dozen $5-10 rides each day. The entire concept is silly.
> 
> *EDIT*: The only way I can make this work mathematically is if _ALL rides are pool rides_, or X rides are jacked way, way up. Running an SDC with single riders on individual trips at current rates will _not _pay for the car.
> 
> _NOW _I get it. _This _is why Travis is pushing pool so hard. It's to get riders used to it, because it's the only way his company (and his vision) will be viable. If he loads cars with passengers and the cars are literally filled to capacity for each mile they drive, it could work. But that's the only way I can see Uber surviving. Self-driving cars and trucks (and planes?) filled to capacity all the time, with riders, packages, food, whatever. That's end-game for Uber.
> 
> If it's possible, it would certainly be very efficient. Would it be very pleasant? That's another question.


You're not comparing apples n apples. The costs in the article are probably for semis too not just cars.

There is no way downtime costs 450 dllrs per day. When your car is down does it cost you that much?


----------



## observer

observer said:


> You're not comparing apples n apples. The costs in the article are probably for semis too not just cars.
> 
> There is no way downtime costs 450 dllrs per day. When your car is down does it cost you that much?


Also, 250 dllrs of that 450 dllr per day cost is for a driver. Right off the bat that knocks it down to 200 dllrs. 200 dllrs for every day the vehicle is NOT working.

Downtime cost is only a factor when the vehicle is not actually working. The cars that they buy will have very few problems for the first few years. The mechanical ability of each vehicle is a known factor. These cars will be used for a couple hundred thousand miles and then sold and replaced before high maintenance becomes a problem. The only unknown factor is the driverless portion of that, which being new could be a problem.


----------



## rembrandt

As far as fundamental government policies are concerned, this hypothesis is also based on the assumption that government is not going to exponentially pursue mass public transit like commuter train , busses etc. in order to give Uber the monopoly. That will be ironic. Historically, rail service and the mass public transportation as a whole were kept at bay in the greater US to pave the way for private automobile industry growth. The premise was then to allow the population greater freedom of mobility. Are we talking about a complete U-turn from that policy ? We have to see how the federal government acts because all the talk about SDC is still a hypothesis until it is cleared by the federal government. You are free to play with your fortune teller crystal ball in the mean time.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

hewlett2packard said:


> Boston Dynamics (owned by google) check them out on youtube. impressive stuff
> Robot Reindeer


I saw them testing these a few years ago in North Waltham.


----------



## Cole Hann

u-Boat said:


> uBer will also capture 100% of maintenance and insurance costs on their autonomous fleet. I bet rates will finally go up then...


doubtful, uBeR will have their own insurance compaNy aka: self insure


----------



## Cole Hann

ubershiza said:


> More likely you will be out of a job and driving yellow cab : /


unfortunately the only existing yellow cab will be on display @ the Smithsonian


----------



## Cole Hann

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I saw them testing these a few years ago in North Waltham.


must of been initially freaky seeing that


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Cole Hann said:


> doubtful, uBeR will have their own insurance compaNy aka: self insure


Please provide location to leave the ransom demand.
Any particular run of note serial numbers or dye colour you'd like, or are you from a RNC (Ransom Networking Company) and "Card Only"?


----------



## Cole Hann

rembrandt said:


> As far as fundamental government policies are concerned, this hypothesis is also based on the assumption that government is not going to exponentially pursue mass public transit like commuter train , busses etc. in order to give Uber the monopoly. That will be ironic. Historically, rail service and the mass public transportation as a whole were kept at bay in the greater US to pave the way for private automobile industry growth. The premise was then to allow the population greater freedom of mobility. Are we talking about a complete U-turn from that policy ? We have to see how the federal government acts because all the talk about SDC is still a hypothesis until it is cleared by the federal government. You are free to play with your fortune teller crystal ball in the mean time.



whether clinton or trump committee for responsible fed budget predict trillions more in deficits. feds wont have the $$$ for anything other than entitlements and d-FeNs . it's up to the private sector to step in and fill void. congress will r0ll out the red carpet over the working man

http://crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-preliminary-update


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

observer said:


> Also, 250 dllrs of that 450 dllr per day cost is for a driver. Right off the bat that knocks it down to 200 dllrs. 200 dllrs for every day the vehicle is NOT working.
> 
> Downtime cost is only a factor when the vehicle is not actually working. The cars that they buy will have very few problems for the first few years. The mechanical ability of each vehicle is a known factor. These cars will be used for a couple hundred thousand miles and then sold and replaced before high maintenance becomes a problem. The only unknown factor is the driverless portion of that, which being new could be a problem.


Sold to whom? If getting an uber is cheaper than owning a car, where's the market for all these high mileage, vomited in cars going to come from? If you don't care about driving yourself, you'll get an uber. If you prefer to drive, you won't buy one of these cars, will you?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Cole Hann said:


> must of been initially freaky seeing that


I tried to video it from my cab using my phone, the test engineer was pissed and quickly moved out of my line of sight.
There are several robotics firms in Waltham including Foster Miller.
Dummies shouldnt have been testing out on 4th ave lol.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Remember, I'm a Truther. Real SDCs are 10 years away or longer.
> I expect battery life and charging time to become far more efficient.


Even so, who is going to build the infrastructure to charge all these cars? I mean, there's like 6 stations at my local whole foods. I woukd expect them to start a "no ubers" policy or other folks would not be able to use them. And even if everyone stops driving there are simply not enough in place for the thousands of cars Travis will need to replace us.

All I see is more costs uber doesn't currently pay.

If you own a store you want to have enough (let's say cans of beans) that you always have some in stock for the customer who wants one.

You can accomplish this by keeping 20,000 cans of beans on the shelf. But you had to buy those beans, and store them. So you don't do that. You try to figure out the maximum number that will be needed inbetween stock deliveries, and plan to build up to a number a little above that. If you get it right you'll occasionally run out if there's very high demand for some unexpected reason, but generally you'll have beans available but sell most of them by the time the next delivery arrives.

New store managers tend to overstock. They freak out if they run out and overbuy. The extra stock costs the company money, to buy the beans, to store them, and to lose interest on the money that could have been saved, but was spent on the beans. It's called having "dead inventory." Eventually the beans go out of date and you lose even more. Much more than you lose by occasionally not having a can for a customer.

Travis has figured out how to have a huge warehouse full of dead inventory (cars AND drivers that are not needed most of the time) without paying for it.

To have cars available within 3 minutes as pax are being trained to expect, and have cars readily available during high unexpected demand means hell be paying for a lot of cars that will be doing nothing most of the time. The fact that the SDC CAN drive more hours is not relevant if it's not needed to. And the only way the cars will be fully utilized is for there to be tines when there are not enough. Either he starts paying for his dead inventory or pax are disappointed by the time it takes to get a car sometimes (just like cabs).

Right now he needs us and out cars. Eventually he could only need our (self driving) cars. But without OPP he is stuck.

Imagine Ebay suddenly had to provide the things it sells. And have them ON HAND at all times. That's sort of the equivalent.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Even so, who is going to build the infrastructure to charge all these cars? I mean, there's like 6 stations at my local whole foods. I woukd expect them to start a "no ubers" policy or other folks would not be able to use them. And even if everyone stops driving there are simply not enough in place for the thousands of cars Travis will need to replace us.
> 
> All I see is more costs uber doesn't currently pay.
> 
> If you own a store you want to have enough (let's say csns of beans) that you always have some in stock for the customer who wants one.
> 
> You can accomplish this by keeping 20,000 cans of beans on the shelf. But you had to buy those beans, and store them. So you don't do that. You try to figure out the maximum number that will be needed inbetween stock deliveries, and plan to build up to a number a little above that. If you get it right you'll occasionally run out if there's very high demand for some unexpected reason, but generally you'll have beans available but sell most of them by the time the next delivery arrives.
> 
> New store managers tend to overstock. They freak out if they run out and overbuy. The extra stock costs the company money, to buy the beans, to store them, and to lose interest on the money that could have been saved, but was spent on the beans. It's called having "dead inventory." Eventually the beans go out of date and you lose even more. Much more than you lose by occasionally not having a can for a customer.
> 
> Travis has figured out how to have a huge warehouse full of dead inventory (cars AND drivers that are not needed most of the time) without paying for it.
> 
> To have cars available within 3 minutes as pax are being trained to expect and have cars readily available during high unexpected demand means hell be paying for a lot of cars that will be doing nothing most of the time. The fact that the SDC CAN drive more hours is not relevant if it's not needed to. And the only way the cars will be fully utilized is for there to be tines when there are not enough. Either he starts paying for his dead inventory or pax are disappointed by the time it takes to get a car sometimes (just like cabs).
> 
> Right now he needs us and out cars. Eventually he could only need our (self driving) cars. But without OPP he is stuck.
> 
> Imagine Ebay suddenly had to provide the things it sells. And have them ON HAND at all times. That's sort of the equivalent.


All cogent points.
The direction I was headed is about driver downtime.
In the past, the hardest time to get a cab was 4 to 6pm, due to shift change on a fleet cab, or Sunday morning at let's say 7 am cause 70℅ of the human fleet works the bar break and is still asleep and most of the other 30℅ doesn't feel it's worth the wasted time to log in for a Sunday morning shift.
A robot slave doesn't have to work this paradigm.
Let's say I had 100 SDCs. My software will tell me I need 90 of them charged and operating Saturday from 00:00 to 03:00, I'd have my fleet manager order those 90 back to the garage at 03:01 to jump on charging docks and leave the other 10 charged and chasing fares.
Even tho I'm a sceptic regarding the TIME FRAME of actual SDCs being released and working well, I guarantee (having managed a fleet of human drivers) that robots who have no say over their schedule. Assigned zone, assigned refuel/maintenance schedule etc...will be a dream compared to humans.
"Gee boss I'm an independent contractor. I decide where I work, when I work and if I work. Have a nice day!".


----------



## Gung-Ho

How to we go from testing prototype vehicles in limited cities under ideal circumstances to WORLD DOMINATION in a couple of years?

Well....You don't.

We put a man on the moon over 40 years ago. They talk about going to Mars but they won't be ready for several more years at the earliest.

The assumptions made and the unrealistic expectations some rather colorful enthusiasts have for this technology unfortunately make me question their grip on reality.

But it's all for laughs. Carry on.


----------



## painfreepc

Flarpy said:


> OP look up "fleet downtime." Estimates are that fleet downtime costs companies $450 to $750 per day, per vehicle. ( http://www.vehicleservicepros.com/article/12062632/the-true-cost-of-vehicle-downtime ) ( http://fleetanswers.com/content/understanding-true-cost-fleet-vehicle-downtime ) Of course something that high would wipe out the entirety of Uber's revenue, so if they want to make any money off this venture at all they'd better drop that cost.
> 
> If each car does, say, 3 rides per hour, 20 hours a day (I'm not going to say they're going to be working 24 hours a day because that's ridiculous -- no refueling, cleaning, maintenance, etc?) That's 60 rides. Average ride is, say, $10 (and that's generous). That's revenue of $600 per day which doesn't even cover all of the above estimate's maintenance figures.
> 
> That's not to say that each car would cost more than $600/day to run, but (in my opinion) the operations of an entire commercial fleet would be much different than running one car. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts due to the vast systems needed to keep the entire system moving with as little downtime as possible.
> 
> For example, these numbers account for a certain percentage of Uber's fleet being out of commission and off the road. Possibly 5% of his fleet will be unable to service customers at any one time due to repairs, theft, comprehensive maintenance, whatever. If your car is taken off the road for whatever reason, you simply don't generate any income and you better find money elsewhere. If an SDC Uber is, the other cars have to make up for it.
> 
> And, the numbers don't account for recoupment of the R&D costs to make the SDCs in the first place! Investors are going to want to get paid (with interest) for that. Those weren't donations.
> 
> No matter how I run the numbers... maintenance, cleaning, fueling, repair, insurance, debt service, etc costs exceed the possible revenue that these vehicles will be able to generate unless Travis jacks up the rates substantially (and ridership doesn't drop because of it). Especially if Travis wants these things to be a "cheap as running water." At bus-fare rates these vehicles will not be able to pay for themselves.
> 
> Keep in mind if these cars are doing that many trips, they could be driving 500 miles each day easily. Even if the SDC hardware and software lasts forever with no maintenance required (0% likely), they're still cars. Volvos, Fords, whatever. They're going to need new tires every few weeks, oil changes every few_ days,_ etc. If 100% electrical then battery maintenance and replacement will be an issue. There's no way they can recoup those costs on a few dozen $5-10 rides each day. The entire concept is silly.
> 
> *EDIT*: The only way I can make this work mathematically is if _ALL rides are pool rides_, or X rides are jacked way, way up. Running an SDC with single riders on individual trips at current rates will _not _pay for the car.
> 
> _NOW _I get it. _This _is why Travis is pushing pool so hard. It's to get riders used to it, because it's the only way his company (and his vision) will be viable. If he loads cars with passengers and the cars are literally filled to capacity for each mile they drive, it could work. But that's the only way I can see Uber surviving. Self-driving cars and trucks (and planes?) filled to capacity all the time, with riders, packages, food, whatever. That's end-game for Uber.
> 
> If it's possible, it would certainly be very efficient. Would it be very pleasant? That's another question.


Ludacris psychopath math that you guys use to calculate the cost of operating your car is getting ridiculous, I have a 2015 Ford Fusion I am at 120,000 miles,

I have had no maintenance issues whatsoever except for being on my third pair of tires, each pair of tires I paid less than $300, I do have one service issue about to come up I may have to replace my 12 volt battery soon, that's just normal maintenance of the car, things happen..


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

painfreepc said:


> Ludacris psychopath math that you guys use to calculate the cost of operating your car is getting ridiculous, I have a 2015 Ford Fusion I am at 120,000 miles,
> 
> I have had no maintenance issues whatsoever except for being on my third pair of tires, each pair of tires I paid less than $300, I do have one service issue about to come up I may have to replace my 12 volt battery soon, that's just normal maintenance of the car, things happen..


Yeah ok.
By next year sometime, the car will cross the 200,000 mile marker.
You will face 
1) massive repairs
2) replacement
Or depending on luck and/or wisdom
3) both.


----------



## ubershiza

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Yeah ok.
> By next year sometime, the car will cross the 200,000 mile marker.
> You will face
> 1) massive repairs
> 2) replacement
> Or depending on luck and/or wisdom
> 3) both.


Also remember not all cars are created equal.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

ubershiza said:


> Also remember not all cars are created equal.


True brother, I was giving that car way too much credit even though it's a Ford.
Benefit. The doubt is good. I didn't go with an unrealistic metric.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
> *A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day.




Although Uber only keep 20-35% of the money coming in, the vast majority of the labor, and most of the investment in capital (vehicles) is currently done by the partners.

Once Uber is capturing the whole fare, they'll be making the full capital investment too.

As far as efficiency, Self Drivers will still have to be maintained and cleaned. Further, the demand for rides fluctuates greatly over the day and the week. Uber is not going to be able to keep all of its vehicles on the road and in operation 24/7


----------



## KevinH

Can someone help me with the notion that SDCs will be inherently more efficient "four rides per hour vs 2 rides per hour via an Uber driver"? SDCs currently can't make left turns, lane changes and cannot keep up with traffic that exceeds the speed limit. The Philly SDC passengers are reporting that the cars take longer than a human driver.


----------



## ubershiza

KevinH said:


> Can someone help me with the notion that SDCs will be inherently more efficient "four rides per hour vs 2 rides per hour via an Uber driver"? SDCs currently can't make left turns, lane changes and cannot keep up with traffic that exceeds the speed limit. The Philly SDC passengers are reporting that the cars take longer than a human driver.


Uber drivers are picky as to distance and direction. While mindless driverless cars and some nubers will do multiple pool rides and go anywhere they are called.


----------



## byrdman

KevinH said:


> Can someone help me with the notion that SDCs will be inherently more efficient "four rides per hour vs 2 rides per hour via an Uber driver"? SDCs currently can't make left turns, lane changes and cannot keep up with traffic that exceeds the speed limit. The Philly SDC passengers are reporting that the cars take longer than a human driver.


Sports Fans, we're not ready for a manned mission to Mars, but it's coming soon.
Come heck or high water SDC will proliferate. There will be issues to overcome and those issues will be delt with as with any new technology since the industrial revolution because we're men, and that's what men do. evolve, advance, deal with adversity, perseverse, adapt, improvise & overcome.

*U can't stop the future and the future is now.* *Complaining makes one look, Out Of Touch, Old and incapable of changing with the times because of a stiff neck.*










When my earthly remains are taken to the cemetery or Solient Green factory
I want it in a driverless hearse


----------



## I_Like_Spam

byrdman said:


> What's your point?
> Little guy thinks big rich company is wrong?
> The worlds not fair?
> Cold blooded Corporations determine the lives of others?
> Rich guys have clout & better lives ?
> 
> ​


I think the point is that SDC's aren't going to deliver nearly as much in cost savings as some people think.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

byrdman said:


> What's your point?
> Little guy thinks big rich company is wrong?
> The worlds not fair?
> Cold blooded Corporations determine the lives of others?
> Rich guys have clout & better lives ?
> 
> Great conversation for the common area back in the undergrad dorm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


Tedious and pedantic.


----------



## FaaaUber

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
> *A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day.
> 
> *That means 100 Uber drivers would only perform at most 2,400 rides a day compared with a self-driving network that could turn 10,000 rides a day. *That's without accounting for the fact that Uber can't tell its drivers how long they have to drive. In fact, Uber takes pride in how flexible driving is. As of 2015, 52 percent of Uber drivers were part-timers, according to a study the company commissioned
> *
> http://www.recode.net/2016/9/29/12946994/why-uber-has-to-be-first-to-market-with-self-driving-cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


At the moment uber partners are bearing all the costs of running their business which is almost 50% of their income.
With drive less car uber will have to provide cars, insurance, parking and maintenance etc..

With driverless cars uber will be finished because they won't be able to making any money. Driverless Uber it just a hype to keep everyone talking about uber.


----------



## observer

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Sold to whom? If getting an uber is cheaper than owning a car, where's the market for all these high mileage, vomited in cars going to come from? If you don't care about driving yourself, you'll get an uber. If you prefer to drive, you won't buy one of these cars, will you?


There's always been a very strong overseas market for used cars and their parts. What will probably happen is they'll be stripped of their driverless components which will be refurbished and used on the next new TNC vehicles, spreading their initial cost over two or three vehicles instead of one.

Worst case scenario is that the cars will be sold to auto wreckers for local parts dismantling or even sent straight to the crusher.


----------



## observer

ubershiza said:


> Uber drivers are picky as to distance and direction. While mindless driverless cars and some nubers will do multiple pool rides and go anywhere they are called.


Cars will be driverless but certainly not mindless. Uber will make sure every fare is profitable for Uber, it will give any fares it deems borderline or unprofitable to a "partner".


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

observer said:


> Cars will be driverless but certainly not mindless. Uber will make sure every fare is profitable for Uber, it will give any fares it deems borderline or unprofitable to a "partner".


Congratulations!
You have just put forth the most likely and most dystopian Uber future ever.
SDCs cherrypicking.
Partners scraping up crumbs.
God, please kill this company before it reproduces... Amen.


----------



## Ken Waldron

I've only been driving two weeks and have to say that any Uber exec that thinks SDCs are going to work is smoking something.
Pick ups aren't precise. Finding the pax during homecoming week.
Driving roads under construction and dealing with temporary road closures. GPS that thinks the rider is on the other side of the block. Riders messaging to say they moved. Wrong rider to wrong destination. What's the first thing we say to the rider? "Sandra? 25 Somewhere Lane?"
Pax gets in and closes door. Car leaves. Pax says, "wait, my friend is coming." Car keeps going.
Blind passengers.
No show riders.
Puke in the back seat. Skunk residue on the car. They putting noses on these cars?
Riders used to the amenities of a good driver. Loading/unloading luggage for old ladies, mothers with kids. Putting a baby seat in properly.
Interacting with clients that have friends to pick up, or drop off. The rider who needs a washroom RIGHT NOW.

The driving part of the job is only 50% of the effort and the value.
Uber forgets all the marketing they ask us to do. I spend a lot of time telling people the best way to Uber, which includes messaging or calling the driver.
Unless they intend to have a remote drone control center with pilots to take over when things go bad it will be interesting to see how things go.
Remember the Jeff Goldblum character from Jurassic Park. Chaos theory will play hell with Uber's plans.


----------



## Allegro Acura

Ken Waldron said:


> I've only been driving two weeks and have to say that any Uber exec that thinks SDCs are going to work is smoking something.
> Pick ups aren't precise. Finding the pax during homecoming week.
> Driving roads under construction and dealing with temporary road closures. GPS that thinks the rider is on the other side of the block. Riders messaging to say they moved. Wrong rider to wrong destination. What's the first thing we say to the rider? "Sandra? 25 Somewhere Lane?"
> Pax gets in and closes door. Car leaves. Pax says, "wait, my friend is coming." Car keeps going.
> Blind passengers.
> No show riders.
> Puke in the back seat. Skunk residue on the car. They putting noses on these cars?
> Riders used to the amenities of a good driver. Loading/unloading luggage for old ladies, mothers with kids. Putting a baby seat in properly.
> Interacting with clients that have friends to pick up, or drop off. The rider who needs a washroom RIGHT NOW.
> 
> The driving part of the job is only 50% of the effort and the value.
> Uber forgets all the marketing they ask us to do. I spend a lot of time telling people the best way to Uber, which includes messaging or calling the driver.
> Unless they intend to have a remote drone control center with pilots to take over when things go bad it will be interesting to see how things go.
> Remember the Jeff Goldblum character from Jurassic Park. Chaos theory will play hell with Uber's plans.


Be that as it may, it's full speed to the future @ uBEr


----------



## ubershiza

byrdman said:


> Sports Fans, we're not ready for a manned mission to Mars, but it's coming soon.
> Come heck or high water SDC will proliferate. There will be issues to overcome and those issues will be delt with as with any new technology since the industrial revolution because we're men, and that's what men do. evolve, advance, deal with adversity, perseverse, adapt, improvise & overcome.
> 
> *U can't stop the future and the future is now.* *Complaining makes one look, Out Of Touch, Old and incapable of changing with the times because of a stiff neck.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When my earthly remains are taken to the cemetery or Solient Green factory
> I want it in a driverless hearse


----------



## UberSolo

My farewell to passengers is "keep it weird" they always laugh


----------



## OdyUber

Uber already keeps 100% of the Matched POOL fares..


----------



## Cou-ber

From an environmental standpoint I love this idea but let's be real for a minute and look at what it will take.

1. Highway Safety Commission has said that 65% of America's roads are not up to snuff for handling SDCs. I'd argue some cities, like my own, Houston, is a higher percentage. Travis gonna pay for these roads to get fixed?

2. Car manufacturers and their lobbyists. The auto industry is huge. They aren't going to go down without a big ass fight.

3. Individuals. There are still those among us using the government bootlegged picture tube tvs with the HD adapter thing-y and they ain't going to give in until the picture tube is shot to shite completely. People love their cars. As long as they are running, individuals are not going to just embrace the new technology and purchase a SDC unless some phenomenal buy back incentive is packaged up reallllll nicely.

Sure they are testing these in Pittsburg but we are at minimum 20+ years from seeing these things available for mass consumption and use and if say that's an ambitious number. Look how long the HDTV took to happen even though the technology existed well before.

What I don't get is Travis's motivation for wanting this technology out there. Is it environmental? Is it for more money? When is enough enough?? Is it for his legacy?? I find it hard to believe he's a granola boy and just wants to save the planet from car emissions...money would make most sense since he has long been known to see the driver as the cause for riders paying more....legacy? Unlikely....he's such a ******. Eff him.


----------



## Dutch-Ub

How profitable can a driver less network of cars be? Uber can keep a 100% of a much lower fare. They will face much more competition, because anybody that can get some of that sweet investor money will be able to put cars on the road and build a own network. And, they can defiantly not charge more then they do now, because they will then be competing with us, people that are willing to drive a car for pennies.

Now we know that most riders don't give a crap about quality, driver less or what so ever, they just want a low fare. And when competition does what it is supposed to do, Uber can keep the 100% fare, but it will be much much lower than what they charge now. And then all the costs of owning the cars.

Even if they develop their own patented technology, the competition catches up in no time.

The valuation of Uber and it's investors is all bs. If they have, let say a 25% share in Uber for 20bilion usd, it doesn't make it worth 80. They might have an agreement that if revenue or profits fall behind that the investors can up their share with another 25% for much less than what they invested now. Making them acquire a much larger share in a profitable taxi company for less money instead of a tech/sdc promise for top price.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Cou-ber said:


> What I don't get is Travis's motivation for wanting this technology out there. Is it environmental? Is it for more money? When is enough enough?? Is it for his legacy?? I find it hard to believe he's a granola boy and just wants to save the planet from car emissions...money would make most sense since he has long been known to see the driver as the cause for riders paying more....legacy? Unlikely....he's such a ******. Eff him.


Every circus has its clowns.
Usually to distract the paying customer from seeing the cruelty to, and abuse of, the trained performing animals, which are the mainstay of the circus.


----------



## CatchyMusicLover

Ken Waldron said:


> Driving roads under construction and dealing with temporary road closures. GPS that thinks the rider is on the other side of the block. Riders messaging to say they moved. Wrong rider to wrong destination


That actually wouldn't be an issue as much as you think. It's less that the SDC would be as an app in the way the Uber Partner app is, but rather the rider's app would communicate with the SDC directly. First, there may not even BE a notion of 'wrong' car, as it were. If someone orders a SDC Uber they could get in any SDC and it'd work, the SDC would talk to the rider's phone, and they'd get going.



Ken Waldron said:


> Pax gets in and closes door. Car leaves. Pax says, "wait, my friend is coming." Car keeps going.
> Blind passengers.
> No show riders.


Perhaps the rider would have to start the ride? The SDC doesn't start the ride until the rider confirms they are ready. No show wouldn't necessarily be a problem either, for the above reason. Probably auto-cancel the ride after 10 minutes or something.

Yes I agree that there's plenty of human issues that a robot wouldn't be able to deal with, but one had to look at it from the perspective that a SDC is *not* another human who 1) Cares about how long they are spending trying to make money and 2) Has to use software made for humans.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

Here's Uber's chance to implement a depot-to-depot charging regime, via "pax collection fee" and "vehicle relocation fee".
Probably their best chance to boost profits, especially with no driver payment overhead.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

TwoFiddyMile said:


> All cogent points.
> The direction I was headed is about driver downtime.
> In the past, the hardest time to get a cab was 4 to 6pm, due to shift change on a fleet cab, or Sunday morning at let's say 7 am cause 70℅ of the human fleet works the bar break and is still asleep and most of the other 30℅ doesn't feel it's worth the wasted time to log in for a Sunday morning shift.
> A robot slave doesn't have to work this paradigm.
> Let's say I had 100 SDCs. My software will tell me I need 90 of them charged and operating Saturday from 00:00 to 03:00, I'd have my fleet manager order those 90 back to the garage at 03:01 to jump on charging docks and leave the other 10 charged and chasing fares.
> Even tho I'm a sceptic regarding the TIME FRAME of actual SDCs being released and working well, I guarantee (having managed a fleet of human drivers) that robots who have no say over their schedule. Assigned zone, assigned refuel/maintenance schedule etc...will be a dream compared to humans.
> "Gee boss I'm an independent contractor. I decide where I work, when I work and if I work. Have a nice day!".


True. I'm in agreement with you there. But let's say you need a maximum of 1000 cars on the road 90% of the time, and those cars are being well utilized. What happens when a concert lets out (especially if early or late and you can't even anticipate it) and you need 5,000 cars for 45 minutes? That's where Uber wins in the cab war right now, and EVEN with all the Uber drivers there are, complaining there's no business much of the time, there are still surges at those times.

There's also a cost of getting to venues. After the first Beyonce concert many pax were waiting 30 minutes for a car. The roads can't handle that many individual vehicles. So there were cars sitting in traffic running, but making no money right then. Who pays for that?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

CatchyMusicLover said:


> That actually wouldn't be an issue as much as you think. It's less that the SDC would be as an app in the way the Uber Partner app is, but rather the rider's app would communicate with the SDC directly. First, there may not even BE a notion of 'wrong' car, as it were. If someone orders a SDC Uber they could get in any SDC and it'd work, the SDC would talk to the rider's phone, and they'd get going.
> 
> Perhaps the rider would have to start the ride? The SDC doesn't start the ride until the rider confirms they are ready. No show wouldn't necessarily be a problem either, for the above reason. Probably auto-cancel the ride after 10 minutes or something.
> 
> Yes I agree that there's plenty of human issues that a robot wouldn't be able to deal with, but one had to look at it from the perspective that a SDC is *not* another human who 1) Cares about how long they are spending trying to make money and 2) Has to use software made for humans.


The rider would have to be assigned a car AT SOME POINT or all the drunks will be fighting to get in the first car that shows up. Plus, if not, it's a cab, doing street hails.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> True. I'm in agreement with you there. But let's say you need a maximum of 1000 cars on the road 90% of the time, and those cars are being well utilized. What happens when a concert lets out (especially if early or late and you can't even anticipate it) and you need 5,000 cars for 45 minutes? That's where Uber wins in the cab war right now, and EVEN with all the Uber drivers there are, complaining there's no business much of the time, there are still surges at those times.
> 
> There's also a cost of getting to venues. After the first Beyonce concert many pax were waiting 30 minutes for a car. The roads can't handle that many individual vehicles. So there were cars sitting in traffic running, but making no money right then. Who pays for that?


You can't supply the perfect amount of widgets to meet demand in every situation.
Two examples.
1) McDonald's- tries to meet demand for EVERY burger.
2) Nobu. Charges ridiculous prices for sushi, doesn't bother trying to meet demand. You need a reservation months in advance.

Both business models are valid.
But with on demand transportation you can simply never meet all demand. The expense of having on call vehicles is too high.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

A few years back, there was a concept explored where I am, called "overflow taxis", intended to provide services ONLY during peak demand. Had this been implemented, it would have pre-empted Uber by some years.
So, with Uber legalised here recently,
instead of having "overflow taxis", we now have "taxis to overflowing", even during the heaviest demand.
Nice cop-out by the authorities, but does nothing for street congestion or existing industry stakeholders.
Over supply - the great facilitator of the Race to the Bottom.


----------



## Flarpy

observer said:


> 200 dllrs for every day the vehicle is NOT working.
> 
> Downtime cost is only a factor when the vehicle is not actually working.


That's not how fleet downtime cost calculations work though. Fleet downtime is based on the total number of cars and a number of calculated statistics, plus a bunch of business- and vehicle-specific data analysis.

There are entire companies that calculate fleet downtime costs for businesses. See here:

http://www.ipwea.org/fleetplantmana...ut-effective-methodology-for-costing-downtime

No matter how low I got the Uber SDC fleet downtime cost number in my calculations (while keeping numbers as reasonable as I could given my limited knowledge of same), it still didn't provide for a meaningful profit for Uber unless Uber only used SDCs for Pool rides. And even then it was only when the rides were mostly full most of the time.


----------



## Flarpy

painfreepc said:


> Ludacris psychopath math that you guys use to calculate the cost of operating your car is getting ridiculous, I have a 2015 Ford Fusion I am at 120,000 miles,
> 
> I have had no maintenance issues whatsoever except for being on my third pair of tires, each pair of tires I paid less than $300, I do have one service issue about to come up I may have to replace my 12 volt battery soon, that's just normal maintenance of the car, things happen..


That's rather meaningless anecdotal evidence. Own 10,000 of that car and you'll find that a certain percentage of them don't work as well as your single (lucky) car.



KevinH said:


> The Philly SDC passengers are reporting that the cars take longer than a human driver.


Where did you see this?


----------



## NC252

North Korea, China, or Russia will rain a lil something down on our parade long before this futuristic corporate greed machine ever hits road....it amaze me to hear people talk so confident about what's going happen 5-10-20 years from now as unstable as the world is today, just imagine 20 years from now....


----------



## tohunt4me

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
> *A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day.
> 
> *That means 100 Uber drivers would only perform at most 2,400 rides a day compared with a self-driving network that could turn 10,000 rides a day. *That's without accounting for the fact that Uber can't tell its drivers how long they have to drive. In fact, Uber takes pride in how flexible driving is. As of 2015, 52 percent of Uber drivers were part-timers, according to a study the company commissioned
> *
> http://www.recode.net/2016/9/29/12946994/why-uber-has-to-be-first-to-market-with-self-driving-cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


No One has summed up the gist of the " Money Game" as well as the O.Jays.


----------



## Disgusted Driver

What I find interesting is the assumptions at the beginning of the article:

2 rides per hour human, 4 rides per hour SDC. Umm, excuse me. If they didn't flood the area with so many drivers I could easily handle 3 per hour. What the heck, then I'd actually make money reliably.


----------



## CuffLink

Disgusted Driver said:


> What I find interesting is the assumptions at the beginning of the article:
> 
> 2 rides per hour human, 4 rides per hour SDC. Umm, excuse me. If they didn't flood the area with so many drivers I could easily handle 3 per hour. What the heck, then I'd actually make money reliably.


Doesn't matter, we're all goners


----------



## Disgusted Driver

CuffLink said:


> Doesn't matter, we're all goners


Sorry, I thought that was a given!


----------



## CatchyMusicLover

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The rider would have to be assigned a car AT SOME POINT or all the drunks will be fighting to get in the first car that shows up. Plus, if not, it's a cab, doing street hails.


Not sure I follow that logic. If someone summons an SDC Uber, why should it matter which SDC Uber they get into, outside of perhaps fairness at more crowded places. 
But let's say they are in fact assigned a specific one (probably with a prominent number on the sides or whatever), it's easy enough to develop software that will keep it still until the proper person is in the car buckled up (or alternatively, the app holder tells the car it can go in the case of picking someone else up).


----------



## painfreepc

Fuzzyelvis said:


> The rider would have to be assigned a car AT SOME POINT or all the drunks will be fighting to get in the first car that shows up. Plus, if not, it's a cab, doing street hails.


When we get to the point where there's no more human drivers and we're all using automated cars for transportation, obviously there will be no need assign an individuals car to only be enroute to 1 person,

Remember these cars are not human drivers they are not going to cherry-pick calls are cancel clients,

That means the closest car available to you will come get you, will make no difference where a car is or was or what it is doing, when you make your request,

what I'm saying is when you first make a request if the nearest car is 2 miles from you and that car is now enroute to you and one becomes available two blocks down the street, guess which car is coming to get you,

Will probably work the opposite way too, you make a request the car is 2 or 3 miles from you one minute later someone makes a request for a car and they're only a few blocks from the car you requested, guess who's going to get picked up first,

That is why the computer drives cars will always be able to do more trips per hour than us humans,
Cuz we will not allow Uber or Lyft to reroute us like that..

I can also envision the system learning your riding habits, if you take a car every morning at 3 a.m. to go to work, I can Envision the system making sure there's a car near you every morning at 3 a.m. even if some mornings you don't take one..


----------



## Lowestformofwit

painfreepc said:


> I can also envision the system learning your riding habits, if you take a car every morning at 3 a.m. to go to work, I can Envision the system making sure there's a car near you every morning at 3 a.m. even if some mornings you don't take one..


And what work will we be going to, once all this automation comes to pass?


----------



## tohunt4me

DRIVERLESS CARS ARE ILLEGAL !
THEY CAN NOT ACCOMODATE HANDICAP RIDERS !
DOESNT 50% OF CABS IN NEW YORK LEGALLY HAVE TO BE HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE ?
DRIVERLESS IS ILLEGAL!
UNLESS THEY GET A WHEEL CHAIR PUSHING ROBOT !
WHY DOES UBER ALWAYS FAIL TO LOOK AHEAD ?


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

painfreepc said:


> When we get to the point where there's no more human drivers and we're all using automated cars for transportation, obviously there will be no need assign an individuals car to only be enroute to 1 person,
> 
> Remember these cars are not human drivers they are not going to cherry-pick calls are cancel clients,
> 
> That means the closest car available to you will come get you, will make no difference where a car is or was or what it is doing, when you make your request,
> 
> what I'm saying is when you first make a request if the nearest car is 2 miles from you and that car is now enroute to you and one becomes available two blocks down the street, guess which car is coming to get you,
> 
> Will probably work the opposite way too, you make a request the car is 2 or 3 miles from you one minute later someone makes a request for a car and they're only a few blocks from the car you requested, guess who's going to get picked up first,
> 
> That is why the computer drives cars will always be able to do more trips per hour than us humans,
> Cuz we will not allow Uber or Lyft to reroute us like that..
> 
> I can also envision the system learning your riding habits, if you take a car every morning at 3 a.m. to go to work, I can Envision the system making sure there's a car near you every morning at 3 a.m. even if some mornings you don't take one..


That sounds great in theory, but one if the things people don't like about cabs is the uncertainty of getting one because they can pick up a street hail and never show up. In crowded situations that is exactly why people like uber, because they know a car is coming for THEM.

How is an old fart like me going to run out and "catch" an Uber at 2am when all the young folks are grabbing them?

At the point when Uber's are all SD, so will cabs be, wouldn't you think?

I think this is 20-25 years away. The infrastructure just isn't there. They'll be used for mass transit as buses on set routes long before they're ready to pick up drunks at 2am in crowded, pothole filled streets.


----------



## tohunt4me

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That sounds great in theory, but one if the things people don't like about cabs is the uncertainty of getting one because they can pick up a street hail and never show up. In crowded situations that is exactly why people like uber, because they know a car is coming for THEM.
> 
> How is an old fart like me going to run out and "catch" an Uber at 2am when all the young folks are grabbing them?
> 
> At the point when Uber's are all SD, so will cabs be, wouldn't you think?
> 
> I think this is 20-25 years away. The infrastructure just isn't there. They'll be used for mass transit as buses on set routes long before they're ready to pick up drunks at 2am in crowded, pothole filled streets.


It will NEVER HAPPEN. Driverless cars Cant provide HANDICAP ACCESS.
Thus Driverless cars are against Federal Law !
Federal Law is the ***** in UBERS Driverless plans.
It simply is ILLEGAL !


----------



## tohunt4me

According to present laws,50% of cars MUST have drivers capable of handling HANDICAP RIDERS.
Back to the Drawing Board.
A simple reality like this,KILLS driverless cars DEAD in their tracks.


----------



## hewlett2packard

tohunt4me said:


> It will NEVER HAPPEN. Driverless cars Cant provide HANDICAP ACCESS.
> Thus Driverless cars are against Federal Law !
> Federal Law is the ***** in UBERS Driverless plans.
> It simply is ILLEGAL !


that's right Barney, stir the pot! oh u forgot, SDC leads to Communism


----------



## tohunt4me

hewlett2packard said:


> that's right Barney, stir the pot!


Australia and other countries DEMAND even more access than America. Singapore & Asian countries are advancing quickly with HANDICAP ACCESS policies !
This is a new century,without primitive restriction of access to the HANDICAPPED !
( S.D.C. cars are a goal of Agenda 21,United Nations Globalist Govt. Communist New World Order plans.
To eliminate car private ownership )


----------



## tohunt4me

The Federal Govt. Got Al Capone.
They can get Uber.
Hear that sound ?
It's the sink stopper pulled on UBERS Driverless Car plans.
Hear the swirling sound of imagined ILLEGAL profits being sucked DOWN THE DRAIN !
What a waste of investment !
Should have spent on the app. That FAILED again this weekend !


----------



## hewlett2packard

tohunt4me said:


> Australia and other countries DEMAND even more access than America. Singapore & Asian countries are advancing quickly with HANDICAP ACCESS policies !
> This is a new century,without primitive restriction of access to the HANDICAPPED !


\

*way way way way Wait a min. Singapore? Singapore plans all SDC Taxis by 2018. I'm sure there will be handicap access,

South China Morning Post 

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...l-driverless-cars-government-says#add-comment








*


----------



## tohunt4me

hewlett2packard said:


> \
> 
> *way way way way Wait a min. Singapore? Singapore plans all SDC Taxis by 2018. I'm sure there will be handicap access,
> 
> South China Morning Post
> 
> http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...l-driverless-cars-government-says#add-comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


She has reverse on that electric chair ?
Less than 10% do.who operates the ramp ?who loads her? Who straps her down per D.O.T. so she doesn't fly backward through the windshield ?
That mock up fiberglass car in the picture doesn't even have a motor probably. The car pictured would NEVER pass a U.S. crash test !
It's got Chinese scooter tires on the car ! I bet the wheelchair tires have a higher speed rating !


----------



## tohunt4me

hewlett2packard said:


> \
> 
> *way way way way Wait a min. Singapore? Singapore plans all SDC Taxis by 2018. I'm sure there will be handicap access,
> 
> South China Morning Post
> 
> http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...l-driverless-cars-government-says#add-comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Love the paragraph about the " "steering committee" for "driverless cars".


----------



## rembrandt

tohunt4me said:


> She has reverse on that electric chair ?
> Less than 10% do.who operates the ramp ?who loads her? Who straps her down per D.O.T. so she doesn't fly backward through the windshield ?
> That mock up fiberglass car in the picture doesn't even have a motor probably. The car pictured would NEVER pass a U.S. crash test !
> It's got Chinese scooter tires on the car ! I bet the wheelchair tires have a higher speed rating !


Singapore needs shopping carts only. There is really no space there for driving. Their MRT service is sufficient for daily commute which can carry thousands.


----------



## stuber

People. That's the problem. Eliminate them. Simple solution.

Remember Soylent Green? Just grind up the excess people to feed the remaining slave population. Done.

All hail mighty Uber.


----------



## tohunt4me

stuber said:


> People. That's the problem. Eliminate them. Simple solution.
> 
> Remember Soylent Green? Just grind up the excess people to feed the remaining slave population. Done.
> 
> All hail mighty Uber.


Don't laugh. Euthanasia is already becoming legalized. Govt. Medicine will make it a " treatment" for those over retirement age. Many " ideas" of the movies have come to pass.
Look at when Soylent Green was made. Look at the years Dr. Henry Kissinger papers " Food as a Weapon" papers regarding " useless eaters," came out. Science fiction is often based on science FACT.
The author of 1984,George Orwell,fought the Civil war in Spain as a volunteer and witnessed the inner workings of Fascists first hand. ( see also Guernica- Pablo Picasso)His books Animal Farm,and 1984 were based on observations of a Fascist Regieme.
Perhaps why they seem so accurate here & now ? With Big Brother everywhere ?
Also noteworthy,Pink Floyd- the Wall regarding the Fascists under Hitler. Look around people see what has become America.


----------



## UberxGTA

Well these automated cars be classified as independent drivers or will they employees with benefits? Uber doesn't intend to own them so how can they recapture Uber 100% of the fare???


----------



## rembrandt

UberxGTA said:


> Well these automated cars be classified as independent drivers or will they employees with benefits? Uber doesn't intend to own them so how can they recapture Uber 100% of the fare???


Kalanick's spokesperson is active in this forum who is the greatest business R&D wizard of the 21st century. She will give you the answer anytime soon.


----------



## tohunt4me

stuber said:


> People. That's the problem. Eliminate them. Simple solution.
> 
> Remember Soylent Green? Just grind up the excess people to feed the remaining slave population. Done.
> 
> All hail mighty Uber.


Read United Nations Agenda 21 "Sustainable Development".
The same United Nations that said" let them eat bugs "!( remember Marie Antoinette ?)
Look at the section regarding ELIMINATION OF PERSONAL VEHICLES. Not all investors in Uber seek a profit. Some seek any avenue possible to advance policy that restricts personal freedom. There is indeed an " Agenda" below the surface of Uber!
ELIMINATION of personal property is next. A man with land can feed himself,& will not be a dependant of Government ! Corporate Farms that patent seeds and life itself,do not like free will.( Fascism- Public Risk for PRIVATE PROFIT) look up from the feeding trough long enough to see ! When they build the Wall it will be to keep us in. Their Federal Reserve Interest Payments to I.M.F. depend on set numbers thus immigration push. Remember Stassi Germany,what their wall was REALLY for !


----------



## RamzFanz

Lowestformofwit said:


> And what work will we be going to, once all this automation comes to pass?


Less work because everything will be cheaper.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> I think this is 20-25 years away. The infrastructure just isn't there. They'll be used for mass transit as buses on set routes long before they're ready to pick up drunks at 2am in crowded, pothole filled streets.


20-25? Try 3-5. They don't need infrastructure changes, I have no idea why people keep saying that. Yes, they went live last May as buses on set routes.



tohunt4me said:


> According to present laws,50% of cars MUST have drivers capable of handling HANDICAP RIDERS.
> Back to the Drawing Board.
> A simple reality like this,KILLS driverless cars DEAD in their tracks.


So Uber has 50% handicap accessible cars now? You know, there's no reason an SDC can't be handicap accessible?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

452 days til 2018.
Singapore, Singapore, fully autonomous cars in 452 days?
Has Travis Kalanik been coaching you?
Google?

Apple?


----------



## rembrandt

TwoFiddyMile said:


> 452 days til 2018.
> Singapore, Singapore, fully autonomous cars in 452 days?
> Has Travis Kalanik been coaching you?
> Google?
> 
> Apple?


Good observation. Marketing, HR and management coaches are very similar to fascist, communists, religious and environmental extremists when it comes to brainwashing and turning people into pure zombies. Just go to any multi level marketing ( close cousin of Uber) seminar and you will be amazed.


----------



## StageMan

This will never work ! And the answer is simple ! Are we the "American Taxpayer" going to pay for the infrastructure necessary for this "Idea", on "EVERY INCH OF OUR HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR SECONDARY ROADWAYS IN OUR COUNTRY" to the tune of "TRILLIONS" of dollars, and that doesn't even include "YEARLY MAINTENANCE COSTS" . This "Driverless Idea" hasn't even been perfected to where there will be no accidents, and then there is the "REALITY OF HACKERS". The "PRIVATE COMPANIES" would have to develop "UNHACKABLE SOFTWARE !"

CURRENTLY THERE HAS BEEN NOT ON SCINTILLA OF A CONCERTED EFFORT TO DEVELOP.... "UNHHACKABLE SOFTWARE !" 
"Unhackable Software" could never be a reality because of Human Beings being involved in the process ! 

StageMan


----------



## StageMan

TwoFiddyMile said:


> 452 days til 2018.
> Singapore, Singapore, fully autonomous cars in 452 days?
> Has Travis Kalanik been coaching you?
> Google?
> 
> Apple?


How many deaths and how much money do you think it will take for the arrogant private corporate ceo's , control freak investors, and prima donna young adult techies before they realize this will never work?


----------



## UberSolo

Cou-ber said:


> From an environmental standpoint I love this idea but let's be real for a minute and look at what it will take.
> 
> 1. Highway Safety Commission has said that 65% of America's roads are not up to snuff for handling SDCs. I'd argue some cities, like my own, Houston, is a higher percentage. Travis gonna pay for these roads to get fixed?
> 
> 2. Car manufacturers and their lobbyists. The auto industry is huge. They aren't going to go down without a big ass fight.
> 
> 3. Individuals. There are still those among us using the government bootlegged picture tube tvs with the HD adapter thing-y and they ain't going to give in until the picture tube is shot to shite completely. People love their cars. As long as they are running, individuals are not going to just embrace the new technology and purchase a SDC unless some phenomenal buy back incentive is packaged up reallllll nicely.
> 
> Sure they are testing these in Pittsburg but we are at minimum 20+ years from seeing these things available for mass consumption and use and if say that's an ambitious number. Look how long the HDTV took to happen even though the technology existed well before.
> 
> What I don't get is Travis's motivation for wanting this technology out there. Is it environmental? Is it for more money? When is enough enough?? Is it for his legacy?? I find it hard to believe he's a granola boy and just wants to save the planet from car emissions...money would make most sense since he has long been known to see the driver as the cause for riders paying more....legacy? Unlikely....he's such a ******. Eff him.


Travis refers to human uber drivers as "Blood Bags" to be replaced by a chip


----------



## UberSolo

StageMan said:


> How many deaths and how much money do you think it will take for the arrogant private corporate ceo's , control freak investors, and prima donna young adult techies before they realize this will never work?


2 previous reported deaths in tesla crashes while in auto mode. tesla sales this quarter up 70%. dude, no one cares. they want the technology


----------



## rembrandt

Smoking kills but cigarette is still legal. It generates huge taxes.


----------



## byrdman

rembrandt said:


> Smoking kills but cigarette is still legal. It generates huge taxes.


----------



## rembrandt

byrdman said:


>


Lol. Did not know that 3 out of 5 people are smokers. That is roughly 3 billion. Why is not there a nicotine emission scam yet ?


----------



## Oscar Levant

Allegro Acura said:


> Today, Uber worldwide pays drivers 65 percent to 80 percent of each fare, so for every dollar a driver brings in, Uber only takes home 20 to 35 cents. *Eventually, when drivers are replaced by robot cars, Uber could capture close to 100 percent of the fare.*​
> *A self-driving car could easily perform 100 rides a day (around four rides an hour) while *Uber drivers typically perform somewhere between one and two rides an hour, depending on the city, and can only drive up to 12 hours a day. At most, Uber drivers would typically be doing 24 rides a day.
> 
> *That means 100 Uber drivers would only perform at most 2,400 rides a day compared with a self-driving network that could turn 10,000 rides a day. *That's without accounting for the fact that Uber can't tell its drivers how long they have to drive. In fact, Uber takes pride in how flexible driving is. As of 2015, 52 percent of Uber drivers were part-timers, according to a study the company commissioned
> *
> http://www.recode.net/2016/9/29/12946994/why-uber-has-to-be-first-to-market-with-self-driving-cars
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Wrong-- if you factor in the booking fee the percentage paid to uber is actually just about double, if you do a lot of short trips, which is most of the time.

For example: let's say you gross $200 and you did 25 trips. The booking fee at a $1.75 per trip comes to just about $44. Now at 20% to ubrr which is $40 so out of that $200 $84 is paid to uber, which is 44% to Uber --that's a lot. This is one of the reasons I drive for Uberblack/SUV because for uberblack/SUV there is no booking fee and when we're paying 25% we are actually paying less as a percentage of the gross than uberX drivers. Yes our vehicles burn more gas but the gross is much higher and so as a percentage of gross gas is probably less than uberX drivers are paying for gas as a percentage of gross or is probably about the same for a Prius. If I gross $300 I'll spend about $25 and gas. On a Saturday I will gross $500 and spend rarely more than $40 in gas.

Now then for the driverless cars mindful that uber is in over 400 cities so they will need warehouses and hundreds of thousands of vehicles, technicians ,administrative staff, auto shops, gasoline pumps, auto washes, a huge lot, payroll ,health insurance, so I hardly see that capturing a hundred percent of the fair is going to be better for uber than the status quo. Also the whole point of driverless cars is to get the rate Down Below what it is now . so what are they going to be $0.50 per mile? I guarantee you that those cars will cost uber more than $0.50 a mile, which includes every mile paid miles and dead Miles. This does not even factor in the research and development costs which will be in the many many millions by the time they are launched. All of this is with the huge assumption that people will actually want to climb into one of these things. Some will, but how many actually? And what happens if and when somebody dies in an accident because there is no driver? They may be statistically safer but perception is everything.


----------



## OlDirtySapper

no mention of increasing their costs by 10% less than the increase they are bringing in. $30k car with a $70k ladar strapped to the top isnt the future of SDC. Just Uber blazing the trail in the wrong direction.


----------



## I_Like_Spam

OlDirtySapper said:


> no mention of increasing their costs by 10% less than the increase they are bringing in. $30k car with a $70k ladar strapped to the top .


If that thingie on top of the Self Drivers costs $70k, some less than scrupulous individuals are going to have their eyes on stealing them.

And with the vehicles going everyone, the opportunity is going to be there.

Uber is going to need a pretty big security division to keep an eye on their property.


----------



## painfreepc

RamzFanz said:


> Less work because everything will be cheaper.


 like in the Star Trek universe, the way Federation take care of the Federation citizens,

You do realize that will eventually create a new social class with a big gap between those who are at the top and those who are at the bottom and those who have influence and power and those who don't,

Yes the Sci-Fi Robocop and Judge Dredd world is coming..
___________________________________

Some of you may feel that I am a total geek because I'm always referencing Star Trek, you see in the Star Trek universe the Federation exists because of robotics automation and replicators, that leaves man with almost no physical labor needed,

So if you don't have some type of talent for the Arts are a physical athlete, because of course we will still love are sports,

So if you don't have the wherewithal to obtain a career that requires years of training and above normal IQ you will be nobody, you will not be needed but don't worry
*the Federation will take care of you - Not.

In the Star Trek universe you have to agree to join the Federation and abide by Federation rules to be taken care of by the Federation,

If you do not join the Federation Jean-Luc Picard will not come protect you when the Borg shows up to assimilate you,

My point is when you are no longer needed to do work for your Society the government has total and complete power over you..*


----------



## RamzFanz

painfreepc said:


> like in the Star Trek universe, the way Federation take care of the Federation citizens,
> 
> You do realize that will eventually create a new social class with a big gap between those who are at the top and those who are at the bottom and those who have influence and power and those who don't,
> 
> Yes the Sci-Fi Robocop and Judge Dredd world is coming..
> ___________________________________
> 
> Some of you may feel that I am a total geek because I'm always referencing Star Trek, you see in the Star Trek universe the Federation exists because of robotics automation and replicators, that leaves man with almost no physical labor needed,
> 
> So if you don't have some type of talent for the Arts are a physical athlete, because of course we will still love are sports,
> 
> So if you don't have the wherewithal to obtain a career that requires years of training and above normal IQ you will be nobody, you will not be needed but don't worry
> *the Federation will take care of you - Not.
> 
> In the Star Trek universe you have to agree to join the Federation and abide by Federation rules to be taken care of by the Federation,
> 
> If you do not join the Federation Jean-Luc Picard will not come protect you when the Borg shows up to assimilate you,
> 
> My point is when you are no longer needed to do work for your Society the government has total and complete power over you..*


Yeah, that's a fair point. I don't see it coming to that, tough. Most humans *like* to work, at least some. We will just work doing things we like, even if it's just for ourselves and friends. Grandma's not giving up the garden just because of replicators.

Businesses will still need to be run, inventions invented, technology improved, and robots overseen. Personally, I'm going to be a starship captain. I'm practicing my alien jump kick and judo flips right now.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

painfreepc said:


> like in the Star Trek universe, the way Federation take care of the Federation citizens,
> 
> You do realize that will eventually create a new social class with a big gap between those who are at the top and those who are at the bottom and those who have influence and power and those who don't,
> 
> Yes the Sci-Fi Robocop and Judge Dredd world is coming..
> ___________________________________
> 
> Some of you may feel that I am a total geek because I'm always referencing Star Trek, you see in the Star Trek universe the Federation exists because of robotics automation and replicators, that leaves man with almost no physical labor needed,
> 
> So if you don't have some type of talent for the Arts are a physical athlete, because of course we will still love are sports,
> 
> So if you don't have the wherewithal to obtain a career that requires years of training and above normal IQ you will be nobody, you will not be needed but don't worry
> *the Federation will take care of you - Not.
> 
> In the Star Trek universe you have to agree to join the Federation and abide by Federation rules to be taken care of by the Federation,
> 
> If you do not join the Federation Jean-Luc Picard will not come protect you when the Borg shows up to assimilate you,
> 
> My point is when you are no longer needed to do work for your Society the government has total and complete power over you..*


Problem is, Roddenberry built a benevolent, utopian society.
Our quantum direction is a malevolent, dystopian society.
Soylent Green...
It's people.


----------



## ubershiza

Did someone call for a cab?


----------



## UberSolo

ubershiza said:


> View attachment 66802
> 
> Did someone call for a cab?


*interior view*









and.......another adventure of..................Kitties in Space!


----------



## Lowestformofwit

ubershiza said:


> View attachment 66802
> 
> Did someone call for a cab?


Well, Travis did say he wanted to get rid of human drivers.
Guess he just got a little careless with definition in the new specification - CAT was intended to be an acronym for "Computer Assisted Taxi".
Vet's bills are gonna kill him though, if he thought human costs were high.


----------



## Lowestformofwit

StageMan said:


> This will never work ! And the answer is simple ! Are we the "American Taxpayer" going to pay for the infrastructure necessary for this "Idea", on "EVERY INCH OF OUR HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR SECONDARY ROADWAYS IN OUR COUNTRY" to the tune of "TRILLIONS" of dollars, and that doesn't even include "YEARLY MAINTENANCE COSTS" . This "Driverless Idea" hasn't even been perfected to where there will be no accidents, and then there is the "REALITY OF HACKERS". The "PRIVATE COMPANIES" would have to develop "UNHACKABLE SOFTWARE !"
> 
> StageMan


Given Uber's global footprint, it won't just be the American Taxpayer that they'll expect a Public Ride to Private Profits from.
It's time a line was drawn in the sand by authorities, globally, against these TNC's.
Who really thinks that IF (intentional big IF) Uber were to be first to develop a half-acceptable self-driver, that they wouldn't bully authorities into providing the necessary static infrastructure, putting in just enough VC money to create an exclusive "Public-Private Partnership" to exclude all other TNC's from using all such infrastructure?


----------



## UberxGTA

rembrandt said:


> Kalanick's spokesperson is active in this forum who is the greatest business R&D wizard of the 21st century. She will give you the answer anytime soon.


What would her name in this forum be?


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

UberxGTA said:


> What would her name in this forum be?


I'm sure it changes every week.


----------



## Cou-ber

RamzFanz coming across a bit pompously without inspiration, provocation and reason.

Bullshite infrastructure doesn't need improving. The Highway Commission studied the roads. They THEY determined 65% of US roadways are not suitable for SDC.

Ten years the norm?? Psh. Deluded. If my Honda is still running it won't be the norm for me. Where is it that you think people are going to have the money to finance all these norm SDC when they have cars, if they have them, that run already.

I am not a non-HD gal, sorry.

Whoever said 50% of uber cars have to be handicap accessible....waaaaayyyy off. It's only like 10% if even.

Finally, the guy who said 50% of u er's income is generated by drivers...Ramz I believe you missed his point based on your comment to him. Might wanna retread this.


----------



## Cou-ber

UberxGTA said:


> What would her name in this forum be?


Plouffe is the spokesperson. And he's male. Maybe not spokesperson but he's in charge of rebranding and specifically to improve TK's brand.


----------



## Cou-ber

rembrandt said:


> Smoking kills but cigarette is still legal. It generates huge taxes.


Yes and I'm tired of funding all the fatty people's shite! Time for fat tax.


----------



## Cou-ber

rembrandt said:


> Lol. Did not know that 3 out of 5 people are smokers. That is roughly 3 billion. Why is not there a nicotine emission scam yet ?


It's not saying 3 of 5 people smoke yo


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Cou-ber said:


> Yes and I'm tired of funding all the fatty people's shite! Time for fat tax.


Where would the BMI overage start on the Fat Tax?
I'm within 10 lbs of optimum.


----------



## ABC123DEF

stuber said:


> People. That's the problem. Eliminate them. Simple solution.
> 
> Remember Soylent Green? Just grind up the excess people to feed the remaining slave population. Done.
> 
> All hail mighty Uber.


I don't think you're too far off base from how those controlling the reigns at Big Foober HQ think!!


----------



## Cou-ber

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Where would the BMI overage start on the Fat Tax?
> I'm within 10 lbs of optimum.


I'm not the one to decide but when obesity passed smoking as the leading preventable cause of death, smokers should have cmseized the moment and demanded we stop footing the bill for everyone's junk. I'm all for a fatty tax on the crap we eat.


----------



## ABC123DEF

Gotta love how they keep the costs lower for the most unhealthy food...yet the healthier options are going to cost you. We have the biggest food supply and best medical care on the planet -- but they're both reserved for those with the most money. Shameful.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Very well, I'll shift into selling bootleg blackmarket fast food.
Checking McFattyBurger for trademark...


----------



## ABC123DEF

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Very well, I'll shift into selling bootleg blackmarket fast food.
> Checking McFattyBurger for trademark...


Gotta find that niche and get in where you fit in, huh?


----------



## ubershiza

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Very well, I'll shift into selling bootleg blackmarket fast food.
> Checking McFattyBurger for trademark...


I think it's taken...


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

ABC123DEF said:


> Gotta find that niche and get in where you fit in, huh?


"Fit in", ehh? I told my tailor to take it out, he told me to shut the refrigerator door.


----------



## Allegro Acura

TwoFiddyMile said:


> "Fit in", ehh? I told my tailor to take it out, he told me to shut the refrigerator door.


This guy is so fat he drives from the backseat,.........of a bus


----------



## ubershiza

Allegro Acura said:


> This guy is so fat he drives from the backseat,.........of a bus


Lol


----------



## UberxGTA

Cou-ber said:


> I'm not the one to decide but when obesity passed smoking as the leading preventable cause of death, smokers should have cmseized the moment and demanded we stop footing the bill for everyone's junk. I'm all for a fatty tax on the crap we eat.


It's not the fat that makes people obese, its the sugar. Sucrose and fructose specifically.


----------



## painfreepc

ABC123DEF said:


> Gotta love how they keep the costs lower for the most unhealthy food...yet the healthier options are going to cost you. We have the biggest food supply and best medical care on the planet -- but they're both reserved for those with the most money. Shameful.


healthy food cost more is an outright falsehood to eat healthy does not cost more, it's just that to eat healthy you need to roll up your sleeves and get your ass in the kitchen and cook,

I like fish for example, tilapia to be pacific, I can buy a 10 pound box for 20 bucks when it's on sale at Hispanic supermarket,

Vegetables are cheap when you buy it and cook it yourself but it's going to cost you a little more if you buy it canned,

There are lots of places to buy healthy food cheaper than Ralphs or Vons Pavilion..


----------



## painfreepc

UberxGTA said:


> It's not the fat that makes people obese, its the sugar. Sucrose and fructose specifically.


Anytime I cut down on my carbohydrates I start to lose weight,
People running around thinking you get fat from eating fats, that's an outright lie..


----------



## UberxGTA

painfreepc said:


> Anytime I cut down on my carbohydrates I start to lose weight,
> People running around thinking you get fat from eating fats, that's an outright lie..


The sugar industry actually manipulated their paid Harvard research data to blame 'fats' about 40 years ago.
The research found sugar to be a leading cause of weight gain but got the researchers to blame fats.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Cab/Uber driving makes people fat.
8-12 hours of driving is a cardiologist's dream.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

Cou-ber said:


> I'm not the one to decide but when obesity passed smoking as the leading preventable cause of death, smokers should have cmseized the moment and demanded we stop footing the bill for everyone's junk. I'm all for a fatty tax on the crap we eat.


Poor people are fatter because good food is more expensive. You don't see poor folks at Whole Foods.

What we need is a decent wage for everyone. A "fat" tax would only affect people who are already poor. It woukd mean there'd be NO food they coukd easily afford.

Oh, and better education for everyone so they learn what to eat. But schools in poor neighborhoods are never as good as those in rich areas.

It all comes down to money. Even with cigarette taxes. Poor people smoke more. It seems fair to charge smokers more, but the answer is to make them less likely to start in the first place. But why do that when big tobacco is running things? The system is all about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor IMO.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis

painfreepc said:


> healthy food cost more is an outright falsehood to eat healthy does not cost more, it's just that to eat healthy you need to roll up your sleeves and get your ass in the kitchen and cook,
> 
> I like fish for example, tilapia to be pacific, I can buy a 10 pound box for 20 bucks when it's on sale at Hispanic supermarket,
> 
> Vegetables are cheap when you buy it and cook it yourself but it's going to cost you a little more if you buy it canned,
> 
> There are lots of places to buy healthy food cheaper than Ralphs or Vons Pavilion..


Hard to have time to that when you're working 3 part time jobs.

Also, a big problem in poor neighborhoods is accessibility. Many simply don't have grocery stores with fresh vegetables close at hand. And if you can't afford a car and your electricity keeps being cut off you can't get to good food or store it.

So yeah, good food is more expensive.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile

Fuzzyelvis said:


> Poor people are fatter because good food is more expensive. You don't see poor folks at Whole Foods.
> 
> What we need is a decent wage for everyone. A "fat" tax would only affect people who are already poor. It woukd mean there'd be NO food they coukd easily afford.
> 
> Oh, and better education for everyone so they learn what to eat. But schools in poor neighborhoods are never as good as those in rich areas.
> 
> It all comes down to money. Even with cigarette taxes. Poor people smoke more. It seems fair to charge smokers more, but the answer is to make them less likely to start in the first place. But why do that when big tobacco is running things? The system is all about keeping the rich rich and the poor poor IMO.


Correct.
When I was pushing hard to make it in music, I was dirt poor.
The solution is carbs loaded with fat.
I was just shy of 200 lbs, I'm slightly chubby now at 152 lbs. The poverty diet kills.


----------



## rembrandt

Cou-ber said:


> Yes and I'm tired of funding all the fatty people's shite! Time for fat tax.


I'm against any kind of taxing to subsize individual and corporate parasites. However, People are addicted to over eating , sex , drugs , smoking , alcohol etc. that led to accumulating extra body mass is due to malfunction in the neurological and hormonal systems that are beyond repair regardless what medical lobby claims.


----------



## StageMan

TwoFiddyMile said:


> I'm sure it changes every week.


Oh really ! How do you know it's going to change every week ?


----------



## StageMan

Cou-ber said:


> RamzFanz coming across a bit pompously without inspiration, provocation and reason.
> 
> Bullshite infrastructure doesn't need improving. The Highway Commission studied the roads. They THEY determined 65% of US roadways are not suitable for SDC.
> 
> Ten years the norm?? Psh. Deluded. If my Honda is still running it won't be the norm for me. Where is it that you think people are going to have the money to finance all these norm SDC when they have cars, if they have them, that run already.
> 
> I am not a non-HD gal, sorry.
> 
> Whoever said 50% of uber cars have to be handicap accessible....waaaaayyyy off. It's only like 10% if even.
> 
> Finally, the guy who said 50% of u er's income is generated by drivers...Ramz I believe you missed his point based on your comment to him. Might wanna retread this.





Cou-ber said:


> RamzFanz coming across a bit pompously without inspiration, provocation and reason.
> 
> Bullshite infrastructure doesn't need improving. The Highway Commission studied the roads. They THEY determined 65% of US roadways are not suitable for SDC.
> 
> Ten years the norm?? Psh. Deluded. If my Honda is still running it won't be the norm for me. Where is it that you think people are going to have the money to finance all these norm SDC when they have cars, if they have them, that run already.
> 
> I am not a non-HD gal, sorry.
> 
> Whoever said 50% of uber cars have to be handicap accessible....waaaaayyyy off. It's only like 10% if even.
> 
> Finally, the guy who said 50% of u er's income is generated by drivers...Ramz I believe you missed his point based on your comment to him. Might wanna retread this.


Explain is normal English please ! Avoid using truncated Twitter or "user centric" text messaging vernacular. Regularly using truncated words, or not reviewing for typos and punctuation errors before being posted is a sign of either laziness , or plain not giving a shite !


----------



## Just Another Uber Drive

Theyll need more than 100% of the current fares to cover the cost of these vehicles. 

If Travis' strategy is to operate a self-driving cab company then he's a fool. This has to be about developing the technology for sales or licensing if profit is anywhere in his plans.


----------



## StageMan

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Correct.
> When I was pushing hard to make it in music, I was dirt poor.
> The solution is carbs loaded with fat.
> I was just shy of 200 lbs, I'm slightly chubby now at 152 lbs. The poverty diet kills.


I agree ! The best diet is the "Broke Diet". It doesn't cost a damn thing , lol


----------



## Cou-ber

StageMan said:


> Explain is normal English please ! Avoid using truncated Twitter or "user centric" text messaging vernacular. Regularly using truncated words, or not reviewing for typos and punctuation errors before being posted is a sign of either laziness , or plain not giving a shite !


Whatever guy. Where'd I lose you?


----------



## UberSolo

Just Another Uber Drive said:


> Theyll need more than 100% of the current fares to cover the cost of these vehicles.
> 
> If Travis' strategy is to operate a self-driving cab company then he's a fool. This has to be about developing the technology for sales or licensing if profit is anywhere in his plans.


you seem committed and should contact Travis to discuss your concerns about his business decision making process and future of his worldwide biz.
1455 Market St #400, San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone 866 576-1039

Tell Travis Solo says hey!


----------



## Just Another Uber Drive

UberSolo said:


> you seem committed and should contact Travis to discuss your concerns about his business decision making process and future of his worldwide biz.
> 1455 Market St #400, San Francisco, CA 94103
> Phone 866 576-1039
> 
> Tell Travis Solo says hey!


And if you talk to Travis first tell him Just Another Uber Drive gave him the finger.


----------



## UberSolo

Just Another Uber Drive said:


> And if you talk to Travis first tell him Just Another Uber Drive gave him the finger.


*I did. He replied "Just Another What?" He then blew mucus from his left nostril on the sidewalk.*


----------

